Monthly Archives: June 2021

by

It’s What You Do Believe

When you hear an atheist talk about what they don’t believe, it’s often articulated in a way that sounds as though his perspective is based on an empirical foundation characterized by reason, science and compassion.

  • There’s nothing mystical or “miraculous” about their approach to the human experience.
  • They don’t subscribe to anything other than what can be proven and observed.
  • They don’t believe in Creation, they’re not overly concerned about life after death and they have a real problem with any kind public reference to the Christian faith in that they see it as a violation of the “separation of church and state.”

But, here’s the thing…

It’s not what you don’t believe, as much as it is what you do believe.

When you pop the hood on the philosophical framework subscribed to by the atheist who supposedly refuses to accept anything other than can be scientifically verified, you encounter some scenarios where a fantastic lead of faith is required in order to justify their mindset. In addition, you’ve got an approach to morality and one’s sense of purpose that reeks of personal preferences more than absolute standards which is like a football player insisting he scored a touchdown, not because he moved the ball down the field, but because he moved the goalposts.

As a born again Christian, you see yourself as someone who was on Christ’s screen long before your parents ever met. You were “fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)” and equipped with everything you need to make a difference and not just an appearance (2 Pet 1:3). You embrace the moral guidelines coming from God as “tools” and not just “rules” that allow you to, not just succeed and prosper (Josh 1:8; Matt 6:33), but also avoid all of the pain and baggage that goes along with driving on the wrong side of the road (Matt 7:26). And when it’s all said and done, the curtains come up and rather than the show being over, the real performance begins (Rev 21:1-4).

As an atheist…

You’re a lucky accident that ceases to exist when you cease to breathe. You are your own bottom line and the only things that matter are the ones you believe to be important.

Doesn’t sound nearly as sophisticated now, does it?

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.  And when you look at what an atheist actually believes – what they submit as a substitute for God, as far as explaining the origin of life and a basis for morality and significance – their platform is revealed as the nonsensical attempt to declare themselves as their own deity.

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.

Bonus: The atheist platform is presented as being a non-spiritual approach to the human experience. But regardless of it’s substance, it is nevertheless a “religious” framework in that it functions in exactly the same way as a faith based paradigm as far as it being a response to those questions pertaining to creation, life after death, moral absolutes and one’s sense of purpose. From that perspective, any complaint coming from the mouth of an atheist about the “separation of church and state” is not so much as a “concern” as much as it’s a campaign to establish their “religion” as the only religious school of thought permitted in public. In that way, they are the very thing they claim to despise.

The Liberal and the First Amendment

There is no Referee

by

Three Questions (Part III)

Your neighbor’s house is on fire. You’re working alongside several people put out the blaze when all of a sudden you realize that among those you’re working with, there are several whose lifestyles you seriously disagree with. Do you keep working to put out the fire or do you walk away believing that it’s wrong to be a part of any effort involving people who don’t believe as you do?

At one point, the disciples were agitated by the fact that some people were casting out demons in the Name of Christ, yet they weren’t a part of Christ’s inner circle of disciples…

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mk 9:38-40)

However petty the disciples may have appeared to be –  as far as feeling like they were only ones capable of doing any good, being that they were a part of Christ’s inner circle – it’s not an uncommon complaint.

Appearances can be distracting. A person’s manner, their background – if it doesn’t line up with tradition or convention – it can be mistaken for something sinister.

Fact is, the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Ps 24:1). Everything that was created was made by Christ and for Christ (Col :16;Rev 4:11), so however dirty or different the glove may be, it’s the Hand inside the glove that’s doing the work and you don’t want to be so preoccupied with appearances or qualifications that you fail to appreciate how God uses different people to do His bidding.

That doesn’t mean you throw caution to the wind and assume everyone is reading from the same page of music. 1 John 1:4 says to test the spirits, but that’s not always accomplished by focusing exclusively on a person’s checkered past or a vulgar outburst.

King Cyrus is a great example of how God can use someone that doesn’t have a relationship with Christ and may even be a little offensive in their manner to do God’s bidding.

The Jews were in exile and their city was a mess. The Temple was a heap of rubble and the walls were completely torn down (see 2 Chron 36:15-19). God had said that the Jews would be allowed to return, but if you were to look at an aerial photo of Jerusalem, you’d be pretty skeptical – especially given the very unlikely scenario of your enemy permitting the reconstruction of your city let alone financing it.

King Cyrus of Persia would put things in motion by paying for the rebuilding of the Temple and issuing a decree that would allow any willing Hebrew to return to Jerusalem to get it done.

Here’s the thing:

Cyrus is addressed by name in Isaiah 45. God refers to him as someone He has anointed for the sake of his people. He also says of Cyrus:

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor,  though you do not acknowledge me . I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you,  though you have not acknowledged me  so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is note beside me. I am the Lord, and there is not other. (Is 45:4-5)

Cyrus didn’t believe in God, but that didn’t change the fact that God used him to accomplish the reconstruction of Jerusalem.

The same thing applies to us be it a politician, a doctor, a contractor or any kind of service provider. No, you don’t applaud their sin but you do support them in whatever role they’re playing in accomplishing God’s Purposes. In other words, you vote for King Cyrus, you make the appointment, you go with the best option and you don’t sneer at the cedar that’s being delivered to your doorstep for the construction of whatever God is building because its being delivered by a bunch of idolaters (see sidebar).

Conclusion

There’s a difference between compromise and wisdom. Basing your convictions on personal preferences seasoned with some carefully selected Scriptures that can be taken out of context and made to sound like a solid biblical reinforcement of your prejudices is not the same thing as basing your outlook on Scripture as a whole and refusing to allow your life’s experiences to replace the Word of God simply because you’re more comfortable with your opinion than you are with the Truth.

Discipleship is not being accurately presented if it’s taught as something that only applies in the context of a crisis. Standing up for what is right is not always accomplished by a mere rebuke. David defeated Goliath with a sanctified response that included both a weapon and a word (1 Sam 17:45-47). And however rough around the edges God’s human instrument may be, Scripture proves over and over again that your focus needs to be on the Plot and not the players in order to determine who you should support and who should resist.

There is, and always has been, an aggressive campaign in place to exchange the Truth for a lie (Jn 8:44; Rom 1:25; 1 Peter 5:8). If the author of that campaign is to be defeated, not only can we not afford to be petty, we don’t have the time to watch our countermeasures fail because they were based more on tradition than they were on the Substance of God’s Word.

And even when your convictions are on point, your delivery has to be just as Inspired if the end result is going to be a legitimate win (Prov 15:23; 25:11; Mk 13:11; Titus 2:7-8).

The bottom line is this: You’re here to make a difference and not just an appearance. Christ is the Filing Cabinet and not just a file folder and to restrict His Instruction and all the advantages that accompany obedience to those times that line up with your traditions is to gut His Word, kill your witness and give the enemy all the more opportunity to do some damage.

On the other hand…

Be the kind of workman referenced in 2 Timothy 2:15 and you’ve got a winning strategy in place that will benefit you and everyone He puts in your path because instead of you working apart from Him, He’s now the One working through you.

Solomon followed the example of his father in that he contracted King Hiram of the Phoenicians for laborers and building materials. David used the cedar logs, stonemasons and carpenters provided by King Hiram to build his palace (2 Sam 5:11). Solomon used the same resource for the cedar needed to build the Temple (2 Chron 2:3).

King Hiram resided in Tyre and ruled over a people who were descendants of Canaan. Canaan’s father was Ham who was the son of Noah that had demonstrated an outrageous disregard for God in the aftermath of the flood. Noah saw the same belligerence in Canaan and rightfully prophesied that his descendants would go on to become perverse idolaters and wind up being the object of God’s Wrath in the context of the Israelites conquest of the Promised Land.

Tyre, however, was a boundary and not a target (Josh 19:29). It’s not that the Phoenicians were a God fearing people (Ezekiel 26:2; Lk 10:13). They were descendants of Canaan, but those that resided in Tyre were able to somehow distinguish themselves in the sight of God as being undeserving of the punishment that was doled out to Sidon and other neighboring Canaanite cities. Perhaps that was one of the contributing factors that allowed for a friendly relationship between Hiram and David and then, later, Solomon.

Their true, spiritual colors would be revealed later when they cheered as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Israel and for that they themselves would be destroyed, as Ezekiel prophesied in chapter 26.

The point being, however, that God can, and often does, use unconventional means and a variety of spiritual dispositions to do His work. In those moments, you want to support His efforts and not question them any more than you would refuse the cedar coming from Hiram simply because he was a Canaanite. Yes, he was an idolater, but he was used by God to do good nevertheless.


by

Three Questions (Part II)

This is “Part II” of a three part series that features three questions designed to inspire some thought, as far as the practical application of God’s Word as a whole to some situations that don’t always get a lot of attention.

Here’s Question #2…

You’re the Good Samaritan. But instead of encountering the victim after they’ve been beaten and robbed, you encounter him as he’s being beaten and robbed. What does your ministry look like?

Life isn’t always sectioned off in a way where the resulting shapes are characterized by straight and even lines. In order for the Truth to make an impact, you have to follow Christ’s example and communicate it in a way that addresses, not just the situation in general, but the unique “shape” of the situation to include the personalities that are involved, the topic being addressed and the setting that you’re in (Jn 7:24).

Rarely are you going to be in a spot where only one verse applies. Instead, there will be several verses to consider which is why it’s so important to be taking your cue from God’s Spirit and His Wisdom as opposed to a collection of guidelines and techniques that you manufacture on your own based on a portion of God’s Instructions as opposed to the whole Handbook (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Standing up for what is right is not always done in the absence of a physical / violent altercation. There is an evil out there that doesn’t respond to a gentle rebuke or even a stern warning. And to twist Christ’s admonishment to “turn the other cheek” or God’s command to not take revenge on someone for a wrong they’ve done to you in order to justify not standing up to Goliath or to insist that Jesus was talking about a pocket New Testament when He told the disciples to go purchase a sword, is an irresponsible and inaccurate application of God’s Word.

‘Turning the other cheek” is the biblical response to an offense, not an assault…

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

And to suggest that the New Testament somehow nullifies every Divinely sanctioned use of force in the Old Testament is to suggest that God changes His mind when it comes either swinging your fist or firing a weapon (see Ps 44:3).

He doesn’t change His mind.

Ever (Num 23:19).

Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense, given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God.

In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.”

So, if you were to come on a scene where bandits were beating and robbing someone, you’re doing the right thing by stopping them however you need to in order to stand up for what is right and protect those who may not be able to protect themselves.

For more reading on this subject, see “Sanctified Violence” at muscularchristianityonline.com

by

Three Questions | Part I

Muscular Christianity Billboard

Hello, Daily Broadsiders! Thanks to my buddy Dave for the opportunity to jump into the “Daily Ball Pit” and interact with some quality human beings!

I wanted to kick things off by posing three questions which we’ll cover in the course of a three part series.

It’s called, “Three Questions.”

I believe the way you answer these three questions do an excellent job of revealing the “practical reality” of your walk with Christ (Col 3:18). By “practical reality,” I mean either those times when “ministry” includes working alongside dynamics that aren’t agreeable or safe, or those instances that go beyond the boundaries typically established by textbook examples.

Take a look…

1) If you had to create a billboard that promoted a relationship with Jesus Christ and you couldn’t mention anything about heaven or hell or how Christ helps you with your problems, what would your billboard say?

2) You’re the Good Samaritan. But instead of encountering the victim after they’ve been beaten and robbed, you encounter him as he’s being beaten and robbed. What does your ministry look like?

3) Your neighbor’s house is on fire. You’re working alongside several people put out the blaze when all of a sudden you realize that among those you’re working with, there are several whose lifestyles you seriously disagree with. Do you keep working to put out the fire or do you walk away believing that it’s wrong to be a part of any effort involving people who don’t believe as you do?

In this installment, we’ll be looking at Questions #1.

You ready?

If you had to create a billboard that promoted a relationship with Jesus Christ and you couldn’t mention anything about heaven or hell or how Christ helps you with your problems, what would your billboard say?

It’s one of those questions that can take you by surprise in that conventional church culture puts a lot of emphasis on who we are apart from Christ. Many of the sermons and a lot of the Praise and Worship we sing focus more on the insufficiency of the believer rather than the all sufficiency of God. As a result, the inclination is to process one’s relationship with Jesus as something that comes to bear primarily in the context of a crisis rather than a Resource that’s poised to positively impact every play you deploy on the field rather than something that only applies when you’re on the sidelines.  

You are more than your wounds and better than your sin. Not because of who you are but because of Who Christ is in you. To restrict Christ’s Influence to crisis situations only is to overlook both the Attitude and the Ability He’s given you to excel and not just endure.

Bear in mind, when God says, “excel,” He’s talking about all things at all times (2 Cor 9:8). That includes your performance at work, the way you love the people you care about, the way you work out, even the way you mow your lawn.

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Col 3:17)

Do you smell that that? That’s the aroma of excellence!

Imagine the kind of woodworking Jesus did as a carpenter. Do you think it looked good? Just imagine what your performance at work would look like if it was unhindered by the influence of sin. Have you ever noticed that the people you tend to enjoy hanging out with the most are those that make you feel good about yourself and the world around you? Typically, they’re happy individuals and they’re genuinely interested in your welfare. Those two characteristics are practical manifestations of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 and Philippians 2:3-4.

Do you see where this is going?

We are here to make a difference and not just an appearance. But we’re not “tending to our Father’s business” if we spend more time rehearsing our mistakes than we do reviewing His Perfection.

And it’s that Perfection that drives the way we think, act and feel IF we’re astute enough to allow Him to work in and through us so we’re putting some points on the board rather than just complaining about how intimidating the defense is.

There is a time to heal and apart from Christ we can do nothing. But we are commanded to be excellent and if you want to take Matthew 5:16 literally, we should be lighting up every room we walk into with a demeanor that makes people look forward to our arrival.

  • The Joy of the Lord (Gal 5:22-23)
  • The Power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; Phil 4:13; Col 1:29)
  • The Mind of Christ (Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 2:16; Phil 4:8)

I know, right?

Our relationship with Christ is far more than a Divine Emergency Kit as much as it’s a Divine Tool Kit that we’re given to use in a way where we’re able to reek of excellence in everything we say, think and do so we’re making a difference and not just an appearance (Ps 19:14).

So, how about that Billboard?

Here’s some ideas…

Dream Big, Pray Bigger (Eph 3:20) | Don’t Just Try, Win (Josh 1:8) | Don’t Just Make an Appearance, Make a Difference (Matt 6:19-21; Jn 14:12; 1 Cor 3:12)

Go get ’em!

by - 2 Comments

Daily Broadside | Two-Fisted Provocateurs: Part II

Daily Verse | Job 41:11
“Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.”

Happy Thursday, my Daily Broadside friends! Pants are required to enter this establishment.

I’m turning over the keyboard tomorrow to a childhood friend, military veteran, musician, author, fitness instructor and devoted Christian family man who blogs at Muscular Christianity Online. Bruce Gust and I go back to our early teens in a church youth group where his dad was a leader and mentor I admired. He blogs on politics (and other topics) from an unapologetic Christian perspective, and he’s agreed to provide a “Daily Broadside” for the next two weeks.

My thanks to him in advance. You’ll be in good hands.

Before I go, however, I owe you Part II of the essay I wrote about Antifa for Salvo magazine last year. Yesterday in Part I I explored the history of Antifa, including where it came from and how to define the movement. Today I explain why it’s important to understand this movement and showcase their most recent offense at the time of writing.

This article first appeared in Salvo #55.

Reason for Surveillance:
Antifa’s purported objective is to prevent the spread of fascism, as reflected in racist groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. But its concept of racism seems to have evolved to include “institutional” or “systemic” racism and “white privilege.” Antifa has often made common cause with Black Lives Matter, Inc., as indicated by how often “BLM” is spray-painted on monuments, buildings, barricades, and vehicles during protests and riots in which Antifa participates. Will Antifa’s definition of “fascist” expand to include all white people as intrinsically racist?

This isn’t a far-fetched concern. According to Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, liberals are starting to adopt Antifa’s radical ideals. “They would never have looked at (those ideals) before,” he said, “because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers [did].”8 If Antifa’s ideals go mainstream, white people, as well as Christians and conservatives of all colors, will increasingly become targets.

In fact, that has already happened. In February 2017, Antifa members set fires, threw rocks at police, and vandalized businesses in the course of protesting the appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California—Berkeley.9 Numerous policemen and civilians have suffered violence at their hands.

Most Recent Offense:
In August 2020, Aaron “Jay” Danielson, a member of the conservative group Patriot Prayer, was shot to death on a street in Portland, Oregon, following a series of confrontations between participants in a pro-President Trump caravan and counter-protesters along the route.10 The shooting was caught on video, and the apparent shooter, Michael Reinoehl, later seemed to admit killing Danielson, allegedly in defense of “a friend of mine of color.”11 Earlier, Reinoehl had written a social media post proclaiming, “I am 100% ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! . . . Today’s protesters and Antifa are my brothers in arms.”12 Reinoehl was killed a few days later as investigators tried to arrest him near Olympia, Washington.

When Joe Biden claimed during his first debate with President Trump that “Antifa is an idea, not an organization,” the president responded: “When a bat hits you over the head, that’s not an idea. Antifa is bad. Antifa is a dangerous, radical group.”13 He’s right—it is a group. Rhetorical subterfuge must not be allowed to confuse us about who Antifa are or what they want.

Notes: Part II
8. CNN (May 31, 2020): https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html.
9. New York Post (June 1, 2020): https://nypost.com/article/what-is-antifa-and-why-does-trump-want-to-label-it-a-terror-group.
10. Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2020): washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/29/blm-activists-counterprotesters-clash-portland-leading-arrests.
11. The Independent (Sept. 4, 2020): independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/portland-protests-trump-supporter-killing-michael-forest-reinoehl-aaron-jay-danielson-a9704296.html.
12. Ibid.
13. Real Clear Politics (Sept. 29, 2020): realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/29/biden_antifa_is_an_idea_not_an_organization.html.

by

Daily Broadside | Two-Fisted Provocateurs: Part I

Daily Verse | Job 40:2
“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”

Happy Wednesday, Broadsiders. I’ve caught you in the middle of something.

Last year I had the opportunity to write an essay about Antifa for Salvo magazine that was subsequently published in the Winter 2020 issue. I’m pleased to present it here in two parts.

Part I explores the history of Antifa. Where did it come from and what is it? Tomorrow in Part II I’ll explain why it’s important to understand this movement and showcase their most recent offense at the time of writing.

This article first appeared in Salvo #55.

Background:
Shortly after Donald J. Trump became president in 2017, the term “Antifa” entered the United States’ consciousness and lexicon. While most of us have heard of Antifa, many of us don’t understand what it is, where it came from, or why it’s here.

The word “Antifa” is short for “anti-fascist” or “anti-fascism.” Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime . . . that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”1 The word “fascism” comes from the Latin fasces, which means “bundles.” In ancient Rome, fasces of sticks or rods bound together with an ax became the symbol of a magistrate’s power and authority, and Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, adopted this emblem when he became dictator of Italy in 1925.

Antifa then sprang up as a far-left, militant reaction to Mussolini, and later, to Germany’s Adolph Hitler. The Antifaschistische Aktion was the paramilitary arm of the German Communist Party, which opposed Hitler’s National Socialist Party, i.e., the Nazis.

Following World War II and the defeat of the Axis powers, fascist governments collapsed across Europe, but ideologically related movements lived on. It wasn’t until the 1980s, however, that militant anti-fascism re-emerged. It came to the U.S. in the late 1980s and 1990s, using the original abbreviated name of Antifa, and over time evolved into its modern incarnation.

Ideologically, today’s Antifa defines itself as allowing “no platform for fascism,” meaning that it aims to keep its opponents from having a public voice. So it shows up at public rallies, college campus lectures, and similar gatherings to confront and squelch the fascism it purports to find there. Populated by a variety of revolutionaries (e.g., Marxists, anarchists, and social democrats) who “don’t feel constrained by conventional norms,”2 Antifa embraces direct action, using violent tactics to force change, rather than working peacefully for policy reform.

Antifa is not, however, a national organization with a recognized formal leadership (unlike Black Lives Matter, for instance). This has led some politicians and opinion leaders, seizing FBI Director Christopher Wray’s statement that Antifa is “not a group or an organization,” but “a movement or an ideology,”3 to minimize it as no more than an “idea.” But Wray also said that the FBI has observed Antifa individuals “coalescing regionally into what you might describe as small groups, or nodes,” which the agency has been “actively investigating.”4

So Antifa is an ideology, yes, but an ideology expressing itself through a loose affiliation of individuals and groups that engage in “militant street activism.”5 And although there is no national structure, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any organization. Indeed, it has not gone unnoticed that “in city after city, the tactics, banners, clothing, weaponry, etc. [of Antifa activists] have been virtually identical.” Moreover, the “lasers, explosives, military helmets, protective gloves, body armor, and other deadly weaponry” used by “local protesters” don’t pop up out of nowhere. “Someone selects them, orders them, pays for them, and delivers them.”6

Journalist Andy Ngô, himself a victim of Antifa violence, is aware of several Antifa groups, among them: Rose City Antifa (Portland, Oregon); Antifa Seven Hills (Richmond, Virginia); Antifa Sacramento (California); Atlanta (Georgia) Antifascists; and the Youth Liberation Front (mainly on the West Coast, but also with chapters in the Midwest and the Carolinas). “There are many, many antifa groups,” Ngô writes. “And they are violent.”7 They also often network together at the regional or national level, and use social media to coordinate their actions. That’s why we hear individuals describe themselves as members of Antifa.

Notes: Part I
1. Merriam-Webster (as of Oct. 16, 2020).
2. Vox (June 1, 2020):msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/antifa-explained/ar-BB14T80j.
3. Quoted in National Review (Oct. 1, 2020): nationalreview.com/corner/fbi-director-wray-didnt-call-antifa-an-idea-he-called-it-a-movement-or-ideology.
4. Ibid.
5. Loren Balhorn, “The Lost History of Antifa,” Jacobin (May 8, 2017): jacobinmag.com/2017/05/antifascist-movements-hitler-nazis-kpd-spd-germany-cold-war.
6. Brian Camenker, “The Riots: More Questions than Answers,” American Thinker (Sept. 17, 2020): americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/the_riotsd_more_questions_than_answers_on_the_riots_.html.
7. Andy Ngô (Sept. 29, 2020): https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1311128023085625344.

by

Daily Broadside | Even Liberals Occasionally Get It Right

Daily Verse | Job 37:23
“The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness he does not oppress.”

It’s Tuesday and the honeymoon with June is over.

Every now and then I get surprised by someone in the ruling class who goes against stereotype. As a for instance: Bill Maher, who seems to regularly hew left-of-center, defending Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas rockets. That’s not the official narrative of the progressive or liberal Left. The official narrative is that Israel commits war crimes and is an apartheid state. Bill Maher says, “One of the frustrations I had […] is that I was watching this war go on in Israel … and it was frustrating to me because there was no one on liberal media to defend Israel, really.”

But I’m pleasantly surprised by two that I read yesterday. First, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote the unanimous Supreme Court opinion that “rejected an illegal immigrant’s attempt to twist immigration law and create a loophole that would allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become lawful permanent residents.” More to the point, I was surprised that the decision was 9-0 with even Associate Justice Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor agreeing. Here was the question before the court:

“Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador. Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in the opinion. “Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not.”

In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, Kagan noted that U.S. immigration law, “applied according to its plain terms,” “prevents Sanchez from becoming an LPR. There is no dispute that Sanchez ‘entered the United States in the late 1990s unlawfully, without inspection.’”

This is very good news because the entire court agreed to apply the law “according to its plain terms.” How refreshing.

The other example I read about has to do with the Democrats trying to nuke the filibuster so that they can pass their radical agenda, such as the so-called “For the People Act.” Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have both publicly stated that they will not vote to do away with the filibuster, and Manchin has said he will vote “No” on the FTPA.

Democrats in Congress have proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act. This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy? Are these same senators, whom many in my party applauded for their courage, now threats to the very democracy we seek to protect?

The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen.

With that in mind, some Democrats have again proposed eliminating the Senate filibuster rule in order to pass the For the People Act with only Democratic support. They’ve attempted to demonize the filibuster and conveniently ignore how it has been critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past.

***

Yes, this process can be frustrating and slow. It will force compromises that are not always ideal. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I have always said, “If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.” And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda.

These are pragmatic Senators, both from “Red” states. Both want to keep being elected, and they know they represent more conservative constituencies that they have to listen to.

I don’t care why they plan to vote the way they have pledged to vote. I only care that they make it impossible for the Democrats to implement their terrible plans for the United States. The Senate is evenly divided, and these are two Democrats who are bucking the momentum. They are like the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in a leaking dike to save his country.

Yes, Manchin and Sinema are still Democrats. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

by

Daily Broadside | We Need Men Who Can Storm the Beaches

Daily Verse | Job 33:29-30
“God does all these things to a man—twice, even three times—to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.’”

Monday and a new week. A week ago was Memorial Day. Fittingly, yesterday was the 77th anniversary of D-Day: Tuesday, June 6, 1944.

Remember: We must remember.

Dubbed “Operation Overlord” and launched from England, D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion in military history. The assault “combined the forces of 156,115 U.S., British and Canadian troops, 6,939 ships and landing vessels, and 2,395 aircraft and 867 gliders that delivered airborne troops.“

After duping the Nazis into believing that the invasion would occur at Pas-de-Calais (the closest point to Britain across the Dover Channel), the Allies instead landed at five sections of beachfront along the Normandy coast. They were codenamed (from West to East), “Utah,” “Omaha,” “Gold,” “Juno” and “Sword.”

To give you a taste of what the troops were facing, here’s a description of Omaha Beach from The War: An Intimate History, 1941 -1945:

“For the Americans of the 1st and 29th Infantry divisions waiting off Omaha Beach in the darkness that morning, almost everything was about to go wrong. Omaha is a gently curving natural amphitheater, dominated by 130-foot bluffs pierced by five “draws,” or gullies, each with its own road or cart track leading up to the plateau. At roughly six miles across, it was the broadest of the five invasion beaches—and the deepest, with more than three hundred yards of exposed beach at low tide. It was also the most strongly defended on June 6. Thirteen fortified strongpoints reinforced with steel and concrete and equipped with 50-, 75-, and 88-millimeter artillery pieces, overlooked the five draws and were situated to provide overlapping fields of fire. Each was surrounded by antitank and anti-fire ditches, and interspersed among them were batteries of artillery, antitank guns, mortar pits, armor-piercing howitzers, and rocket launchers, as well as eighty-five machine-gun nests—all well concealed, reinforced, and interconnected by a maze of camouflaged trenches, subterranean barracks, and command posts. Because of the tall cliffs and curving waterline, guns fired lengthwise from the heights at either end of the beach could cut to pieces anyone brave or foolhardy enough to try to come ashore.” /p.196

U.S. Army infantry men approaching Omaha Beach, Normandy, France on June 6, 1944.

Yet come ashore they did, and many paid the price.

“Terror intensified. As his landing craft shuddered to a stop, one soldier asked another, ‘Mac, when a bullet hits you, does it go through?’ His friend had no time to answer. The men kicked down the landing ramp and found themselves in what one survivor called ‘a new world.’ The Germans along the bluffs had largely held their fire until that moment. Now machine-gun fire ripped through many men before they could step onto the ramp. Scores more were hit in the water. Two companies were obliterated before they could reach the sand. Some wounded men made it to the waterline, then lay helpless amid the seaweed as the tide rose slowly over them.” /pp. 200-201

Altogether, the total number of Allied casualties was about 10,000, with nearly half of that number killed and the rest wounded or missing.

“Far fewer Allied troops had died than Allied planners had expected, but D-day still had been the bloodiest day in U.S. military history since Antietam. Some 2,500 American soldiers lay dead on and behind the beaches. Thousands more were wounded or missing.” /p. 210

The older I get and the more our country spirals into its self-destructive lunacy, the more I appreciate what these men did. Most of them were in their early twenties, 3,000 miles away from home, dying on desolate beaches in a foreign country.

Yet because they fought, the Allies were able to unload 2,500,000 men, 500,000 vehicles and 4,000,000 tons of supplies at two temporary harbors at Normandy over the remainder of the war. That allowed them to liberate France, which led to the liberation of Europe and, ultimately, to the liberation of the rest of the world. Due to their successful breach of Rommel’s “Atlantic Wall,” Germany signed an unconditional surrender less than a year later on May 7, 1945.

D-Day marked a decisive turning point in the war in Europe, beating back the aggression of Nazi Germany. As the National D-Day Memorial puts it, it took “valor, fidelity and sacrifice” to bring peace.

We need those qualities more than ever today.

by

Daily Broadside | Doctor Faux Chi is a Proven Fraud

Daily Verse | Job 28:28
“And he said to man, ‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.'”

It’s Friday, my friends, and another work week comes to an end. Next up, the weekend.

Anthony Fauci, M.D., has been in the news for the last several days as thousands of his emails have been released through FOIA requests related to how he handled the Peking Lung Pox. We’ll get to those, but I have had an even more pressing question: Who is this guy?

Dr. Fauci is the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a position he’s held since 1984 under former president Ronald Reagan. He’s also the chief medical advisor to the president, a position established by president Trump in 2019 within the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

When the Chinese Bat Flu hit, Fauci just kind of showed up on television and I never really understood who he was. Did you know he’s the highest paid out of four million federal employees, making more than even the salary of the president of the United States?

He’s also an octogenarian, born in 1940.

While he seems to be a fairly accomplished man, his erratic and inexplicably inconsistent advice on the Peking Lung Pox over the last year has been baffling. Just on the subject of masking alone, he was against it before he was for it; one mask was fine, but then we needed to wear two of them; now we need to wear a mask even if we’re vaccinated.

It almost felt as if he didn’t know what the heck he was doing and was making it up on the spot. And maybe he was.

Here’s a few things we’ve learned through his emails.

  1. He ignored his own scientists who said COVID-19 might be engineered. NIH scientist Kristian Andersen told Fauci on January 31, 2020 that “On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
  2. We knew this and so did Fauci: masks don’t work and he told people not to wear them. “Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”
  3. Fauci knew of the NIH’s ties to gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab—yet publicly denied it. Fauci repeatedly denied funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but discussed the dangerous experiments in emails from February 1, 2020. Josh Rogin of the Washington Post says, “The head of the funding, the head of the entire field, really, is Anthony Fauci. He’s the godfather of gain-of-function research as we know it. That, again, just what I said right there, is too hot for TV because people don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic… might also have been connected to this research, which might also have been connected to the outbreak.”
  4. Fauci believed COVID would stop on its own without a vaccine. He said, “Social distancing is not really geared to wait for a vaccine… Close proximity of people will keep the R0 higher than 1 and even as high as 2 to 3. If we can get the R0 to less than 1, the epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine.”

What we’re learning from his emails is very different from what Fauci said publicly. Worse, it’s seeming more and more plausible that Fauci participated in covering up his own culpability in the pandemic as he and others tried to shut down any investigations or questions about whether the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

An article in Vanity Fair reports that our own State Department suppressed any effort to investigate the origins of the virus.

As officials at the meeting discussed what they could share with the public, they were advised by Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research, according to documentation of the meeting obtained by Vanity Fair.

Some of the attendees were “absolutely floored,” said an official familiar with the proceedings. That someone in the U.S. government could “make an argument that is so nakedly against transparency, in light of the unfolding catastrophe, was…shocking and disturbing.”

And you know you’re dealing with desperate people when death threats are issued:

But for most of the past year, the lab-leak scenario was treated not simply as unlikely or even inaccurate but as morally out-of-bounds. In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.”

This stinks to high heaven and Fauci is right in the middle of it. Rand Paul was right to declare, “Told you” with respect to Fauci. While there are reports that exit plans for Fauci are being discussed, he won’t be prosecuted because he’s part of the protected class. Millions of people were sickened, hundreds of thousands died, children were kept out of school (perhaps a blessing in disguise), thousands of business are permanently closed, and we were all subjected to useless mask mandates and never-ending lockdowns that tested the resistance of American citizens.

Remember how we were told to follow the science? What we should’ve done is follow the money.

by

Daily Broadside | Healing the Country Has No Place Here

Daily Verse | Job 24:22-23
“But God drags away the mighty by his power; though they become established, they have no assurance of life. He may let them rest in a feeling of security, but his eyes are on their ways.”

Thursday and the beat goes on.

Resident Biden gave a speech on the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa, OK, massacre, an inexcusable and shameful mark on our nation’s record. (The massacre, I mean, not Biden’s speech, although I’ll get to that in a second.)

The Tulsa Massacre began over an alleged assault on a white teenage girl by a black teenage boy. At least 39 people died (26 black and 13 white) in bloody riots led by mobs of white men who burned down “Black Wall Street” in the Greenwood District of Tulsa. Churches, businesses and homes were destroyed, 6,000 African Americans were detained like criminals, and hundreds were left homeless. If you haven’t read about it, I encourage you to do that. It was one of the worst cases of racial violence in our history, it was memory-holed, and it should be remembered with horror and sadness.

Biden, the promised Uniter-in-Chief, couldn’t have been more divisive in his speechmaking in Tulsa. While it’s appropriate to recognize the cold-blooded injustice and hatred driving the massacre, his handlers used the occasion to drive the racial wedge deeper and to perpetuate the lie that at our core, America is a racist nation, full of white supremacists who are the greatest threat we face today.

That is, of course, a great pile of horsepucky.

Nevertheless, he persisted. “We must address what remains the stain on the soul of America,” he declared. “What happened in Greenwood was an act of hate and domestic terrorism, with a through-line that exists today.”

He is absolutely correct that it was an act of hate. But domestic terrorism? That’s an add-on that stretches the meaning of terrorism. It was added so that he could then draw a “through-line” to his insistence that “terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today.”

And listen to how he couched that claim: “As I said in my address to the joint session of Congress, according to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today, not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda, white supremacists. That’s not me. That’s the intelligence community under both Trump and under my administration.“

As Bugs Bunny says, “What an ultra maroon!”

We all know how reliable the “intelligence community” was under Trump, don’t we? It’s hard to imagine that Biden appealing to the Deep State gives his claim credibility with anyone except True Believers Who Truly Believe.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this claim since January 6. As Tyler O’Neil wrote, it’s roots are found in the aftermath of the Capitol Hill riot:

Democrats have drafted legislation to combat domestic terrorism and some of them have not been subtle about the targets of budding new government surveillance.

Former CIA Director John Brennan warned against an “unholy alliance” including “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, and even libertarians” that “looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas.” These remarks came amid leftist calls for “deprogramming,” “de-Baathification,” “re-educating,” and “reprogramming” the 75 million people who voted for Trump.

Even Democrat former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has vocally warned against leftists “who are trying to undermine our constitutionally-protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style surveillance.”

We’re being gas-lit. There’s no impending white supremacy terrorist threat in the homeland today. The fiction that the January 6 riot was an “armed insurrection” is a damnable lie. While the rioters damaged the building and should not have gone inside, they were unarmed, they killed no one, the only “takeover” was someone sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s office, and the only person who was killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter shot by a still unnamed Capitol Hill police officer.

Yet the junta in Washington, D.C. has seized on the opportunity to fabricate an imminent threat. Why?

Because they’re laying the groundwork to consolidate their gains and impose a surveillance state on us. We stand in the way of their lunatic vision. As Robert Spencer observes,

When Biden talks about “white supremacy,” what he really means are ordinary citizens who oppose the dominant political philosophy. Lies like what Biden is spreading here are in service of solidifying the hegemony of that philosophy.

By repeating the lie, it gains credence with the public at large. It also puts any objection to the dishonest characterization in the position of seeming to validate the claim. If white supremacist terrorism is the most urgent threat we face, then any semblance of “white” activism pushing back on the claim will be touted as “evidence” of the threat we face. That may be enough to put the kibosh on individual efforts to organize a response.

The only imminent threat we face is from the unholy cabal in the White House. Biden had an opportunity to acknowledge the pain and trauma inflicted on innocent black Americans and to highlight how far we’ve come since then. Instead he demonized white Americans and deepened the divide with his dishonest agitprop, all in service to his radical agenda to finish the sinister transformation of America that began under Barack Hussein Obama.