Pastoral Perfidy

In a recent 2-year study by George Barna, it was found that while nearly 90% of all American pastors believe that the Bible provides specific answers to the myriad issues challenging us today, only 10% say they will address those issues from the pulpit.

According to the study, the reason so many refuse to openly address these issues from the pulpit is to avoid "controversy", thus ensuring a "successful church".

Wow!

In the study, the vast majority of pastors said they determined "success" in five ways: attendance; donations; number of programs; number of staff; and, yes, square footage!

Inspiring and reassuring, huh?

My recent experience with my own Catholic parish in Rochester, NY seems to validate Barna's findings. Last week, I formally requested that the parish promote a strictly non-partisan "Voter Registration Sunday" in September. While exiting services, a manned table in the vestibule would be set up to assist interested parishioners to register to vote. Only a brief announcement from the pulpit and a small bulletin insert would inform parishioners of this service. However, in a follow-up meeting with the pastor the initiative was categorically rejected. Why? Such an event on parish grounds would be in violation of diocesan policy!  So much for civic responsibility, principle, courage of one's religious convictions and fearless adherence to Christian values and Biblical teachings. So much too for patriotism.

Shortly before this, I approached a very large Baptist church in the same area with the same request and the pastor immediately agreed.

Thus, while there are exceptions to the rule, there clearly appear to be more "CEO-type pastors" out there than committed God-fearing religious ones. Judging from the study's conclusions and my own experience, far too many church leaders seem to value their lofty position in the community, their creature comforts and "square footage" more than their religious calling to shepherd their flocks. Obviously, elitism comes in many forms, or so it appears.

Is it any wonder it's been such a tortuously uphill fight for patriots and Christians to restore constitutional order and those bedrock traditional American values that once made America so exceptional? If, for whatever reason, our churches betray their calling and, in turn, their flocks, on whom CAN we count? Note: our Founders warned that if we lose our Christian moorings and our traditional values, if we forsake our civic responsibilities, we will irretrievably lose our Republic.

Finally, in response to this study, a Reverend Chuck Baldwin is quoted as saying that "it is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors: they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers: they are performers. They are not shepherds: they are hirelings. It is also time for Christians to be  honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the Scriptures, or do they want a pastor who is simply trying to be "successful".

Yet again, the cause for the corruption of our leaders, both pastoral and secular alike, is staring boldly back at us from the mirror before us. By our silence and compliance, we alone are the reason for our country's disintegration.

"...activities intended to encourage people to participate in the election process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a nonpartisan manner." Internal Revenue Service

"God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as part of their duty to God...God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics." Charles Finney, "Lectures on Revival of Religion" (1835)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

Guns vs Gun Control & Murders

A pithy stat I stumbled upon this morning:

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. These 4 cities also have the toughest gun control laws in the United States. All 4 are controlled by Democrats.  

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data – right?

(Source: Give Us Liberty)

To the staunch gun control, anti-2nd Amendment types out there, it's your assignment to objectively disprove this statistical assertion.

"To put it bluntly, self-defense is the first law of nature; when good people have the freedom to carry concealed firearms, society gets safer." Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr.

"American liberty depends upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box." Frederick Douglas, "The Life & Times of Frederick Douglas" (1881)

My Take on Obama's Address Tonight

Just finished watching Obama's televised address regarding America's response to developments in Iraq.

In all honesty, and for the first time in my memory, Obama actually sounded like a confident, committed leader, a genuine commander-in-chief who, by all appearances, sincerely believed what he was saying.

But, despite the intense, polished, in-charge demeanor, it was hard to shake that nagging awareness that Obama remains Obama, all the good, the bad and the ugly, and that he remains totally ideological and politically motivated in all that he says and does.

That said, his decision to conduct humanitarian airdrops to relieve the besieged and starving Iraqi minorities atop a mountain in northern Iraq, this to prevent "genocide" at the hands of ISIS, was refreshing. Though pleasantly surprising and completely out of character, it was nonetheless very good to hear.

And though undefined, his decision to permit "targeted air strikes" in order to "defend American personnel",  and to provide "assistance" to both Baghdad forces and the Kurds, his decision was, indeed, encouraging. Again, not having better defined the nature and breadth of those "targeted air strikes" and the "assistance" to be provided to friendly forces in Iraq left me hanging and uncertain.

Throughout his speech he repeated "targeted air strikes" three times and assured Americans that he understood their reluctance to "get dragged into [another] war in Iraq". Certainly, there was no indication that this intervention would be anything but very, very limited.

I couldn't help but recall Clinton's very effective air strikes on Serbian forces in the 90's. It made all the difference in the world--and without boots on the ground. With that successful operation in mind, my hope, of course, is that these "targeted air strikes" will eventually encompass on-going and crippling strikes on all ISIS forces everywhere.

I appreciated his intention to "support moderate forces [in Iraq] to create stability" and to form a new, more inclusive Iraqi government. Obviously, PM Maliki, a divisive and debilitating political force in Iraq, has to go if the Iraqis can ever hope to restore political order, national unity and a more effective Iraqi fighting force capable of fending off or even defeating ISIS .

Ever the globalist, he underscored the need to "consult with the UN and other countries", though what he was expecting of such consultations remained unclear. Troops, arms, air bases?

His one comment which piqued my incredulity was his statement that it was always America's core interest to "support our allies and to lead coalitions", clearly an interest to which, in my humble opinion, he has paid lip service during his stint as Commander-in-Chief.

Another statement which caused me to shake my head in exasperation was  that "the world looks to us to lead and that's why we do". Hmmm. I guess I missed all that "leading" over the last six years.

Anyway, I am heartened that this humanitarian effort has been undertaken, but I am also certain--as I am sure he is--that he will now get a bump in the polls for this action.

Finally, because I firmly believe he is, first and foremost, a cold, calculating me-first ideologue, I still don't trust him to do the right thing for the right reasons. Thus, I don't trust that this ill-defined and apparently very limited operation will, in the longer term, satisfactorily serve the interests of Iraq, the Kurds or the United States. Nor do I believe it will appropriately cripple ISIS. On this, I sincerely hope he proves me dead wrong.

Illegal Entry is a Misdemeanor AND Illegal Re-Entry IS a Felony

During an interview with Bill O'Reilly on August 6th regarding the off-duty border patrol agent who was murdered by two illegal aliens, and much to O'Reilly's astonishment, Lou Dobbs reported that an illegal RE-entry by an illegal alien is a criminal offense. Mr. Dobbs actually cited Section 1325 of the US immigration law to support his claim

It's always a source of elation for me when the heavily opinionated chatter on the various "news" channels is sometimes interrupted  by actual facts and a little education. And for that, I am especially grateful to Mr. Dobbs.

Being an 'ole immigration worker in my pre-retirement  life, I knew Mr. Dobbs was correct, but, for my own benefit and knowing how immigration law is nearly always in flux, I decided to double-check the accuracy of his report. So, in a nutshell, and for those of you who care, these cites:

--Under INA Sec 212(a)(9)(C), a person who was removed from the US and then tries to enter without going through the required admission procedures will be permanently barred from any future entry into the US.

--Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code renders illegal entry a misdemeanor carrying with it imprisonment for 6 months for the first offense, and a felony and 2 years in prison for the second offense. In short, any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officials, OR (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, OR (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact shall, for the first offense, be fined ($50-$250) or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense (illegal re-rentry), be fined or imprisoned for not more than 2 years.

I'll bet dollars to donuts this law is very rarely enforced and, for the most part, utterly ignored by the Adminstration and their open-borders lackeys and supporters.

Just so there's no wiggle room on how one might interpret the meaning of this section of the law, illegal re-entry means one of the following has occurred: alien was (1) denied admission to the US, (2) excluded from the US, (3) deported from the US, (4) removed from the US, or (5) departed the US while an order of exclusion, deportation or removal was outstanding.

With particular respect to the two illegals who murdered the off-duty border patrol agent earlier this week, aliens re-entering or found in the US without government approval, after a criminal conviction for an aggravated felony--which will surely apply in this case--the maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years and a permanent bar from any future entry into the US.

(Note: if an alien illegally re-enters, after a criminal felony conviction for a non-aggravated felony, or after 3 or more misdemeanor convictions for drug-related crimes or crimes against persons, he or she is subject to a fine or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.)

Again, thank you, Mr. Dobbs. The education, a rare treat offered up by "news" shows these days, was sincerely appreciated.