Our Existence as a Species Depends on Women Being Able to Murder Their Unborn Children?

“Our existence as a species really relies on women’s ability to be able to control their fertility. If women can’t control if, when, how many times to be pregnant, then they can’t control their education destiny and they can’t control their economic destiny and they can’t control their ability to really reach their full potential in society. And so, because of all of those things, I think abortion care is justice care.”  This is what traveling abortionist Colleen McNicholas claims is her motivation for traveling 400 miles per week between various abortion clinics to help where no abortionists are available.

McNicholas may help to murder up to 60 babies per day according to what she said in an interview with Kendall Ciesemier of Mic Dispatch.

Believe it or not I actually agree with one thing Colleen McNicholas said in the above statement.  We do need women to reach their full potential.   But the question is what does it look like for a woman to reach her full potential in this life?

Colleen McNicholas along with other feminists today believe that unless a woman has a college degree as well as a successful career outside the home, she has not reached her full potential.  But the Bible has a very different definition of what a woman reaching her full potential is.

The Biblical Definition of a Woman’s Full Potential

God did not create women to live for themselves and do whatever made them happy.  This is the lie that Christian feminists tell women today.  The Scriptures are clear that God did not make men or women to do whatever they wanted, but to fulfill his plan for his glory.

The Bible clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:9 that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  And the Bible tells us the larger spiritual purpose for which God created woman for man in the following passage:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

God created woman for man so that together they could model the relationship of God to his people and in the New Testament age – Christ and his church.  The Bible gives us details below of how a woman was meant to submit to and serve her husband and thus picture the church’s service to Christ:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Unless a woman is one of the few who have the gift of celibacy that they “may attend upon the Lord without distraction as 1 Corinthians 7:35 states, a woman can never reach her full potential as God has defined it without being married, bearing children and caring for the domestic needs of the home.

A woman reaching her full potential in God’s eyes has nothing to do with her having a college degree or a successful career outside the home. But rather it has everything to do with her fulfilling the purpose for which God created her which was to marry, bear children and care for the needs of her husband, her children and her home.

And women of ages past fully understood that this was what a woman’s full potential looked like.  This is why barren women were always so grieved.  The Bible speaks of what gave women their joy in the following passage:

“He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.”

Psalm 113:9 (KJV)

Is bearing children and keeping the house what brings women joy today? Sadly, the answer for the majority of women in our nation today is no.  And this needs to change.

We Need Women to Have More Children, Not Murder Their Children

We need women to have more children, not kill the ones they get pregnant with. Over the past half century since Second Wave Feminism of the 1960s and 1970s fertility rates of American born women have been consistently below the “replacement” level they need to be at.  Even liberal news outlets like Vox.com recognize this fact:

“The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1, enough to renew the population, is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US. By 2018, it declined again — to 1.72, another record low. “The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement for the last decade,” the new CDC report, which is based on more than 99 percent of US birth records, reads.

It’s not yet clear exactly what’s driving the trend, and the CDC authors don’t offer any guesses.”

But of course, to liberals, it is “not yet clear what’s driving the trend”.  Why? Because they refuse to admit exactly what is right in front of their faces.  Women are having less children because they believe the lie that Colleen McNicholas believes that a woman cannot reach her full potential without getting a degree and having a career.

They are told to spend their most fertile years pursuing education and a career and of course engage in all the sex they want along the way.  And then if they do happen to get pregnant, they can just kill the little inconvenient human life living in their womb.

And even if a woman did not ever have sex until she finished all her higher education and was well established in her career the stats show that such career women only have one or two children at most.  This is not even enough to replace the current population.

Will Humanity Go Extinct?

I do not believe humanity will go extinct.

The first reason I do not believe humanity will go extinct is because the Bible says so.  The Bible tells us in the following passages that Christ will return to a world with nations of men, maybe not the same nations we have today, but there will still be humanity here on earth and it will still be divided into nations.

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 (KJV)

In the Book of Revelation, we are given more detail on Christ’s coming reign on earth:

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Revelation 19:15 (KJV)

This is not the “nice guy” or feminized version of Jesus that all our liberal Christians friends like to portray.  This is the vengeful God of the Old Testament that liberal Christians like to pretend does not exist. In Christ’s first incarnation he came as a lamb to pay for the sins of the world, in his next incarnation he is coming as the Lion of Judah and as a conquering king.

But there is a second reason that the world will not go extinct which does not require the supernatural event of the Second Coming of Christ.  Even if Christ does not return in the next few hundred years or the next thousand years God’s natural law of reaping what we sow will not allow the current despotism of women in Western countries to continue.  And I will explain why next.

The population of individual nations, western or otherwise, can only fall so far before their governments will collapse and new governments will come into power to take measures to address the problem of low fertility.

The United Nations Report “WORLD POPULATION TO 2300” admits that if the low fertility rates of Western nations continue ,even with higher fertility rates in non-westernized nations, the total world population could begin to drop as soon as the year 2050.  And if women continue having low fertility rates the world population will drop from its peak just over 8 billion to just over 2 billion by 2300.

If you think the world population dropping by 75% is not going to cause political unrest, civil wars and revolutions across the globe you are very naïve.

Let me put that in perspective.  In World War II no country lost most than 25% of its population and most were around 15%.  No period in human history has seen a population loss of 75% except one which was the great flood recorded in the Bible.

It is in this world that many nations will finally recognize feminism for the cancer on society that it is and the despotism of women in Western countries will be overthrown and replaced with the historic societal order of patriarchy being reestablished.

There is a third possible way that abortion and the despotism of women will end.  And it would be the least bloody.   Conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims could simply outbreed liberals to the point that they have no political power.   It not an impossible scenario, as conservative religious families have far more children than liberal families do.  However, I must return to what the Scriptures say.  The Scriptures do not indicate that the world will get better and better before Christ returns.  It shows the world will get worse.  So, I am thinking this third possibility is less likely unless God means for things to get a little better before they get worse before his return.

Conclusion

Fellow believers, we can take rest and find comfort in the blessed hope of our Savior’s return.  One day he will wipe out all this evil.

But in the mean time we must do as the pro-life rally sign at the top of this article suggests.  We must mount a societal and political resistance to abortion at every place we can.   We also need to be educating our children about the link between abortion and feminism. Abortion was a direct result of feminism.

Rolling back abortion is the first step in destroying feminism and taking down the current despotism of women that exists in America and other Western nations.

We need to get out and vote for candidates that support a Biblical worldview which includes being pro-life. This means standing behind pro-life candidates for all public offices including President Trump.

Why Socialism and Communism Are Unbiblical

Yesterday President Trump stated at the U.N. General Assembly that “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and the destroyer of societies”.   He also stated that “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: Power for the ruling class”.

In my previous article on his speech, “President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism”, I stated that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.

In response to that statement I had a commenter write in making the following statement which ended with a challenge to me:

“Socialism and communism are political ideals, comparable to capitalism, which American Christians seem to collectively elevate. If you are going to say these first two are “denominations” of secular humanism, you must be able to defend capitalism as viewed through the same lens, or your argument is unbalanced. I’m curious to know how you would you back this up?

Yes, I can defend capitalism, not only from a political and economic perspective, but most importantly from a Biblical perspective and that will be the emphasis of this article.

The heart of capitalism is private property rights. In a purely capitalist society, each person retains 100% control of their private property which includes all the money they earn from their ideas, use of their lands or other properties as well as their labors. America was founded on private property rights and capitalism and the Constitution originally banned the concept of income taxes.

The United States government, including the military, was almost completely funded by something Trump is using today to crack down on China – Tariffs (taxes on goods coming in from Foreign countries).

There were incomes taxes during the Civil War and some attempts at income taxes afterwards until the courts ruled income taxes to be a violation of the Constitution.  It was then that President Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the effort to put in a Constitutional amendment for an income tax promising it would only be a 1 percent tax on the very rich.  This resulted in the 16th Amendment being passed in 1913.

Fast forward just a couple of decades and then FDR raised that income tax to 95 percent on the rich to fund his Socialist makeover of America.  JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 70% and then Reagan did the largest tax rate drop in history lowering the top rate to 28%.

The Bible supports the concept that what a man earns is his and this God given right is found in the 10th commandment:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

The Bible speaks of it being God’s gift to man that he is able to work and then enjoy the fruits of his labor:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

In Matthew 20:15, Jesus when telling the parable of the land owner and his workers and how he paid them for different amounts of work said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

God authorizes the government only to takes pay for the salaries of government officials and the necessary functions of government.

“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:6 (KJV)

And this is also a tenant of capitalism that the government should only take taxes to pay for the services of government officials and things that government should be doing like building roads, bridges, law enforcement and the military.

The Bible also strongly encourages free will giving for the poor and Jesus Christ talked about giving to the poor in the Gospel of Mark:

“For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”

Mark 14:7 (KJV)

Notice two important concepts though that Christ taught about giving to the poor.  First, Christ said “ye have the poor with you always”, meaning we will never eliminate poverty in this sin cursed world.  Only God can eliminate poverty when he removes sin and makes the world anew.  Secondly, Christ reaffirmed that giving to the poor is to be done based on the free will of the giver when he stated “whensoever ye will”.

The Apostle Paul reaffirmed the concept of free will giving both for the poor as well as giving to support local churches when he made the following statement:

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

And God builds on this by admonishing those who are rich in this world to be rich in their giving:

“17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”

1 TImothy 6:17-19 (KJV)

Socialism and Communism trample the God given right of private property.  Communism does it to a greater extent than Socialism in that Communism allows no private property as all property is owned by and distributed by the state.  But Socialism still violates God’s law by having the government come in and seize a man’s private property and then distributing that property to another.

In essence both Communism and Socialism are the legalized theft of private property by government and the policies of these systems effectively nullify  God given private property rights.

God only gave the government power to tax to pay for government officials and the normal functions of government, not for re-distributive purposes.

In God’s design, the poor and those on the lower economic side of the scale are to be cared for by close family or even extended family and only if they don’t have family then they are cared for by the church.

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

Conclusion

There are four ways in God’s order, which is the natural order, that an individual may righteously gain property(including money).

1. By exchanging their direct labor or ideas to others to gain property or by lending out their existing property to others for their use. (Deuteronomy 24:15,1 Timothy 5:18)

2. By receiving such property as the spoils of war. (Deuteronomy 20:14)

3. By receiving an inheritance. (Proverbs 13:22)

4. By receiving a freely given gift. (Hebrews 13:16)

Socialism and Communism violate the natural order and God’s design by forcibly taking one person’s property and then giving it to another which did not earn such property.

And this is why President Trump is right that socialism and communism are “the destroyer of societies”.  They destroy societies for the same reason that feminism destroys marriages, because they violate God’s design of human nature and the rights he has given to mankind.

President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism

Today in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump used a very interesting word in his speech regarding globalism.  And that word was “religious”.  He stated that “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders causing them to ignore their own nationalist interests. But as far as America is concerned those days are over”.

President Trump probably does not understand where that “religious pull” from Globalism originates from. But as Christians we must under that the “religious pull” of globalism is a pull toward humanism, and specifically secular humanism.

Secular Humanism – the Religion that Claims Not to be a Religion

Secular humanists deny that Humanism is a religion, yet Humanism has all the core tenants of a religion.  It worships something and it has a system of values just like a religion does.

Humanists claim that because they do not worship a deity or believe in the supernatural, that humanism it is not a religion.   But you can worship something that is not supernatural or a deity.  And that is exactly what Humanism does.

The Bible speaks of Humanism in Romans 1:18-27 (KJV):

“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Does this not describe what we are seeing today in our world?

We need to recognize that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.   They all have the same end goals even though they may slightly disagree among themselves as to how to get to those goals.

Humanism is a religion that denies the existence of God, even though God’s existence is plainly seen in nature.  It is a religion that worships education making people think they are wise when they truly are fools.  It is a religion that glorifies nature rather than glorifying God.  It worships “created things rather than the Creator”.  And it leads to rampant sexual immorality including homosexuality and transgenderism.

Some Christians have tried to claim that they are “Christian Humanists”.  The unfortunate reality is that while a humanist a few centuries ago simply meant someone who believed in “free inquiry” the secular humanists morphed this into something much broader while making atheism its foundation from which all humanist values flow.

Paul Kurtz , the Council for Secular Humanism founder, wrote the following in “The Humanist Alternative” (pg 82):

“Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”

Professing Christians must come to the realization that the tenants of humanism along with the tenants of its evil spawns like environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism do not mesh with a Biblical worldview.  They are completely contradictory.

President Trump – God’s Imperfect Instrument Against Humanism

President Trump is not a perfect man.  He claims to have faith in Christ but he certainly is not a perfect Christian in either his understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith. And sadly, President Trump, like many professing Christians and churches today, is not completely unstained by the evil influences of humanism.  He has shown support for some feminist tenants as well as support for the LGBTQ community.

However, God has used him to be great defender of Israel as well as the rights and freedoms of Bible believing Christians here in the United States.  God took a man who was previously pro-abortion and turned him into the greatest defender of unborn human life this nation has seen since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.

Speaking on the topic of innocent unborn human life President Trump made the following statement today at the U.N. General Assembly:

“Americans will also never tire in defending innocent life. We are aware the many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right through tax payer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery.   Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life. Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God.”

There is absolutely no denying that God has chosen President Trump at this point in history as his imperfect instrument.  Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Jewish people look at President Trump as they did King Cyrus who helped them rebuild Jerusalem. Listen to what the God said about King Cyrus:

“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Isaiah 45:13 (KJV)

And Cyrus was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination and he was not even a Jew.  But God used Cyrus as instrument of his will and that is exactly what he is doing in raising a warrior in the form of President Trump to take on globalism and environmentalism which are major pillars of humanism.

President Trump’s Stand Against Globalism

President Trump made the following declaration regarding globalism and the threat it poses to freedom:

“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over this large magnificent plant, the truth is plain to see.  If you want freedom take pride in your country.  If you want democracy hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace love your nation.  Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.  The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well-being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.

Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration.  Each you has the absolute right to protect your borders. And so of course does our country.”

Again, this is one of those areas where President Trump may not even realize the full extent as to why globalism is bad.

Yes, globalism threatens freedom because whenever you consolidate power,  freedom is lost.   This is why America’s founders believed in limited government and breaking up powers between the federal, state and local governments.  And even when the power was divided between these three levels, they believed that the ultimate power rested in the people.

But there is more to why globalism is bad then just it threatening freedom. It also threatens God’s institution of nations which was one of three of the institutions he created.   In the following three Scripture passages we see that is was God who divided mankind into nations giving them each a different language and sending them across the face of the earth:

“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Genesis 11:9 (KJV)

“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:8 (KJV)

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Acts 17:26 (KJV)

Humanism Aims to Destroy the Three Institutions God Created

As we have just shown from the Bible, the concept of a nation state, which President Trump so strongly believes in, is one of three institutions which God created.  And those three institutions are the family, the church and the nation.  He created each of these institutions for different purposes and divided powers and responsibilities between these three institutions of society.

SecularHumanism.org states the following in an article entitled “What is Secular Humanism”:

“secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.”

As we can see from the statement above, Humanism seeks the destruction of the traditional controls of the patriarchal family, the local church and the concept of nation states.   Their goal is to replace these traditional God given institutions with an atheistic, individualist and globalist society.

Humanism’s War on The Church

For over 150 years, humanists have been successfully waging a war on local churches both from without and within.  In the late 19th century humanists infiltrated the churches from within causing them to doubt the Bible which lead to the great modernist controversies and the rise of Christian fundamentalism to fight it.  In the 20th century they began attacking churches and Christianity in schools using the courts.  They were successful in having prayer and the Bible banned from schools and threatened churches with losing their tax-exempt status if they spoke out on political issues or if they publicly supported politicians who supported their values.

Humanism’s War on Biblical Gender Roles

During the same period humanists were attacking the churches, they also began attacking traditional and Biblical gender roles as God designed them with the rise feminist groups in the mid-19th century.  The roles of women in marriage and society began to be challenged and God’s order of male leadership in society, the church and home was undermined. This of course led to a weakening of marriage, the family unit and sexual morality.

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to stand against the rising tide of gay marriage advocates.  While this reflected the will of the American people at the time, it outraged the left and especially those in Hollywood.  Hollywood elites looked to a new plan to gain public support for gay marriage.  They started incorporating more gay characters into TV shows and movies and documentaries as much as they could to desensitize the American public to the gay lifestyle.   After almost 20 years of Hollywood doing this, national polls showed that public sentiment regarding gay marriage had changed and gay rights advocates took their case to the Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage thus legalizing it in all fifty states.  Chief Justice Roberts in his decent on the courts gay marriage decision knew exactly what would happen because of the decision when he wrote:

“Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”

In essence the court set the stage for many future court battles between the First Amendment which guarantees free speech and the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs against against the 14th amendment which guarantees due process and equal protection(this is what all discrimination laws and cases are based on).  In other words the battle is between freedom of speech and religion verses discrimination.

Humanists believe that the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs takes a back seat to discrimination concerns.  Those on the right whether they be libertarians or evangelical Christians believe that the exercise of one’s free speech rights and religious beliefs trumps discrimination concerns.

And these are the battles that we are seeing raging in our courts over the past 4 years.  Our side has  had some victories and the Humanists have had their victories.

Humanism’s War on the Concept of Nation States

One of the first law’s that America passed was the 1790 Naturalization Act which stated that only “free white person[s] … of good character” could become citizens of the United States.  While these laws would today be considered “racist” they were in fact in keeping with the tradition of nations throughout history that protected their dominant ethnic groups as a unifying factor of a nation.

After the Civil War, Socialist Humanists began the new narrative that America was a “nation of immigrants”.  This is when “the melting pot” ideology began to spread. America’s motto of “E pluribus unum” which is found on our nation’s currency originally referred to the 13 colonies becoming one nation.  But the 19th century socialist humanists reinterpreted this famous American phrase for their own multicultural and globalist goals. They changed the mean of “E pluribus unum” from a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one to “Out of many nations one nation”.  The idea was to water down America’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture with many other religions and cultures to break down the unity of the American nation.

Humanists won a major victory with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  While there were certainly issues with Jim Crow laws that needed to be addressed the law undermined private property rights and the freedom of association.   It also laid the foundation for gay rights and now transgenders are trying to use it to shove their wicked ways in the faces of Christian business owners. Humanists won another major victory with the 1965 Immigration Act which abolished racial quotas which favored immigrants from northern European nations.

In the 20th Century, American Humanists began using the courts to push their humanist agenda on the nation.  If they could not pass a law to get what they wanted, they would simply go to a court and find judges who would agree with them.  American humanist judges used the philosophy of “if the words of the Constitution don’t say something, just reinterpret the words to make them say what you want”.

But in more recent years Humanists have taken off all pretenses and they are calling for the outright abolishment of national borders in their quest for globalism and a one world government.  In 2015, a year before President Trump was elected to office, the Atlantic ran an article entitled “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely” with the sub heading being “No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time”.  Trump ran on exactly the opposite premise and won the 2016 election in large part because it.

We as Bible believing Christians must take a stand.  We must get out and vote. We must use all the legal means at our disposal to fight back against the humanist assaults on our God given liberties.  That means Christians need to engage in law suits using the first Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and religion to protect themselves and their businesses from Humanist lawsuits.  We need to use the very legal weapons that Humanists use against us against them.

We must defend and uphold God’s three institutions of the family, the church and the nation state.

Some on both the right and left have called this a “cold civil war” while others have called it “the Second American Civil War”. And I agree with them in those descriptions.  That is exactly what is happening in our nation and we must face this reality.

We must stop allowing leftists to paint us into a corner and shame us for believing such “radical” concepts like the one Mark 10:6 states that “God made them male and female”.  God did not make people transgender; the corruption of the sin nature makes people transgender.

We must stop allowing leftists to redefine what love is by saying that that two men or two women can love each other in the special way that God only meant for men and women to do in marriage.  We must acknowledge that there are some kinds of love and some kinds of desire that are indeed “vile affections” according to God’s Word in Romans 1:26.

We must stop allowing leftists to tell us that we are acting “inhumanely” for believing a nation should have borders that are enforced.

President Trump today also raised another God given right that we should not be afraid to defend:

“The United States will uphold the right to keep and bear arms. We will uphold our Second Amendment.”

The Bible affirms the God given right to self-defense in passages like Exodus 22:2 and Nehemiah 4:14 and we read in Ecclesiastes 3:3 that there is indeed “A time to kill” and in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is “a time of war”.

And just as God used a non-Jewish person in the form of King Cyrus to accomplish his will, so too we as Christians must be willing to form political coalitions with those who hold to and believe in liberty and freedom as we do.  We must be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who defend basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.  We should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who still believe in the concept of a nation state and national borders. And we certainly should be able to stand with anyone who stands for the life of the unborn.

 

 

 

We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism

President Trump is absolutely right that we need condemn violent extremists of BOTH the “alt-right” and the “alt-left”.

Last year it was 21 police officers being assassinated or ambushed and this weekend a man drove his car through a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia injuring 19 and killing one.  All of these events are forms of terrorism and must be equally condemned.

We as Christians need to stand up against all forms of terrorism.  Terrorism has no place in Biblical Christianity.

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change.  Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.

It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands.  Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.

So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.

Examples of White Terrorism

When the KKK and other white supremacist groups engaged in burning crosses on people’s lawns this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When the KKK and other groups have burned down black churches and engaged in lynching’s this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When whites stood at voting stations trying to scare blacks away from exercising their lawful right to vote this was a form of terrorism against blacks.

Most recently when Dylan Roof, an admitted white supremacist, killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina on June 17th, 2015 this was a textbook case of White terrorism.  Last weekend when James Alex Fields, an admitted neo nazi, used his car as a weapon to mow down counter protestors injuring 19 and killing one in Charlottesville, Virginia this was also a textbook case of White terrorism.

Examples of Black Terrorism

In the 60’s and 70’s when groups like the Black Panthers advocated for the assassinations of police officers (and many police officers were in fact assassinated) this was a form of terrorism.  When blacks marched through the street peacefully advocating for change this was not terrorism, but when blacks rioted in various cities burning down whole city blocks these actions were textbook cases of Black terrorism.  In fact, rioting by blacks has become an almost accepted form of terrorism by our current American culture over the last half century.

The threat of riots is also a form of terrorism.  Think of how many times over the past half century that jurors on certain cases had to consider that blacks in their city or cities around the country might riot and people could be hurt or killed as a result of their verdict. That fear of a riot SHOULD NEVER EVER have to be a consideration for any juror in any trial.

Recent examples of Black terrorism include the Ferguson riots in which many businesses were burned out and looting took place.  Black terrorism that was very reminiscent of the terrorism which took place in the 60s and 70s occurred last year.  On the fourth of July 2016 in New York City, a black man named Alexander Bonds, walked up to a police car in New York and assassinated a female police officer named Miosotis Familia.   Three days later on July 7th, a black man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an admitted Black Lives Matter supporter, gunned down 14 police officers killing 5 of them in Dallas, Texas.   Then only 10 days later on July 17th, another black man named Gavin Long ambushed and then assassinated 3 police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  In total, 21 police officers nationwide lost their lives to ambush style assassinations by mostly black assailants.

Examples of Muslim Terrorism

Whether it was the attacks of September 11, 2001 which killed almost 3000 people or the Boston Marathon Bombing which injured several and killed 3 people Muslim terrorism is perhaps the most rampant amongst an ideological group of people. We have almost become accustomed to hearing weekly on the news about bombs going off in crowded squares or men with cars or knives running into crowds and indiscriminately killing people all done to further the political ideologies of Radical Islamic terrorists.

Examples of Antifa Terrorism

“Antifa”, short for “Antifacists” groups have been around since the 1920’s and 1930’s but have had their numbers and financing swell since the election of Donald Trump and the could right be considered part of the “alt-left” in America.  Antifa Groups believe that violence is warranted and justified against any groups they deem to be sexist or racist or in many terms anyone opposed to progressive and socialist ideologies.

Their goal is to use force and intimidation to shut down public meetings, speaking events or protests by groups which they deem to be opponents of their ideology.

Recent examples of Antifa violence include violence against a white nationalist demonstration in Sacramento, California on July 26th 2016 where 14 people were injured including 7 being stabbed.  On Thursday, February 2nd 2017, 150 Masked Antifa protestors came to UC Berkeley to right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking there.  After the violence and property damaged they caused for fear of public safety the University canceled his speaking engagement.

At a Pro-Trump rally, on April 15, 2017 Antifa members again came to violently intimidate trump supporters.  20 arrests were made and 11 people were wounded.

White Terrorists meet Antifa Terrorists at the “Unite the Right” clash in Charlottesville

The most recent White terrorist and Antifa terrorist events actually took place at the same event on the same day in Charlottesville, Virginia this last week on Saturday, August 12th 2017.  The “Unite the Right” event was organized to protest the removal of Confederate Statues and land marks in Southern States.

On Friday night, the first night of the event, men marched with white tee shirts and torchers toward a monument of Thomas Jefferson.  Their march was a meant to be a reminder of clan marches of decades before. Fights broke out with student protesters at the base of the statue and were later broken up by police.

The worst part of the event though came the next morning on Saturday, August 12th. By that time many more Neo Nazis and white supremacists had arrived but also Antifa forces had arrived in force.  The police instead of separating the Antifa and other protestors from one another for most part allowed them clash leading to extremely intensive violence with fights breaking out on both sides culminating in a neo-Nazi man named James Alex Fields, using his car to mow down 19 and killing one is very reminiscent of recent Muslim terrorist attacks.

President Trump was absolutely RIGHT when he condemned violence on “many sides”

In one of his first statements on the violence in Charlottesville President Trump stated:

 “We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides

He was criticized by many in the press and even his own Republican party for not simply denouncing the White supremacists by name in his first statements.  Most Americans, because of one sided reporting by the press, thought all the violence was coming from the White supremacist side and that was actually quite false. Some on both sides have argued that if it were not for the lack of police getting between the two groups and especially Antifa agitators looking to gin up violence the tragic death of Heather Heyer would never have occurred.

I thought this was a great statement by President Trump condemning White Terrorism and hate groups:

“And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.”

However, I believe this statement does not go far enough. If you are going to name the names of groups involved – then you MUST name all groups involved on both sides.  Where was the condemnation of Antifa groups that came to agitate and incite violence? I realize President Trump was under a lot of political pressure but if you going to name names – you need to name both groups involved in the violence.

I am so glad that as I was writing this article President Trump had the courage to speak out against the alt-left that was also was responsible for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This was his statement in a press conference today according to CNN:

“”I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said during a contentious back-and-forth with reporters in the lobby of his Midtown Manhattan building.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump asked. “What about the fact they came charging with clubs in hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do.”
He added: “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now.””
President Trump also made a FABULOUS point about the error of removing confederate statues and relating it to George Washington:

“George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington?” he said. “How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? OK good. Are we going to take down the statues, because he was a major slave owner? Now are we going to take down his statue?”

He added: “You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Hate is not always wrong – it is what we hate and how we direct our hatred

As Bible believing Christians we know that we are to love our brother but hate and rebuke their sin:

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”

Leviticus 19:17 (KJV)

“But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ”

Ephesians 4:15 (KJV)

So, hating sin is righteous, but hating people is never encourage in Christianity.

If we were to translate this for non-Christians the concept would be this:

You can hate the ideology and actions of a person or group of persons and even condemn those ideologies and actions but you should never hate the person or group of persons themselves.

So practically speaking I can hate the underlying ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Antifa and Black Lives Matter but still love them as people. I preach vehemently against these ideologies but hold no hatred for their persons in my heart.

In the political and spiritual worlds, we need to fight with words and ideas not fists, knives, guns and bombs.

“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (KJV)

Is there a time to fight with fists, knives guns and bombs?

I just said in the political and spiritual world of disagreements and debates and in trying to push for what we think is right we should never resort to physical violence.

But that does not mean there is never a time for violence.  The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is indeed “a time for war” and King David said “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight” in Psalm 144:1.   Even the right and responsibility of a man to defend his home and his family is stated by the Prophet Nehemiah when he said “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” in Nehemiah 4:14.

So, when is violence justified whether on a national level in sense of nations going to war or the case of individuals and families?

The answer is when someone threatens the freedom or safety of our family we every right to defend ourselves and our families.  If someone were to come and try to kidnap my wife or children to use them as slaves I have every right to engage in violence against them to stop them.  If a nation threatens the safety of our nation our national leaders have a right to call us to the defense of our nation.

But just because my local, state or federal government passes policies or laws that I feel are unjust or immoral does not mean I have a right to act in violence against them until they change the laws to what I think are just and right. Now there may be times that we as Christians may or even should practice civil disobedience to those laws – but we do not have the right to go and terrorize the citizens of our area until they pressure the governing officials to change the laws and policies to our liking.

Conclusion

While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.

While there are those on the right like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who try and intimidate or terrorize opponents of their views the fact is in America the vast majority of intimidation and terrorism from a political perspective comes from the left.

Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, cannot speak their views on college campuses or in their places of work without being intimidated into silence by leftists. Especially in places of learning like colleges, schools and other public venues where we should be able to openly and freely discuss things that even cut to the core of our society.  We should be able to openly and honestly discuss differences regarding faith, race, culture, views of equality, marriage and gender roles but far too often these subjects are completely shut down in our society.

In a follow-up article to this I am going to delve a bit into the topic of White nationalism.  As preview of that article we will be discussing the concept that White nationalism does equal Neo-Nazis and the KKK.  The Neo-Nazis and KKK and other violent White groups are white nationalists for sure – but not all White nationalists advocate for violence or are like Neo-Nazis or the KKK.

We will talk about White nationalism as a form of nationalism called “Ethno-nationalism”.  I realize for many of my readers they might be scratching their heads saying “why is he getting into this – this is Biblical Gender Roles after all?” and the reasons are simple.

I have said before that for most of my life I have been a student of history, theology and human nature.  On the subject of human nature, I have always been curious as to why we as humans behave the way we do and what ways we behave that are natural or right by God’s design and which ways are contrary to his design and I think as Christians we cannot avoid the subjects of racism and ethno-nationalism.

 

Is Donald Trump making America masculine again?

Could Donald Trump have been elected because a large group of Americans believe America has become “too soft and feminine”? Could Donald Trump’s strong masculine persona have been a major driving force in his appeal to millions of Americans? Some surveys suggest this might be the case.

“Right now, a large group of Americans are feeling very hopeful about Donald Trump’s presidency. In polls, they show up in different demographic categories: They’re Republicans; they’re Trump voters; they’re of all different ages and from every geographic region…

America has been experiencing intense gender anxiety in recent years, and this is particularly true in conservative evangelical communities. White evangelicals’ ambient concern that the country is becoming “too soft and feminine” speaks to that anxiety, and to a deeper concern that the foundations of life in the United States are changing.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-white-evangelicals-communities/509084/

“The two motivations—conviction and bigotry—are difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the United States, a country that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop, complementing, responding, and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms. Wisdom from the Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational. They are part of “the way of reading the Bible, going back to Genesis” said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s this belief that God created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. There’s something very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have … a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God…

But more broadly, this is also a question about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42 percent of Americans said they believe society is becoming “too soft and feminine.” Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for,” including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers suggest nervousness about fluid gender identities—and that America isn’t even close to a consensus that men and women should choose the way they act.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/

While secularists and liberal Christians may see little to no difference between “conviction and bigotry” we as Bible believing Christians know there is a huge difference between the two.  I can’t tell you how many people write me every week calling me a bigot for teaching the following three truths straight from the Scriptures.

Biblical Truth #1 – While men and women are equally human, they are not equally made in the image of God

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear – man, not woman is the direct image bearer of God.  This is not say that women do not also bare some attributes of God.  The common attributes of humanity that men and women share like self-awareness, emotions, free-will and creativity are part of the image of God.  But the masculine human nature was designed in the very image and likeness of God and the female human nature was designed to complement and help man to exercise is his duty as an image bearer.

God designed man to need to be the hero, the provider and protector.  So, man needed someone weaker than him, someone who would desire to be lead and desire to be provided for. So, God made woman to desire a leader, a provider and a protector. God knew that man would need someone to bare his children and to care for them.  So, he designed woman to naturally desire children and to naturally desire to care for them and nurture them.  God designed men to desire beauty because he desires beauty. So, he made woman beautiful and he designed her to desire to make herself beautiful for man.

In summary – God made woman, including each and every one of her physical and psychological attributes for man as the Scriptures tell us.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #2 – Because woman was created especially for man, God has determined that man is to be head over woman in all areas of life including the family, the Church and Society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #3 – In those limited times when God has allowed women to be over men – it was a shame to men

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

Those of us Americans who believe in Biblical gender roles are not bigots but rather we have convictions that are based on the very Word of God.  I and every other man have no more value to God than a woman does.  The Scriptures tell us that from a spiritual perspective our souls have equal value to God and we have equal access as men and women to God’s salvation.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Both men and women are joint heirs of the grace of God and our heavenly inheritance to come.

But just because we are equal spiritually – does not mean we are equal in our roles or in our image bearing status.  God has made men and women physically and psychologically different by design – not by chance.  I gave the reason earlier that he made us different – he made woman for man.

Conclusion

I agree with a large chunk of Americans who believe America has become “too soft and feminine” and that America was better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” or in other words when men and women performed the roles and functions that God designed them to perform.

The prophet Isaiah’s words could not be more true when speaking of how America has been ruled for several decades when he wrote “…women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

Whether it was women in various positions, or men acting like women in various positions our country has been ruled from a feminine perspective for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

What a feminine perspective of ruling our nation has looked like

We are told that it is selfish for hardworking Americans to desire to keep most of what they earn and to expect that they will pay taxes only for the basic services of government and not for a welfare state for those who do not work or do not make as much money.  To do so might hurt some poor people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot protect our borders and force people to go back to their countries because we might separate families and people from other countries who need our help – even though Americans can’t find jobs and many of these immigrants will be a drain on our social welfare system. To do so might hurt some foreigner’s feelings.

We were told we cannot tell countries that they are treating us unfairly in their trading practices.  We were told we can’t protect our companies and workers and put tariffs on other countries. We were told that we could not inform other nations that we have the most powerful economy in the world and we are going to start acting like it by telling them it is a privilege, not a right for them to sell their products to our citizens.  To do so might hurt the feelings of these nations that we trade with.

We were told that we cannot protect our country from terrorism by calling out Radical Islamists for the enemies that they are.  We are told we cannot control what nations immigrants come from as this is “discriminatory and unfair”. To do so might hurt some Muslim’s feelings.

We were told calling for respect for police officers is racist. Our government would not acknowledge the fact that the black community bears the brunt for the reason that they are arrested and incarcerated at a higher percentage than whites because of the breakdown of the family unit in their community.  Our leaders couldn’t talk about the elephant in the room that 70 percent of black of babies are born out of wedlock and maybe, just maybe, this is the biggest contributor to crime and poverty in the black community.  To do so might hurt some black people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot bring the full force of America’s military might to bare on cities in Iraq and elsewhere that have large terrorist populations for fear of collateral damage.  We might hurt the feelings of our enemies if we accidentally kill their families in during the bombing of cities.

All of these types of decisions are based on feelings, not logic. This is the feminization of American leadership.

This is why it was so refreshing to me and millions of Americans to see a man stand up and not be afraid to tell people the truth.  A man who is not afraid to make tough decisions that may hurt some people’s feelings.

He was far from a perfect candidate and he will be far from a perfect President.  But for all his faults I believe God can not only use Donald Trump to make America Great again, but he can also help America to be masculine again.

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

Both Christian and non-Christian men need to stop apologizing for their masculine nature and specifically their masculine sexuality.  Men need to stop bowing down to Church leaders and feminists who have joined in an un-holy alliance against masculinity as God designed it.

Before I get into what the Scriptures say and don’t say about this subject of “locker-room talk” by men let’s first look at a couple of incidents that made national headlines in the last few months.

Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk”

The phrase “locker-room talk” made national headlines when a tape of Donald Trump was leaked where he engaged in sexual talk about women.  Donald Trump spoke of married women who he had sex with and grabbing women by their genitals. Later he made it clear he was just joking about these things.

Should Christians defend Donald Trump’s locker room talk? No way!

By Biblical standards it would be absolutely wrong for a Christian to engage in adulterous behavior with married women or randomly grab women by their genitals.

“So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Proverbs 6:29 (KJV)

Christian men should neither joke nor brag about such things or engage in such behaviors.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever speaking even jokingly of sexually assaulting women? Of course, we should.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever joking about trying to convince a woman to have sex with them outside of marriage (whether she is married or not)?  Of course, we should.

Clearly Donald’s Trump’s “locker-room talk” included joking about adultery and sexual assault.

But as many men could tell you there are plenty of types “locker-room talk” between men that do not include joking about committing fornication, adultery or sexual assault.

Another type of “locker-room talk”

Contrary to the assertions of raving feminists and others who see most men as potential rapists there are a lot of men that engage in types of locker-room talk that never includes talk about getting women to commit adultery against their husbands or groping women.

Below I have put together a sample of how some men might actually talk when they are away from women.

Just an additional warning for those reading this – I am going to be very real here in showing how men actually talk when they are away from parents, women and the general public.

These are examples of “locker-room talk” that do not include statements about fornication, adultery or sexual assault:

Teenage Boy #1 “What do you think about Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “Well I would rate Mary as 8 with 10 being best.  Jane is a probably a 6.”

Teenage Boy #1 “Why do you rate Mary higher than Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “I like bigger boobs.  Mary’s boobs are just bigger.”

Teenage Boy #1 “I think Mary’s butt is too big though.  I just can’t get past that. Jane has a smaller, yet still full butt.”

Teenage Boy #2 “So how would rate them Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Mary a 5.  She is just too big for me. I would give Jane a 7.  She has a really nice butt but her breasts are still a little too small to give her a higher rating.”

Teenage Boy #2 “What about Sarah? She has some sexy legs, doesn’t she? If I were rating her on legs alone I will give her a 10! But unfortunately, she has flat chest and a flat butt so I have to give her a 4”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I agree with your rating of a 4 for Sarah – fantastic legs but not much else going for her.”

Teenage Boy #2 “Now Andrea – you have to admit she has the perfect body.  She has boobs – not too big and not too small.  She has a perfectly sculpted butt and legs to die for. The problem is the face.  Her nose is huge and her eyes just don’t look right. She is the very definition of a “butterface”.  I guess I would have to rate her as a 7 although I could never see marrying her because for me a woman has to have a pretty face”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Andrea a 10! I could overlook the face for that perfect of a body! And you did not even talk about her hair.  Come on from the back she has the most beautiful long hair you would ever see. Speaking of Andrea.  Yesterday she had the perfect blouse on. She came over near me in class to talk to one of her girlfriends and as she bent down on the desk to talk to her I got a glimpse of her cleavage. Holy cow did that make my day!”

Conversations like the one I have just described have occurred in various forms using different language among men both young and old, single and married all over the world since the beginning of creation.

So really, we have two types of locker-room talk that men engage in. One is limited to rating women’s sexual attractiveness by rating their various physical features.  The other goes beyond simply rating women’s sexual attractiveness and goes into joking about getting women to engage in sex outside of marriage or sexual assault.

The Harvard Soccer Team Scouting Report Scandal

“In what appears to have been a yearly team tradition, a member of Harvard’s 2012 men’s soccer team produced a document that, in sexually explicit terms, individually assessed and evaluated freshmen recruits from the 2012 women’s soccer team based on their perceived physical attractiveness and sexual appeal.

The author and his teammates referred to the nine-page document as a “scouting report,” and the author circulated the document over the group’s email list on July 31, 2012.

In lewd terms, the author of the report individually evaluated each female recruit, assigning them numerical scores and writing paragraph-long assessments of the women. The document also included photographs of each woman, most of which, the author wrote, were culled from Facebook or the Internet.

The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated…

The document and the entire email list the team used that season were, until recently, publicly available and searchable through Google Groups, an email list-serv service offered through Google.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/25/harvard-mens-soccer-2012-report/

Harvard’s response was quick and strong:

“The men’s soccer team had performed impressively this season. Harvard was ranked first in the Ivy League, and fifteenth nationwide, within striking distance of both the league tournament and the national N.C.A.A. tournament. There was a strong sense on campus that they had winning left to do. However, after learning that the scouting report was not a unique artifact but part of a tradition that has continued for years, and that members of the team had been less than transparent in their initial interviews, the university decided to cancel the rest of the men’s soccer season.”

This was part of the reaction of the women’s soccer team at Harvard:

“In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this. We are appalled that female athletes who are told to feel empowered and proud of their abilities are so regularly reduced to a physical appearance. We are distraught that mothers having daughters almost a half century after getting equal rights have to worry about men’s entitlement to bodies that aren’t theirs…”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/29/oped-soccer-report/

Here are some more other reactions to the scandal:

“Yet the soccer-team revelations are a sobering reminder that sexist behavior can’t easily be stamped out through rules, regulations, and imposed consequences alone. The problem with “locker-room talk,” whether it takes the form of Trump boasting about groping women or college students ranking the appeal of their peers, is that sexist speech normalizes sexist behavior. In the case of Harvard’s soccer team, what’s extraordinary is that the talk can’t be dismissed as casual or made in passing: it was co-authored, edited, and preserved as an official group record. While we might be resigned to encountering objectifying speech or behavior at a bar or a beer-soaked spring-break party, it’s sobering to see it codified in the form of a shared Google document. In effect, the scouting report became a set of instructions used, year after year, to dehumanize women.”

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-dehumanizing-sexism-of-the-harvard-mens-soccer-teams-scouting-report

“The nine-page report full of numeric ratings, photos, and evaluations is shocking in its mix of explicitness, thoroughness, and matter-of-factness. But it’s not surprising. The objectification of women combined with a male sense of entitlement is the kind of thinking that, taken a step further, leads to so many sexual assaults on so many college campuses…”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/11/15/starts-with-locker-room-talk-and-then-gets-worse/H05PWvytDLaGmrP3kXr8mN/story.html

So, in summary the men’s soccer team at Harvard kept a list of how the men’s team ranked various members of the women’s soccer team. This was a tradition dating back several years.  The women’s bodies were ranked in detail according to their various physical attributes, assigned code names and what would be their best potential sexual positions.

Harvard’s response was quick and merciless. They suspended the entire team and canceled the remainder of their season.

Was the Harvard Scouting Report Scandal an attack on women or an attack on men?

Let me first say that I agree that at the very least the Harvard men’s soccer team acted stupidly by placing such a document on a such a public venue as Google groups.  But even though they acted stupidly in this regard – no evidence has been presented that shows these team members ever meant for the collection of their sexual thoughts about these women to become public.

But let’s say they had not put the document on Google groups where it could easily be found. What if they had kept the document a closely guarded secret of the team? Would that have made any difference? I believe the answer is YES.

I am by no means saying that every word in this document made by the team was right by Biblical standards.

But the concept of young men ranking women by their sexual attractiveness is NOT an immoral practice or a violation of Biblical principles.

It is also not a crime or an immoral act for young men to privately discuss amongst themselves various physical attributes they like about women whether they know them personally or do not know them personally.

Here is the real truth about this situation that happened at Harvard.  Make no mistake the outrage here was not about a soccer team sexually ranking their female counterparts on the women’s soccer team.  This incident was simply used as a vehicle with which to allow women to vent their hatred for male sexuality.

Examining key words from the detractors of Harvard Men’s Soccer Team

“reality”

Both women and men know this is the reality of how male nature operates.  While some men may not vocalize their thoughts and many even condemn themselves for having such thoughts both sides acknowledge this as a reality.

“frustrated”

It is not uncommon for detractors of the male nature to be frustrated by the fact that they cannot change man’s design.

“entitlement”

This word was used in the context of men feeling they were entitled to these women’s bodies. Now as I have shown countless times on the blog from a Biblical perspective a husband is in fact “entitled” to his wife’s body.  But that is not what we are discussing here. We are referring to young men who are not married to these women feeling entitled to these women’s bodies.

The problem with this “entitlement” attack against these young men is that there is no language that has been revealed so far that indicates such a thing. Rather this word would apply more to the detractors of men for ranking women by their sexual attractiveness.  You see there are many in our culture today that feel they have a right to control the thoughts and feelings of others.  The truth is they do not.  And only when men willingly give up power over their own thoughts as so many have for the past century can others take power over the thoughts of men.

“sexist”

Webster’s online dictionary defines “sexism” as:

“1   :  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2    :  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

The fact is that it is no more “sexist” for men to privately discuss amongst themselves the physical attributes of women around them and rank their sexual appeal than it is for women to privately talk amongst themselves about their feelings on any given subject.  In other words, telling men not to talk sexually is the equivalent of telling women not to talk emotionally with one another.  Yet our culture fully condemns the former while uplifting the latter.

 “dehumanize”

When people refer to men “dehumanizing women” or “objectifying women” they are saying the same thing. They are implying that when a man finds a woman sexually attractive and speaks of her body and its various parts that he has reduced her to an inanimate object to be used and discarded as we would any other inanimate object.

But what these attackers of masculinity miss is that it does not dehumanize a person to view them for their “function” rather than their “person”. We do this all the time in many areas of life without realizing it.

When both men and women get together to assemble their fantasy football teams they are not looking at these football players for their personhood, but rather for their sports function.  What are each player’s strengths and weaknesses as it pertains to football?  That is all that matters in this scenario.

When a military commander puts together a special operations team he is not looking at the personhood of these men but rather their military function.  Each man has unique abilities and functions that when put together serves their intended overall function.

There are countless other examples where we look at people all the time for the potential functional ability in any given scenario yet we do not look down at these other types of objectification.

So, it is ok to make a fantasy list of real football players and rank them based on their potential football ability yet it is seen as morally repugnant for men to make a list of women at their school and rank their bodies based on their sexual appeal and fantasize about their sexual ability?  Do we not see the inconsistency here?

The fact is it does NOT dehumanize a person to see them for their function – whether it be their potential athletic ability, singing ability, fighting ability (as in military members) or women for their sexual appeal and potential ability to bring sexual pleasure to a man.

Yes men naturally see women as objects to be enjoyed for their sexual pleasure. However it is precisely because the vast majority of men ALSO see women as persons that they do not  just grab women and try to have sex with them. Rapists only see women as objects of sexual pleasure and not also as persons and this is the huge difference.

“assault”

The last word I want to discuss from the detractors of male sexuality is the word “assault”.  The implication is that if men feel free to sexually rank women that this would lead men to sexually assault women.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The same logic is used by those who attack men for looking at and enjoying pornography.  One of the attacks against porn use by men has been something like this “men who sexually assaulted women all report looking at some type of porn first”.  We are then lead to believe that one lead to the other.

But this is akin to saying “all rapists and molesters ate food.  Therefore, eating food causing people to become rapists”.  The point is this line of logic is utterly ridiculous.

If a man sexually assaults or rapes a woman it was because it was always in his heart to do this . It was only a matter of the right opportunity arising and him getting up the nerve to act on his evil desires.   Watching porn did not cause him to do it and neither did sexually ranking women cause him to do it.  It was there all the time.

The reality is that the vast majority of men who watch porn or sexually rank women never assault a woman and don’t even entertain fantasies of assaulting women.  They entertain fantasies of consensual sex – not rape.

What if the Harvard women’s soccer team had done something like this?

Imagine if the women’s soccer team had assigned each one of its members to research the personalities and various characteristics of each of the male soccer players and they made a similar list from a female perspective?

I am sure it would be have been far less sexual and more personality oriented.  This because of the difference of how women operate from men.  Women for the most part are relational and men are physical. I don’t doubt that on some level even if it was never documented that some of the women’s soccer team members did talk about various men on the men’s soccer team as to which ones they found attractive and why.

But I doubt even if the women had ranked the men’s team even in a more feminine(so more personality and less sexual way) nothing would have happened.  If the list was made public everyone would have had a good laugh and nothing would have happened.

The Christian response to “locker-room talk”

Karen Prior writing for Christianity today wrote the following comment in her article entitled “Call Out Locker Room Talk for the Sin That It Is”:

“Now the current debate over “locker room talk,” I’m happy to report, highlights our decreasing acceptance of the old, broken morality that “boys will be boys.” …

Not long ago, my husband, a public high school teacher and coach, was in a car with two of his students. One spotted a female jogger up ahead and made a couple of lascivious comments. To the boy’s surprise, my husband responded by pulling up alongside the jogger, lowering the passenger side window where the student was sitting, and saying to him, “I’d like you to meet my wife.”

It’s a funny story. But it’s funny only because of how it ended. That “locker room talk” turned into a teachable moment for a man-in-the-making: make that two men-in the making, because after driving away, the second boy, seated wide-eyed in the back seat the entire time, asked my husband if he was going to “beat up” the other boy for what he said. Instead, my husband sternly but lovingly lectured both students, first about respecting women and then about resolving conflicts peacefully. What my husband did in that moment is what all good men must rise up and do when locker room talk enters the conversation.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/october/call-out-locker-room-talk-for-sin-it-is.html

The opinion of this Christian writer would probably be very common amongst most Christians.  “Locker-room talk” in all its forms whether it be comments like Donald Trump’s or even seemingly less comments about a woman’s behind are equally sinful their opinion.

She mentions that the young man made some “lascivious comments” about the jogger (which he did not realize was the coach’s wife). I am going to take a guess at what the young man may have said.

“Look at the body on that woman. Her butt is amazing”.

Now is this a “lascivious comment” by Biblical standards?

Lasciviousness” is the old English word for what we now call “sensuality”.  It was a translation of the Greek word “Aselgeia” which literally means “out of control” or “over indulgence”.  What it was referring to was someone who had an addiction or overindulged in some type of physical pleasure and it was not restricted to sexually related pleasure.  A drunkard would be guilty of engaging in “Aselgeia”. While thinking about sex or even enjoying the view of beautiful women whether in person or in print or on a screen is not sinful it can become sinful if it becomes obsessive and the central focus of our life.  When our pursuit of any earthly pleasure causes us to neglect our relationship with God, our spouse, our children or our other responsibilities then something that was not sinful at first can become sinful.

But make no mistake – a man enjoying the physical pleasure of a plate of food at his favorite restaurant as well as that boy enjoying the sight of that beautiful jogger is not lascivious, lustful or sinful.

There is a common belief amongst Christians that if a man is sexually aroused by, has thoughts about or speaks words reflecting his arousal and thoughts about a woman he is not married to that this is sinful behavior.  Some may not call it lascivious as this writer did.  They may instead call it lustful. But the problem with such thinking is there is absolutely no Scriptural backing for such a position.  It is based on culture, opinion and peer pressure alone.

The fact is that God designed male sexuality and no he did not originally design some magical switch in men that they would only be aroused by a woman once they were married.  Some people actually believe this ridiculous theory because they cannot accept the male visual and physical arousal mechanisms as God given. It is a sin, in their view, for a person to experience or exercise any part of their sexuality before being married. This is why they preach so hard against masturbation and sexual fantasy.

Now lest someone get the wrong idea.  I teach on this blog what the Bible teaches.  The only sexual relations God honors are between a man and woman in the holy covenant of marriage as the book of Hebrews states:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

But young people experiencing and exercising their sexuality, rather than sexual relations, before marriage is NOT forbidden.  There is no sin in a young man or young woman experiencing sexual pleasure from a sexual dream or sexual thought about a person of the opposite sex.  It is what we do with those thoughts that become sinful.  It is when we allow our sexual arousal to turn in sexual covetousness which is what lust is. It is when we start thinking about how we can convince someone to have sex outside of marriage.

But aren’t men engaging in impure speech when they talk about sexually related things?

The most common phrase that is assigned by Christian leaders to men talking together about women in a sexual manner is the word “impure”.  These thoughts about women’s body parts or about sexual fantasies about women are said to be “impure”.

There are many articles on Christian websites that exhort men to not engage in any sexual thoughts(fantasies) or sexually explicit speech with other men so that they may remain pure.  Here are some common verses that are used to support this position.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. “

Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

Ephesians 5:3-5 (KJV)

So here is what happens in the typical church men’s youth group or young college men’s class.

They are told that sexual talk between men that compare’s women’s bodies or talks about women’s body parts or any talk of sexual fantasies is by definition “impure”, “filthy” or “dirty” talk.  Then the speaker will ask men “Can you honestly say when you are talking about those women’s bodies that are speaking in a pure way? Is that a lovely way to speak about women? Or is it dirty and disrespectful? We all know the answer that is impure speech based on impure thoughts”.

If you have been raised in most Christian churches you will recognize this speech or a variation of it.

If you as a Christian man ever hear this speech about Christian men engaging in impure speech in connection with men talking sexually about women here are some questions you should ask the teacher or speaker when they open the room for questions or discussion.

“How do you know that talking about women’s body parts is impure speech? Where does the Bible call such speech by men impure?”

If the teacher responds with Matthew 5:28 that “Well Jesus said that if a man looks with lust on woman then he is committing adultery in his heart”.  Then you can respond with these questions for your teacher about lust.

“But what is lust? Doesn’t the Bible tell us in Romans 7:7 that lust is covetousness? And isn’t covetousness the desire to unlawfully possess something that does not belong to us? Where does the Bible teach that sexual arousal, sexual fantasy or talking about women’s bodies or body parts is lust?”

At this point your teacher’s head will be spinning because unfortunately most Christian teachers simply parrot what they have been taught in their church, college or seminary.   I understand that many of these preachers and teachers are good men with good intentions.  They only want to please God with their lives. But because of how they been indoctrinated both by their church as well as our culture they cannot see sexual talk between men as anything less than dirty or impure.

They might for good measure throw one more verse at you to try and support their faulty belief that men sexually ranking women’s bodies is dirty and impure.

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

Job 31:1

There is actually a website called CovenantEyes.com that bases it’s mission on this verse. They and other Christians claim that Job was saying in this verse that he made a covenant with eyes never to think sexually about a woman he was not married to.

The problem is the Scripture don’t say that. We agree that men can have wrong thoughts about women.  But we disagree on what those wrong thoughts are. So here is how you answer you teacher if he brings up Job’s covenant with his eyes not to think upon a maid:

“Sir should we not be careful of adding to God’s Word? We know that Job was saying he would not think about something about a woman.  What does the Bible tell us we should not think about regarding women? It tells us not to think about seducing virgin women to have sex with us outside of marriage right? It tells us not to engage in prostitution right? So we should not think about seeing prostitutes right? It tells us not to think about seducing our neighbor’s wife right? So how can we add something to wrong thoughts that God never adds? Are you not adding a condemnation of men  talking about women’s bodies to God’s Word?”

I have actually had this conversation with several pastors both in email and some of my friends on the phone.  They never have clear answers to these questions because they have never questioned the Christian culture they have been raised in.

But isn’t it wrong to compare women’s beauty or say one woman is not as attractive as another?

There are some people – both Christian and non-Christian who believe it is morally wrong to ever directly compare two women and say one is more attractive than the other.  But the Bible shows us this is not the case:

“Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.”

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

We don’t know exactly what “tender eyed” meant but we know whatever it meant – it is was the opposite of “beautiful and well favoured” which is what Rachel was.

God literally told us in his word that Rachel was hot and Leah was not.

But in this area of rating beauty we as men need to practice discretion. God was not saying we should walk up to two women and say to one “You know she is so much better looking than you!”.  That is not the right time and place for a man to express such a thought.

Now if you were with your guy friends alone and you wanted to express the fact that you thought one sister was hot and the other was not there would be no sin in that. Again, so many things in the Christian life come down to time and place.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV)

What was the lesson those boys could have learned?

If that coach had understood what the true meaning of lust and lascivious are in the Bible he could have had a very different conversation with those boys.  Instead of scolding that boy for his God given male sexuality he could have helped him to understand it and channel it.

The right way to handle that scenario could have gone as follows.

After the comments the boy made about how sexy the jogger was the coach still could have pulled over and introduced the woman as his wife.  Of course, the boy would blush and feel embarrassed as he did in the actual story.

Then when the other boy asked him if he was going to “beat him up” for what he said he could have said “Why would I beat him up for having the same thoughts about my wife that I did when I first met her?” He could have been honest about his male sexuality instead of hiding and condemning himself and every other man for having the same nature.  Contrary to popular belief today – the masculine sexual nature is not equivalent to the sin nature. Has man’s masculine nature been corrupted by sin just as woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin? Yes.  But in its original design the masculine nature is a beautiful nature.

The coach could have then helped the boy who made the comments about his wife’s body with these words:

“It is normal for you to have these thoughts about women.  God gave you these desires.  God is the one who designed your brain to give you pleasure signals when you see a beautiful woman like my wife.  But you need to channel that God given gift and don’t misuse it. It is one thing for you to privately say to me and other guys what you find attractive in various women’s bodies.  But it would have been very different if you had yelled out the window to that jogger – “He babe you got a nice ass!” as you go barreling by in your car. That would be disrespectful behavior toward women.

Also, I want to address the whole “do I want to beat him up” question you asked. It is one thing If you know that a woman is married or in a relationship with the man you are with then you need to be careful of your words with him about her.  He may be sensitive about men complimenting his wife’s beauty.  Now if he seems to invite you to tell him what you find attractive about his wife then it may be ok but still be careful.

But there is a lesson for you if you are the man whose woman that is. How can you be angry at another man for having the EXACT same thoughts you know you had about your girlfriend or wife? It is extremely hypocritical and illogical for you to do so.  Now if that man is flirting with your girlfriend or wife or acting like he wants to seduce them that is a whole other story.  You have a right to be angry then.  But even then, we don’t settle these kinds of differences with violence.  We use our words – not our fists.

I also want you to realize that while it is ok for you to exercise your God given male sexuality by enjoying the sight of and thoughts about beautiful women and even masturbation – it is not ok to have sex outside of marriage.  You need to guard your thoughts from being just sexually pleasurable to being sexually lustful.  You need to keep yourself from being in sexually tempting positions with girls that you date where you will be tempted to have sex outside of marriage.”

Now what I have just described would have been a healthy and Biblically based conversation about male sexuality.  Instead those two boys walked away feeling condemned for being aroused by that beautiful jogger.

Conclusion

Male sexuality has been assaulted in many ways since shortly after the birth of Christian asceticism during the life of the Apostles. While Christianity today has shook off many parts of Christian asceticism remnants of it remain in our Christian culture.  Not only that but our secular cultural which has been poisoned by feminism attacks male sexuality as well.  So, in way men are getting double teamed by Church leaders as well as secular feminist leaders.

I can’t tell you how encouraging it has been to me to receive emails from Pastors, teachers and Christian men and women from all over the world whose are eyes are finally being opened to false attacks on male sexuality.

Young men are actually joining in small groups to discuss my writings on this subject of male sexuality from a Biblical perspective.

As I said earlier in this article –  I do not agree with Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk” comments.  He was joking about trying to get women to commit adultery and sexual assault and neither of these topics should be joked about by men.

But this does not make all “locker-room talk” by men sinful.  Men certainly need to practice discretion with how they engage in this talk.  The men’s soccer team at Harvard did not practice discretion when the put their “Scouting Report” on a publicly available server where someone might find it.

But if men practice the Biblical principle of “time and place”(Ecclesiastes 3:1) and speak about women’s bodies amongest themselves in way that does not joke about sinful behavior(as Donald Trump did) then there is no sin in this.  No man should ever be ashamed of such speech when it is done in the right place and right time.

And for my Christian friends who will say “whatever you say in private you should be able to say in public” there is no Biblical principle or command that backs up such a statement. In fact it is wise and godly to hold our tongue on a host of issues and speak to people privately about certain things.  And from a marriage front I would bet each and every one of these people would not want their private sexually related speech with their spouses made public.  So this argument that just because you need to reserve certain speech for controlled settings that it is wrong has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

I do believe though that these events with Donald Trump and the “Scouting Report” incident at Harvard provide us with a great opportunity to call out the misuse of the male sexual nature but at the same time make a strong defense of the male sexual nature as God intended it to be.

 

Working class Americans give Trump the Presidency

In a historic presidential election like none we have seen in the past century white working class Americans(both men and women) propelled Donald Trump to victory.

For decades the white working class voting block had been successfully divided by Democrats and Republicans so it was often ignored as a voting block.  Instead politicians pandered to other voting blocks.

On the Republican side fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians were courted as their primary base.  On the Democratic side blacks, hispanics, the LGBTQ community, teachers unions and workers unions were courted.

But Donald Trump saw something no one else did.  A way to create a new coalition made up of people from the various voting blocks that both Republicans and Democrats were courting.

He saw the working class American voting block as a block of voters that had been ignored since Ronald Reagan was president.  The Democrats were tapping into only a part of this block in courting working class union workers.  Donald Trump saw that there was a vastly larger block if he targeted both union and and non-union working class Americans as one large group.

“Race, as is often the case, played a major role in the election. For much of the election, commentators, particularly in the dominant Eastern media, seemed to be openly celebrating what CNN heralded as “the decline of the white voter.” The “new America,” they suggested, would be a coalition of minorities, educated workers and millennials.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#24c222ca79a8

But Donald Trump knew that in order to win he could not win with whites alone as he would never get 100% of the white vote.  So Trump targeted the black community and he actually did increase by a small margin the number of blacks voting Republican.  Even for those blacks who did not vote for Trump – he planted enough seeds of doubt about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that for many blacks if they did not vote for Trump, they stayed home.

He made a great deal of promises to help the black community and if he carries through on even half these pledges he will likely grow the number of black voters voting Republican in the next election.

He also peeled off a few millennials as well and in doing so he cut into the new democratic coalition “of minorities, educated workers and millennials” while at the same time cutting into a traditional democratic strong hold – union workers.

In doing all this Donald Trump took states that had not been taken since Ronald Reagan took them in the 1980s. He did not hide this strategy but proclaimed that he would expand the Republican base in this way all through the primaries.

And make no mistake this election was about a lot more than getting more people to vote for Republicans than Democrats.  It was about changing the way  Americans think.

Donald Trump basically asked Americans these questions:

Would you rather have a job and be able to earn your own way than receiving a government check for doing nothing but breathing?

Do you want your government to protect your country not only from military and terrorist threats but also from economic threats?

Do you want your government to stop it’s policy of unchecked and unregulated immigration?

Many voters answered a resounding YES to all three of these questions. For millions of voters this election was not about Republicans and Democrats but instead it was about these very important policy questions that affect lives of every day Americans.

But the sad fact of American politics is that except for whites, all the other races in our country seem to vote pretty monolithically for the socialist and globalist policies of the Democratic party.   If Donald Trump is to succeed in protecting the American people and our economy and return us to a lasting prosperity and freedom he will have to find a way to break up the monolithic voting patterns of these other racial groups.

With all this being said I am very excited at this historic opportunity.  Since George H. W. Bush in 1989 we have had an unending string of moderate Republican Presidents or Presidential candidates.  Both George W. Bush and his father, as well as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney were all moderates.  They did not want to make vast sweeping changes in the government or our policies.  All of them were soft on immigration and all of them were globalists and free traders.

Now we finally have a President who will stand up to the entrenched bureaucracy in D.C. in a way that perhaps no President in our history ever has.  We finally have a President that will return to the historic position of Presidents from a century ago who believed that the government needs to protect the people not only militarily, but also economically.

After decades of deregulating our immigration rules and the utter failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws we finally have a President who will bring law and order not only to our cities but also to our borders.

He will appoint Judges to Supreme Court and other Federal courts who will upload the founders original intent.  Hopefully we finally have a President who will protect the religious freedom of our people from the onslaught of secularism.

Rather than continuing the values that have lead to the weakening of our culture ,economy and military hopefully Donald Trump will return us to the original values that made this country great.

But in the end Donald Trump is just a man, an instrument that God has allowed to come to power.  Ultimately as believers our hope must continue to be in God.

Image Source: Gage Skidmore