I’ve Made My Decision for Election 2016
A number of months ago I likened the 2016 presidential election to the National Football League.
I said that there were many good teams (sixteen Republican candidates) and I wanted to see them compete in the regular season (early debates and campaigning).
Then they would fight it out in the playoffs (early voting states) and then I would decide who I was going to support.
That was then and this is now.
I’ve already made my decision for 2016.
I’ve also made my football pick as the NFL playoffs begin. A number of good teams that will compete in the wild-card round, then the division playoffs, and the conference championships to earn a spot in the Super Bowl. I believe it’s possible that New England, Denver, Carolina, and Arizona could go all the way.
But you heard it here first: The Seattle Seahawks will win the 50th Superbowl on February 7, 2016.
Now back to the more important contest.
Leaders don’t ultimately determine the fate of nations, but they can influence either their revival and prosperity or their decline and malaise. Many examples stand out of how godly kings were instruments of renewal in early Israel and Judah (e.g. David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah). There are also examples of bad leadership that led to national demise (e.g. Rehoboam, Jereboam, Ahab and Manasseh).
However, it is the people that ultimately determine the fate of nations and civilizations. And since we don’t have many kings in our day (though some might disagree with me on that), but rather vote for whom we want to represent us in leadership positions, it’s even clearer that the folks are in the driver’s seat.
We elect bad leaders when we ourselves are uninformed and apathetic. We elect good leaders when we are wise and engaged. Modern-day elections are a “mirror” on the righteousness or immorality of the majority (or influential minority) of a nation.
In 2016, We, the People of the United States have a big decision to make for president of the United States.
I’ve voted for a number of Democrats in my lifetime and I wish I would have voted against Richard Nixon in 1972 when I first voted in a presidential election.
But this year that won’t be a consideration.
Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner on the Democratic side, but I couldn’t vote for her due to reasons I will soon share. Bernie Sanders is a very passionate man, but he is energetic about the wrong things (getting Big Government to control more of our lives). His brand of socialism is usually the second-to-the-last-stop on the train wreck of national destruction–just above either communism or dictatorship.
America doesn’t need an increased bloating of statism.
Martin O’Malley is a decent former governor, but doesn’t have any traction. I predict that Clinton and Sanders will duke it out for a number of months and Clinton will emerge as the nominee–if she’s not indicted by the Justice Department for her personal e-mail charade.
Then, all bets are off on the Dems side.
So, I’m going to support and vote for a Republican. I don’t like some aspects of the Republican Party which, in many ways, has become “Progressive-Lite” in Washington D.C.
But this year there is no alternative. Historically, the Rs have stood for faith, family, God, life, freedom, smaller government, and fighting evil more than the other party.
George Washington was Republican in “heart”and our greatest president (“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen”–Henry Lee). Abraham Lincoln was second, and the very first Republican president who saved the Union and abolished slavery.
Another admirable Republican was Ronald Reagan whose economic and military policies ultimately brought down the Evil Empire (USSR) which enslaved half the world in the 20th century.
What made these men good presidents and what is my criteria for choosing our next leader?
The measuring stick has three clear lines on it:
1. Character–usually influenced by their faith in God. Are they men or women of faith, integrity, justice, compassion, fairness, humility and other godly characteristics? That’s my number one citeria because, in the end, right makes might as Lincoln famously said. Since righteousness exalts a nation (Proverbs 14:34) then righteous leaders are needed to renew it and guide it.
2. Competence. Does the prospective leader have a strong leadership resume and experience? Do they know how to lead and inspire people? Have they served admirably in either the private or public sector and do they have the skills to guide one of the largest nations on earth?
3. Policies are the final leg to the “Good Leadership Stool.” Will the new president’s ideas strengthen and encourage faith in God, promote strong marriages and families, ignite economic growth and opportunity, stand for life and justice, and protect the American people and bring blessings to other nations?
I also take into account factors which include campaign organization, elect ability, diversity, the need of the hour, and other considerations.
With that in mind, I’m enthusiastically supporting Ted Cruz in 2016.
Ted is a man of strong evangelical faith and consistent character. He has a tremendous resume as an attorney, Solicitor General of Texas, and US Senator who has uniquely fought the Washington establishment. He is a skilled orator and debater–maybe the best in the field as seen in the debates. And his policies are right down the line in favor of faith, family and freedom.
He is young, vibrant, would be our first Hispanic president, and has the best grassroots organization to win in the entire country.
Showing breadth of support, his campaign raised $47 million in 2015 which included nearly 700,000 small donors (we are one of them). Those donors cover 66% of all US zip codes.
Ted Cruz has state leadership teams–1,400 strong in membership–in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, and Washington. They’ve also announced state chairs in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Idaho, and California.
In the first four primary and caucus states–Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada–the Cruz team has county chairmen in place in all 171 counties. And after the first four states, they have congressional district coordinators in place in each of the 163 congressional districts that comprise the 24 states that hold their primary or caucus before March 15th.
Additionally, the state teams have access to over 175,000 volunteers across the nation who have signed up to help make Ted Cruz the next president. That’s why Politico says: “Cruz has Trump and the rest of the field beat on organization.”
For that and the big three reasons, I’m voting for Ted Cruz.
If he’s able to become our next president, I’d like to see him put together a “Dream Team” of other leaders (such as Ronald Reagan did in 1980) to help bring a needed jolt of reformation to our government. How about these, or like appointments?
- Marco Rubio as his running mate–fellow Senator, Latino with a Catholic background and great vision and speaking skills.
- Donald Trump as Secretary of State (how would you like him negotiating with the ayatollahs?).
- Lindsey Graham as Secretary of Defense.
- Ben Carson as Surgeon General.
- Chris Christy as Attorney General.
- Rudy Guliani as head of Homeland Security.
- Carly Fiorina as Commerce Secretary or Technology Czar.
- Jeb Bush as Secretary of Energy.
- John Kasich as head of Health and Human Services.
- Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel.
- John Bolton as UN Ambassador.
- Dana Perrino as Press Secretary.
- Franklin Graham as Counselor to the President.
- Paul Ryan continuing as Speaker of the House.
- Ron Paul serving as Federal Reserve Chairman.
- and Rand Paul taking over from his fellow Kentuckian as Senate Majority Leader.
I think you get the idea.
Of course both the Seahawks and Ted Cruz might not win. That’s okay. May the very best man or woman rise to the challenge.
But I’ve made my decision and encourage you to make yours.
Ted Cruz for US president in 2016.
It’s All About the Koran
Islamic jihad visited the United States again last week in San Bernardino, California when a radicalized young Muslim American and his Pakistani wife burst into a seminar/Christmas party and cold-bloodedly killed fourteen innocent Americans and wounded twenty-one others.
It was the second largest terrorist attack on American soil after the infamous 9-11 carnage in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania fourteen years ago.
The San Bernardino killers died in a police shootout, the FBI is frantically scanning the world to try and understand who was involved, and many politicians are expressing their opinions on what should be done.
Today, I will state mine.
It’s all about the Koran.
Though the first days following the terrorist attack centered on the hideous bloodbath itself, soon the narrative changed to a potpourri of concerns.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump started a media fire storm by saying that he wanted a pause in all Muslim travel to America until “we figured out what was going on.” He was denounced by many Republican contenders and also by the Democrats and mainstream media. White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that Mr. Trump’s statement should “disqualify him from becoming president.”
Others chimed in their usual chorus about gun control. But all the guns were purchased legally in a tough gun control state–California. Terrorism can’t be stopped by taking guns away from the good guys.
Bad guys will always find guns.
President Obama weighed on the tragedy giving a rare Sunday night message from the Oval Office. His words offered no new strategy for defeating ISIS and the Islamic jihad movement and he even lectured the American people about being careful not to demean all Muslims.
African-American economist Thomas Sowell gave this critique of the president’s speech:
“The president struck a familiar chord when he emphasized that we shouldn’t blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. How many people have you heard blaming all Muslims?”
“Even if 90 percent of all Muslims are fine people, and we admit 10,000 refugees from the Middle East, does that mean that we need not be concerned about adding a thousand potential terrorists — even after we have seen in San Bernardino what just two terrorists can do?”
“The first responsibility of any government is to protect the people already in the country. Even in this age of an entitlement mentality, no one in a foreign country is entitled to be in America if the American people don’t want them here.”
“Obama’s talk about how we should not make religious distinctions might make sense if we were talking about handing out entitlements. But we are talking about distinguishing between different populations posing different levels of danger to the American people.”
Score one for Sowell.
Senator Ben Sasse, the junior senator from Nebraska, gave a passionate speech from San Bernardino that was strong on the nature of freedom, the importance of respecting all non-violent religious views, and labeling the jihad for what it really is.
You can listen to Ben Sasse’s message here. It’s worth four minutes of your time.
And then there was all the talk about being “radicalized”, who’s really a Muslim, should we screen people out of the West based on religion, and what should we do about the growing Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.
In my opinion, all the talk and analysis does not get to the heart of either understanding or solving the the problem of Islamic jihad.
It’s all about the Koran–and what the Muslim world must do about it.
I have a new book coming out next year on the five major views of God (religions) in the world. The book is called “The River of God: Discovering the Source of the World’s Major Religions and Why Only One of Them Can Be True.” I believe it will make a contribution to the debate about Islam–what it is and what it’s not.
I started studying the Muslim faith some forty years ago when I purchased a paperback copy of the Koran and read it from cover to cover. Then more recently, when I was doing research for “The River of God,” I again purchased a Koran to give it a second read.
So I’ve read all the words of the Koran two times. That gives me a little familiarity that most people don’t possess to make some observations.
You can’t comprehend Islamic jihad until you’ve understood and read the Koran.
Some people compare the Koran to the Bible–as if they are equal–one being the “Holy Book” of Islam and the other “The Scriptures” of the Christian faith. No, the Bible and the Koran are as non-comparable as “Mary Had a Little Lamb” and “Handel’s Messiah:”
- The Bible is a library of 66 books written over two thousand years by over forty authors. This breadth of confirmation makes it unique among books and clearly inspired. The Koran is a book of “writings or recitations” by one man over twenty-two years and compiled forty years after his death.
- The Bible describes the origins of man and earth, the history of the Jewish nation, contains four eye-witness accounts of the coming of the Messiah Jesus (Isa in Arabic), the history of the Early Church and its mission, contains inspiring prophetic books and clearly describes the end of time (Revelation). The Koran contains few of these things and sports numerous historical errors.
- The Bible contains beautiful poetry, songs, and wisdom literature and shares some of the most memorable sayings and parables the world has even heard. The Koran has nothing memorable and is very poorly written.
- The Bible speaks of a God of love who came to earth to die and redeem humanity from their rebellion and sin. The Koran describes a warring and distant God who tells his followers in 109 different war verses to kill others to advance their cause. Here are three examples from the Koran: “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them” (Sura 4:89). “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Sura 9:123). “When you meet unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Sura 47:4).
- Muslims don’t like to translate the Koran into other languages because it is an embarrassment. Followers of Christ are passionately trying to translate the Bible into all 7,000 languages that all might come to know the Savior.
Let’s first of all admit that the Bible and the Koran are not the same. The Bible is a symphony of revelation. The Koran is not. That’s the simple truth.
And the Koran is at the heart of the problem with Islam. Those doing terrorism and promoting “holy war” in the world today are reading and taking seriously Mohammed’s poorly written book.
You saw the Koran on the table of the killer’s home in San Bernardino.
The Koran is the problem.
Let’s also be honest about those who call themselves Muslims around the world–both Sunni and Shiite. First of all, most of them are peaceful people who don’t believe in killing innocent folks if left to their consciences and sensibilities.
Most human beings don’t murder people.
Secondly, many Muslims in the 55 Muslim-majority nations (primarily in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia) and also scattered elsewhere are “nominal” in their beliefs. They may or may not attend a mosque. They have a general belief in Allah and some of the moral principles of their tradition.
But they don’t sanction murder, sharia law, and other hard core teachings of the Koran (Writings), Hadith (Traditions) or Sunna (Practices) found in Islamic theocracies.
Most Muslims in the world are peaceful people or nominal followers. We don’t need to fear them–and freedom of expression is theirs in all free societies as Senator Sasse affirms.
It’s the other group of Muslims we are fighting–the ones that follow the Koran. These include ISIS, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the imams and spiritual leaders in numerous Muslim nations.
The greatest freedom threat to the world right now is the ISIS caliphate. They are ruthless killers who must be defeated militarily.
That’s the role of governments.
But when we think of global Islam, what one thing should be encouraged that could positively influence its one billion followers?
Rejecting the Koran. Starting an Islamic Reformation that repudiates the false teachings of Mohammed.
Muslims can keep four of their five pillars of faith:
- Prayer (Salah). Talking to God (Allah is the generic word for God in Arabic) is a good thing.
- Fasting (Sawm). Usually done during Ramadan to focus on dying to fleshly desires.
- Giving (Zakat). Encouraged by all people and beliefs.
- Pilgrimage (Hajj). Maybe this is a stretch, but allow the trip to include Jerusalem and other sacred parts of the Middle East.
But Number One must go–the Confession (Shahadah). Mohammed’s jihadi words and actions are not inspired and he and his book must be rejected.
“Submission to God” (Islam) is good. The Koran’s distortion of God’s true nature and false methods of submission are not.
Let’s expose the Koran. Read it for yourself. Then encourage peaceful Muslims to break its chains and reject its murderous violence (and slavery, subjugation of women etc.). Let’s expose mosques that preach venom. Let’s work for a needed reformation of Islam all over the world.
And finally, let’s pray that all Muslims worldwide add one crucial pillar to their understanding:
“God so loved the world that He gave His Only Son (Isa). That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The Climate Change Fraudaville Show Does Paris
I have written or re-printed a number of articles on “global warming” or “climate change” over the past few years. At the least. these phrases are unproven and inconsequential, and at the worst they are the biggest fraud ever forced upon the people of Planet Earth.
This week nearly 150 world leaders gathered near Paris for what is being billed as a last-chance summit to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Here’s the simple truth about the climate change fraud show.
Regarding the conference in Paris, left-leaning NPR (National Public Radio) spokeswoman Eleanor Beardsley said about the biggest diplomatic meeting in France since 1948:
“French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius welcomed the 147 world leaders and more than 45,000 participants as he opened the U.N. climate conference. It is the first time developing nations will also commit to reducing emissions. But they will rely on funding from richer countries. 2015 is so far the hottest year on record. Scientists warn if nothing is done, the planet will suffer rising sea levels, more floods, worsening drought, water shortages, storms and other catastrophic events.”
And at the kickoff in Paris, President Barack Obama remarked, “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”
Another stop on the apology tour and soaring empty rhetoric.
Two weeks before Paris, a more truthful gathering took place in Austin, Texas on November 19th that was conveniently overlooked by NPR and the drive-by media. Here are the highlights from that conference, after which I will state the plain facts about the climate change fraud.
(Note that the scientists who came to Austin are from places like MIT and Princeton–not fringe group crazies.)
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Based On Nonsense, and Leading Us Down a False Path
By Mark Morano, Climate Depot
A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”
“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said. Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind. “People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.
“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming.
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and be free to say ‘So what?’”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued. “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase. “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added. Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”
“If you can see it, it’s not CO2. “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.” Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2! “We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.
“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued. “The deserts are greening from rising CO2.”
There you have it from some honest, eminent scientists.
Why then the climate change circus in Paris? Here are the real reasons for this scientific charade:
1. It is being led by the United Nations to promote one world governance that will regulate the planet. Never trust the UN on anything consequential. The UN is anti-American. anti-freedom and controlled by tyrants.
2. It is a new way to raise taxes which are in short supply in many national economies. Governments already tax your purchases, income, property, vehicles, and dozens of other things, but Big Government needs more to satisfy its voracious appetite. Global taxes on carbon is their new windfall (no pun intended).
3. One of liberalism’s normal scare tactics is to make “the folks” feel guilty about their actions (driving cars that are too big or not having enough solar panels), then coming to the rescue to “solve the problem.” The elites think they are smarter than the people (free markets). They are almost always wrong.
4. The essence of the “Paris Plan” is to transfer billions of dollars from the wealthy economies of the world to the non-productive poorer nations. This global income redistribution scheme won’t really elevate the poor (global free markets would do that) but rather raise prices and lower living standards in the West.
5. It is a means to the end of controlling the world. And you know who is behind control (tyranny): Satan’s kingdom of darkness.
You also know who is behind liberty and freedom: God’s eternal kingdom of light and love.
Let’s reject once and for all the climate change fraud. Maybe we can then concentrate on fighting evil in the world, bringing poorer nations into the blessings of freedom and prosperity, and pointing people to Jesus.
He never changes.