General

Today as we prayerfully remember the unspeakable tragedy of 9-11, I am reminded that one of the strategies of the satanic world is get human beings to use words in manipulative ways to cover up the reality of destruction.

As the doomed planes were bearing down on Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the hijackers purportedly shouted out “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great).

These words sounded lofty and good, but they really meant “You are about to die!”

This deceptive demonic strategy continues in many forms. Especially during this political season, we must ask God for discernment when we hear certain “words.” To the casual ear they may sound helpful and right.

But they are really code words for destruction.

Of course, the tactic of saying one thing while meaning another goes all the way back to the beginning of time.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden used a clever verbal smokescreen to deceive Adam & Eve. He deliberately lied to them, saying, “Did God actually say ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?’ and then assured them that if they did eat of the fruit, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:1,4).

It was a lie. When they disobeyed, they immediately experienced “death” (spiritual separation from God), and eventually that led to physical death which was a consequence of their transgression.

They had been fooled by words that sounded right and pleasant. They had failed to comprehend their true meaning. Thus the words were simply code words for their own destruction.

There are many code words in the current political debate. I will highlight a few of them and pray that God would lift the veil from many eyes.

Choice

This word was heard scores of times at a recent political convention. Many speakers, most of them women, applauded the concept of “choice” as “reproductive freedom,” “a woman’s right to choose” and many other positive spins.

Of course, the word “choice” is a decent word in itself. God uses it frequently in the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 30:19, he tells us, “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!”

So God believes in choice. But, of course, in the Deuteronomy passage, the choice is “life.”

In a recent political convention it was exactly the opposite.

It’s amazing to me how “choice” has become some kind of virtuous code word for abortion. We believe in “choice, choice, choice” as if there’s something noble in choosing itself. However, there’s no morality in the idea of choice. The morality comes over what you choose.

So what are the feminists celebrating when they champion choice? I’m a straightforward guy and like to ask simple questions. What are they choosing? The honest answer is “I’m choosing an abortion.” Going a little further, with greater honesty, we might ask, “What actually happens in the choice to abort?” The truthful answer is, “I kill my baby.”

So choice is really death. I’m choosing to kill my own child (for a variety of personal reasons).

Here’s the bottom line of the abortion debate: You’re either pro-life (letting your child be born and live) or you’re pro-death (willing to kill your own offspring for almost any reason). That’s the true way to frame the argument. You are not pro-choice–which is a verbal hoax. You are pro-killing innocent babies.

Remember that the next time you hear the “choice” mantra.

Choice is a code word for destroying defenseless human beings.

Entitled

This is a word that is also being used extensively today, and the discussion will continue because it is a huge problem in United States and the Western world. We have been taught by our governments that we are “entitled” to certain monies for Social Security, Medicare, disabilities, food stamps, or other government benefits.

Another way of stating this is that you “deserve” something from the state.

Some of this is proper. In the case of Social Security, most people have contributed to a fund where, if the government was honest, the money should have been invested, caused a good return, and should be given back to the worker in their latter years of life.

So, for example, if you paid $200,000 in SS taxes over a lifetime, and it was invested properly, then you deserve to receive that amount plus interest when you retire.

But it is mostly a charade, and at the least, an abysmally-run program. The money you gave to the government was never invested, and it didn’t create a return. Besides, Social Security was designed to help people who retired at age 65 and died around age 71–not for people are living into their eighties and nineties.

So this poorly managed Ponzi scheme is forcing the younger generations to pay for the unrealistic promises that were made to the greatest generation. But there are not enough workers to do so, and the program is growing broke.

And we are building our “new society” on this kind of reasoning. In truth, the only thing that human beings are entitled to is to be separated from God because of our sins. That’s what we really deserve--not money and benefits for life.

Some human entitlements are appropriate. Many are not. Overall, the code word of “entitled” does three things to a society: It destroys human dignity, it kills personal incentive, and if it is not changed and re-defined, it destroys government budgets. Think Europe–and next–the United States.

Love

This has probably been the most satanically-manipulated word of all time. One example is the teenager who says he “loves” his girfriend as a prelude to asking her for sex. In this case, love is simply raging hormones that want to be satisfied by lust.

In the current cultural climate the most common mis-use of the word “love” relates to the secular promotion of homosexual marriage. This tactic was in full force at the recent political convention–even by the president of  the United States. He and others boldly stated: “You should be able to marry who you love.”

Sounds so good–but is really so bad. Humans beings have learned from revelation and experience over five thousand years that children need a mom and dad, and that having sex with “whoever you love” destroys the gene pool (incest), tears apart families (adultery), brings hurt and disease to singles (fornication), causes gender confusion (homosexuality), and brings man down to the level of animals (bestiality).

You can “love” anyone you want–but you can’t or shouldn’t have sex with them. The sexual prohibitions are there to help people not hurt them. Love is truly defined as “doing what’s best for another person from God’s perspective.” So the consummation of sexual love should only be between a married man and woman who can create children and protect and nurture them via their union.

The modern code word of “love” will further destroy the family–and many individuals along the way.

Investing -Fairness

Two other code words being thrown around in the political arena are the words “investing” in the future and being “fair” when it comes to taxes.

I think you get the political hoax of “investing.” It’s a clever political term for raising your taxes. Sounds like you’re loaning your money to the government and will get a return for it. No, they just want to tax you more for their own purposes. Because governments face no competition and easily become bloated, they are very poor at investing money, but very good spending and wasting it.

Hence the need for smaller government–not more “investments in the future.”

Tax “fairness” is the other word game. We are told endlessly by somethat the rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes and that they should pay more. And more. And more.

However, politifact.com tells us that the top 5% in America pay 57% of all federal income taxes, the wealthiest 25% pay 86% of the same, and 49% of Americans pay none at all.

Does that seem fair? It’s more than fair. “Taxing the rich” is simply a class warfare mechanism to grow the size of government.

“Investing” and being “fair” are modern-day code words for growing tyranny and destroying jobs.

Forward

President Obama is using the word “Forward” as the overarching slogan of his 2012 campaign. the word implies progress, goodness, prosperity, moving in the correct direction.

But I submit to you that this slogan is also a code word of the 2012 election cycle. In 2012, taking further steps in the current direction will take us off a social and economic cliff from which there may be no return.

The following video called “Words Matter” is quite an eye-opener.

My friends in America and the Western world: Don’t be fooled by the code words of destruction.

Listen carefully.

Search for the real meaning.

And discern and live for the truth in every area of your life.

For a number of years I have considered Indian-born conservative thinker Dinesh D’Souza one of the brightest lights on the American scene.

I would call him the Francis Schaeffer of the current political debate.

His books have blessed me greatly. What’s So Great About America? is a tremendous apologetic about the biblical principles of liberty that made the United States the most free and prosperous nation in history. What’s So Great About Christianity? explains how the Christian faith reigns supreme in the development of civilization and has no equal among the world’s religions.

My dad really liked Life After Death: The Evidence in which D’Souza rebuts the atheist dogma that we die like dogs with no hope of an afterlife. It’s a great pre-evangelism tool for thinking people who are hoping there is a heaven.

Dinesh D’Souza’s latest triumph is the movie documentary 2016 where he searches Barack Obama’s inner compass and what kind of America he will give us by 2016 if he is re-elected.

Is Obama a liberal, a socialist, a communist, or a progressive?

None of the above.

Dinesh gives us another answer, and I believe he could be right.

I took my wife Shirley to an evening showing of 2016 on a beautiful Northwest night when most people would be expected to stay outside and enjoy the gorgeous sunshine. We traveled to a nearby town that is not known for being conservative in a state (WA) which is clearly labeled blue.

On the way, Shirley said that we would probably be the only people in the theater.

She was wrong. By the time 2016 began at 7:15pm. the theater was filled with people our age. I wish there had been more young people–but I think they were watching The Expendables 2 on a neighboring screen. Unfortunately it is the older generations who currently watch the news and are deeply concerned about the future.

The film is a documentary where Dinesh details his interest in what might have shaped Barack Obama’s view of the world. D’Souza traveled to Hawaii and analyzed Obama’s birth roots. He flew to Jakarta, Indonesia where Barry Sotero spent his grade-school years, and where his sister Maya was born.

Interestingly, Dinesh could relate to Barry Sotero’s upbringing and many other aspects of his life. He he himself was raised in India, also a developing nation. He and Barack Obama were born the same year (1961). They graduated from college the same year (1983) and they got married the same year (1992). Both came to the American mainland and launched their successful careers.

Back to the documentary, D’Souza then traveled to Hawaii and delineated the “founding fathers” that shaped teenage Barry Sotero’s life. They were not the same group of people that we consider the founding fathers of America.

Then Dinesh trekked back to the mainland US where Barry Sotero went to Occidental College (1979-1981), Columbia University (1983), and Harvard Law School (1988-91). He interviewed classmates and professors who shaped Barack’s Obama’s young adult thinking. These interviews were enlightening because the president has refused to release his college records and papers to the public–so we are left to speculate on the evolution of his life philosophy.

A central theme of the movie is the role of Barack Obama Sr. played in the life of our current president. Young Barack never knew his dad as a child–meeting him only once in Hawaii when he was eleven years old. During his college years, Obama had a deep desire to go to his father’s homeland of Kenya and find out what made his dad tick. He arrived there in 1987 just before he began Harvard Law School.

The “Barack Obama Time-line” describes the search for his roots this way:

“He arrives there because he knows very little of his father. He wants to know who his father was, so he can understand his own identity. In Alego, Barack Obama meets his late father’s family for the first time. He meets his grandmother and half siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews. The trip to Kenya helps Barack Obama realize the struggles that his father went through. It gives Barack a sense that the work he is doing is directly connected to his Kenyan family and their struggles. Barack Obama says: ‘[the visit] helped unify my outward self with my inward self in an important way.'”

The impact of the Kenya trip is described in great detail in Obama’s biography Dreams From My Father (whose words are heard throughout 2016 in Barack Obama’s own voice recording giving you the impression that he himself is narrating the D’ Souza documentary). Amazingly, the trip to Kenya takes up one third of the autobiography.

D’Souza simulates in the movie (with Obama’s own words telling the story in the background) how he knelt at his father’s grave in 1987 and experienced an epiphany of his identity and calling. For the remainder of his life, he would commit to live out the “dreams from his father” which had ended in a tragic car accident in 1982.

By this time, the thoughtful and analytical D’Souza has laid out a very compelling case as to what motivates Barack Obama that he gleaned from his father.

It is this: Barack Obama is an anti-colonialist, like his father, who believes that America is the last remaining colonial power in the world. His job, his destiny, is to see America brought down to size.

This revelation led to much discussion between Shirley and I after the movie. We talked about how the colonial period between the 16th and 20th centuries saw many European Powers sail the world–nations like Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, England and others–to expand and export their civilization. As is well documented in history, the colonial period produced many good results, but also some negatives ones:

• The good list includes the coming of the Christian faith to many cultures living in abject poverty and pagan darkness–elevating people through industrialization, modernization, free enterprise, the development of the middle class, and growing prosperity. If you look around the world today, the colonial period really brought Africa, the Americas, the Pacific islands and Asia into the blessings of Christian civilization.
• The bad list includes the aspects of colonialization that departed from the Christian worldview and exploited natural resources for the mother countries, suppressed and even enslaved peoples, unnecessarily destroyed aspects of local cultures, and in a phrase “did not practice the Golden Rule.”

The central insight of the film is that Barack Obama Sr. was a rabid anti-colonialist who participated in the Mau Mau Uprising of 1952-60 which led to Kenyan independence from Great Britain. His later views morphed into socialism-communism, but at the heart of his passion was a hatred for the Western colonial powers.

D’Souza believes that senior’s anti-colonialism made a profound impact on junior.

Barack Hussein Obama says the same in Dreams From My Father.

While Dinesh D’Souza was visiting Kenyan, he met with Barack Obama’s half brother George who famously lives in a shanty on the outskirts of Nairobi. This interview was the highlight of the film for me.

I’d always wondered why Barack Obama, who regularly talks about the importance of “being our brother’s keeper,” has done nothing to help his poor brother. Barack and Michelle Obama are now multi-millionaires (primarily due to book royalties), and could certainly write a check for $10,000 or $100,000 to help brother George escape the clutches of poverty. But they never have.

Now I know why. It was a great insight of the movie.

D’Souza interviews George on a park bench. He asks him whether he’s bitter that his wealthy and successful brother hasn’t helped him in life. George displays no ill will toward his older brother and says nothing offensive. In fact, he acknowledges that Brother Barack “is helping him by trying to help the whole world.”

Then D’Souza asks about George’s worldview, especially on the subject of colonialism. George responds that pushing the English out of Kenya actually hurt the country. He says that Kenya is poor today because the English didn’t stay long enough to elevate them out of poverty. He mentions South Africa as a nation where the Western powers stayed longer, and because of that, South Africa is much wealthier and more prosperous than Kenya is today.

D’Souza seems a bit intrigued that George is more positive toward colonialism when it is very apparent that his father and brother are not. Dinesh concludes that maybe this is the reason that Barack and George have no relationship and that the Obamas haven’t helped him.

George doesn’t share their worldview.

Having come to the conclusion that Barack Obama’s worldview is inherited from his father, and that he is anti-colonial when he looks at history and politics, D’Souza then examines the policies that Obama has pursued in his first presidential term. One is disdain for the rich and the course of exploding public debt. D’Souza surmises this is a deliberate strategy by the Obama administration to bring down the economic political colonialism of America to be more in line with other nations.

Same is true on the defense front. Obama has spent his first four years apologizing for America and shrinking our international influence and power. Again, he appears to have an anti-colonial agenda: America is the only remaining superpower (colonizer), and must be brought down to size.

The movie concludes with D’Souza imagining by 2016 what America might look like if Obama is allowed to continue his anti-colonial policies. The picture is not pretty.

At the end of the movie, the audience seemed gripped with realization of what really motivates Barack Obama. I have heard that in some theaters people cheered. In ours, everyone quietly filed out in deep contemplation and hushed conversations.

On our drive home, my normally placid wife said something like this: “Barack Obama is anti-American. He does not believe in this country. He is not one of us. He really wants to change America into a humbled colonial power.”

Reluctantly, I have to agree. I believe Dinesh D’Souza has given us the best glimpse so far into Barack Obama’s soul. D’Souza’s research is impeccable, thoughtful, non-reactionary and well supported by the words and actions of Barack Obama’s life.

No wonder 2016 stunned Hollywood in making nine million dollars on its opening weekend in one thousand theaters. This coming weekend, it is expanding into 2000 theaters across the country.

We have just received wisdom and warning from a brilliant Indian thinker.

What will the American people do with that knowledge?

Bill Clinton declared in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Charles Krauthammer said last week “It’s the ideology, stupid!” (“The Case Against Reelection”–a MUST READ).

Both are correct. Bad ideology produces poor economic results.

By picking Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has created a Economic Dream Team with a good ideology to run against the president this fall.

Paul Ryan was a bold and brilliant choice.

Here’s why.

I admit that U.S. Representative Paul Ryan was always in my top tier of vice presidential picks. The list was long because there are many outstanding conservative governors in the nation right now (Christy, Daniels, Jindal, O’Donnell, Kasich, Walker, Martinez, Haley etc.) and also other high caliber leaders (such Condoleezza Rice and David Petraeus) who possess laudable strengths.

But in choosing Ryan over over two other more low-key Midwesterners—Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty—Romney boldly chose a running mate with strong conservative credentials (American Conservative Union rating: 93 percent) and one who could energize the conservative grassroots. 

He is also, at forty-two years old, America’s clearest, bravest economic thinker.

As the author of the Republican alternative budget known as the “Path to Prosperity” (Ryan Plan), the seven-time Wisconsin lawmaker became a media sensation and a much-sought-after speaker for fellow Republicans running for office. Shortly after release of his plan in March, he became the vice presidential prospect with the most media coverage, according to HighBeam Research. Its polling showed Ryan besting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 27 percent to 23.5 percent in terms of media attention.

Arizona Rep. and GOP Senate hopeful Jeff Flake was ecstatic about the Ryan pick, as he tweeted supporters: “Wow! What a powerhouse economic team! It drips of gravitas.  Can’t wait for the fall elections.”

I met Paul Ryan last year during a National Association of Evangelicals meeting in Washington, D.C. He spoke to our group of fifty leaders about his faith, the economic problems facing this nation, and the necessary solutions to solve them. I was deeply impressed, and after talking with him for a while, left the room thinking to myself “This guy would make a great president.”

Apparently Mitt Romney thought so too. His stated first priority in choosing a running mate was whether the individual was fit to be president of the United States.

Paul Ryan? Home run. Since this was Romney’s first choice in revealing what kind of president he will be, we can be increasingly confident about a Romney administration. Compare that to Barack Obama’s first choice of Joe Biden, a gaffe-prone, plagarist who tows the union line and usually takes the wrong position on significant issues (like the “Surge” in Iraq).

Obama chose poorly. It should have been an omen of things to come.

So why is Paul Ryan a great pick for vice president?

1. He was Human Events’ Conservative of the Year in 2011–making him the most genuine and articulate voice for Judeo-Christian values in the United States. American conservatism is the political philosophy of biblical faith that recognizes God as the source of human rights, the need for faith and morality as the pillars of a free society, and promotes individual responsibility and accountability, free enterprise and limited government as crucial expressions of liberty. In choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney assured the nation that he can be a Reaganesque leader who will champion conservative principles. That makes the fall election a stark contrast between a Judeo-Christian conservative ticket and a secular progressive liberal one. America must choose one of two destinies: to renew the genius of “America” or go the way of Europe (think Greece and other European nations).

2. He’s the brightest economic bulb in the room. Democrats seem to pride themselves in choosing “smart” leaders (which they say applies to Barack Obama, and in the 90s, Bill Clinton). In this case, the R’s have them beat hands down. No one with an open mind who has ever heard Paul Ryan talk about national economics believes there is anybody in the country who understands it better than he does. In fact, Ryan rose to his current hero status as an economic statesman when he clearly up-staged President Obama during a White House meeting on health care. It took him only six minutes to take apart Obamacare with facts, figures, and perspective that clearly agitated the president in 2009. You can watch the action here.

3. He’s young and energetic, focusing on a future that can brim with hope if we have the guts to create it. Paul Ryan really is “Hope and Change” after four years of decline. Barack Obama fooled the youthful electorate of America in 2008 with his charisma and empty promises. Paul Ryan is physically fit (only 6-8% body fat), would be one of our youngest vice presidents, and will provide a graphic visual image of the difference between two parties. I’ve got a great campaign sign for the new Romney-Ryan team. Simply display a photo of senior-citizen, white-haired Joe Biden with the Obama campaign theme “Forward!” and contrast it with the young, energetic Ryan. Paul Ryan and his vision are truly the way forward in American politics. The Obama-Biden ticket is really “Forward Off the Cliff.” It reminds me of General Custer crying “Forward!” when his unsuspecting troops entered Little Big Horn.

4. Paul Ryan also brings an attractive bi-partisan spirit to the national election. He’s been elected seven times from a Democrat-leaning district in the mostly-blue state of Wisconsin. In 2008, Barack Obama won the district with nearly 54%. But Paul Ryan won his election with nearly 65% of the total. That means that a significant number of Democrats voted for him. Because of Ryan’s humility, brilliance and common-sense approach, he is greatly liked and respected by both sides of the aisle in Congress. He’s the only Congressional leades to put together a major bi-partisan Medicare Reform bill with Democratic Senator Ron Widen of Oregon. In the Obama age of class and party warfare, Ryan’s willingness to work with others is a breath of fresh air.

5. Though is a Catholic, Paul Ryan is considered the leading choice of evangelicals in the nation. This would have been unthinkable fifty years ago. But believers in America have come to realize that people of all denominations can have a strong Judeo-Christian worldview regardless of their church affiliation. This also applies to Mitt Romney in 2012. Though Mormonism is outside the Christian mainstream, the LDS worldview of faith, morality, freedom, and limited civil government is in sharp contrast to the growth of immorality and big government which is encouraged by the secular political left. Paul Ryan can be a great spokesman for spiritual and moral renewal.

6. Both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are exemplary family men. Ryan and  his wife Janna have three young children that are being raised in his original hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin (Ryan owns no home or apartment in D.C., but sleeps on a couch in his office, then catches the first plane back to Wisconsin on weekends to be with his family). Mitt and Ann Romney have five grown sons and eighteen grandchildren. While the Democratic Party will now, for the first time, endorse the re-definition of marriage in the 2012 Democratic Party Platform, the Republicans will renew their commitment to true marriage and family, and demonstrate its beauty through both the Romney and Ryan clans.

7. Paul Ryan is the ONLY leader in America willing to take the political fallout of offering a credible plan to reign in entitlements. No other politican has had either the guts or the foresight to do so. What is the Obama Administration’s plan for runaway entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare payments etc.): Nothing. Zero. The Obama economic plan is simply tax and spend and the future be damned. The choice of Paul Ryan as VP shows that Mitt Romney is willing to take head-on America’s fiscal crisis and find some necessary solutions. Ryan’s Plan is not perfect–but he had the courage to start the conversation that needs to be completed. Many politicians are wimps that make empty promises to the masses. Paul Ryan is a courageous leader who is taking on the fairy-tale myth of endless entitlements and bringing us back to reality.

When I was in the country of Mongolia this summer, I lamented the lack of good roads and infrastructure and said to my national hosts: “You need to hire the brightest minds in the country, pay them the highest wage, and ask them to fix the roads! It needs to be your ‘Manhattan Project’ to allow your country to prosper in the 21st century.”

Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as VP shows that he understands that America’s “Manhatten Project” for this time period in our nation is runaway deficits and spending. He chose the very best to tackle that problem when he picked Paul Ryan.

In fact, the Republican ticket this year gives the nation a clear choice to lead us into the future. Mitt Romney is recognized as one of the nation’s premier businessmen who understands how to create jobs and lead the economy back to growth. Paul Ryan is renowned for having the best ideas on how to curb out-of-control spending.

Romney: Job creator Ryan: Debt reducer. That’s a powerful combination.

It won’t be easy, but America’s Economic Dream Team will offer their services to America on November 6 in the 2012 presidential election. Steve Moore of the Wall St. Journal says: “With Mr. Ryan on the ticket, there will be little doubt that in 2012 Republicans are the party of hope and change, while Democrats have become the policy reactionaries touting a message of fear and the status quo.”

I hope we choose wisely.

create jobs and another who understands the need to cut entitlements.