ReallyRight

We're not just Right, We're Really Right

Religion, Politics, & Culture: Defined and Explained


Thursday, December 14, 2017

When Baptism Doesn’t Count

Today’s blog is one of several that I’ve been intending to write over the last several weeks but now that my finals are behind me, I have time to get caught-up.

There’s an old tale about some folks dying and upon arriving in Heaven, they are given the introductory tour of their new home by none other than Saint Peter. They visit the Catholic section, the Methodist area, the Pentecostal borough and so forth until at last they get to this one neighborhood and St Peter begins whispering. Sensing this sudden change, one of the tourists softly asks, “Why are we whispering?” Peter responds, “We must be quiet because this is the Baptist section and they think they’re the only ones up here.”

Sadly, this is truer than many folks would like to admit.


My topic today is one that has been hitting close to home because the daughter unit has ventured out into the world to spread her wings and for some reason she has decided to worship at a Baptist church. A majority of Protestants in the United States are Baptists in their theology even if they call themselves something else. If your church teaches “The Sinner’s Prayer”, walking the aisle, “making a decision for Christ”, likes singing Just As I Am, or “every head bowed and eye closed” then you are Baptists or the theological offspring of Baptists. Typically these folks will only recognize baptism by immersion and use grape juice for Communion. A corollary is that these guys unchurch everyone else in the body of Christ because we practice infant Baptism.

Before proceeding, let me say a few words about my own experience with this topic in the hopes that I can be granted some credibility by my readers.

I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. I attended Catholic School K – 6. After seventh grade, I walked the aisle at a Baptist Church Camp and “gave my life to Jesus Christ”. A few months later I was baptized again in a local Baptist church. I spent many years in the Baptist world and then after wandering for a few more, I trekked thru Charismania until I came at last to a Reformed understanding of Christianity. I understand the arguments on both sides because I literally have been in each camp at some point or another in my life.


Believer’s Baptism
The Baptist argument is that the Bible says Belief and then Baptism. Hence the name, Believer’s Baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16: 16

For someone coming from outside the Church, belief and then baptism is normal. Where we have a difference is when talking about children born into a Christian home.  The moral high ground that people think that Believer’s Baptism gives them dissolves quickly in this area.

Essentially, the paradigm that Baptists appear to embrace is that nobody is regarded as a believer until they make a profession of faith and then they can be baptized. This position would include their young children. Such a position would be consistent if somewhat harsh; especially in light of these verses:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 
Acts 2: 38 & 39

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.  At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 
Acts 16: 31-33

How can God’s promise be “for you and your children” if children born to Christian parents are just young pagans?


Age of Accountability
Baptists are squeamish about this situation too but their answer is sentimentality not Scripture. You see, they say that they believe that the only way to the Father is faith in Christ but those not professing faith go to Hell. So what happens when a parent has a miscarriage or their child drowns in the neighbor’s pool or said child dies of cancer at three years of age? Surely such innocent children go to Heaven right?

It is at this point that Baptist folks introduce the doctrine of an “age of accountability.” They say that until a child can know the difference between right and wrong that they are in a state of innocence. Thus if a child dies in this state, they will go to Heaven if they die.

I once held this view until “the baby shower.” “The baby shower” was held at Gibson Ranch, here in the Sacramento area. It was in fact an event sponsored by Operation Rescue to crash a company picnic being held by a local abortion clinic. Like others at the event, I got toe-to-toe with some people on the other side. The lady that I got into a discussion with took this concept of an age of accountability and hit me right between the eyes with it. Her argument was simple and effective. “If an unborn child cannot know the difference between right and wrong, where does the child go when it dies?”

I instinctively replied, “To Heaven.”

She continued, “But if that child were born and was old enough to know right from wrong then they could go to Hell for rejecting Jesus, right?”

I answered, “Yes”  and knew that she had me painted into a corner that I couldn’t escape from.

Under this doctrine of an age of accountability, the only way to insure someone would go to Heaven was not by placing their faith in Jesus but being aborted!

Think about it, universal salvation is free to all that are murdered before knowing right and wrong. This principle also allows that the mentally handicapped can be literally put down for their own good and as a bonus we have assurance that we are sending them to Heaven. Could this apply to elderly with dementia too? Lastly, wasn’t this view all the rage in Europe about 80 years ago?

Even though Baptists reject infant baptism, they have a substitute that they practice; baby dedication. They bring an infant before the congregation and make a promise that is very similar to infant baptism to raise their children in the faith in hopes that they will one day believe and make the faith of their parents their own.

Unfortunately, these Baptists that think they are attending “Bible believing” churches are building parts of their faith on the sands of their own creation and not Biblical teaching. Biblically speaking, I could make a better case for Purgatory than for an age of accountability.

Again, what do Baptists do with their children? Are they little pagans or children of the promises of Christ?



Rebaptism
The other situation that you encounter in the Baptist Church (and from their fellow theological travelers) is the kneejerk reaction to unchurch everyone else by saying their baptism is invalid.

However, the Bible only knows one Christian Baptism and one formula for the baptism.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3: 26 – 29

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4: 4–6

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28: 19

Again, there is one baptism in the Church and one formula, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptists try to argue two things, you must believe before being baptized and that the method must be immersion. Why is it that Baptists take the Greek word for baptism literally while the Greek word for wine is figurative?

Baptists are not alone in arguing about methodology as it relates to baptism, the Orthodox Church argues that only infant baptism that includes Chrismation is valid.

Since most don’t know what I’m referring to, here is Wikipedia version of Chrismation

Typically, one becomes a member of the Church by baptism and chrismation performed by a priest as a single service, or subsequent to baptism performed by a layman. While chrismation is often performed without baptism, baptism is never performed without chrismation; hence the term “baptism” is construed as referring to the administration of both sacraments (or mysteries), one after the other.
Wikipedia: Chrismation

Why can’t Christians talk about such things as our preference is better than yours instead of unchurching everyone with a different view?


Alternative Interpretation
There is a different paradigm that can be used to look at this question, one that includes a consistent theological view that treats children as Christian children and deals with the biblical teaching that there is one baptism in the Church. 

The Bible only knows one baptism. It does not attach an age or belief to performing it. Only the parents (or head of the household depending on how you read it) must believe in order for all to be baptized.

Look at Acts 16: 31-33 or other similar verses.

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.  At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

The pattern is clear, parents believe and all –including children are baptized. Such verses don’t list exceptions or weasel words. For those that know the Ten Commandments, you might notice this principle is similar to Exodus 20: 8-11

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work,  but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Sabbath was for the entire household not just Jewish members.

The historic Christian position is not one of individualism and Arminianism, but Covenantalism. Baptism is the New Testament covenant symbol in the same way as circumcision was in the Old. Thus children are baptized as infants because God’s promise really extends to the next generation just as He promised in both the Old and New Testaments.

So what happens if a child grows up and rejects the faith? The same thing that happened in the Old Testament; the child is treated as a Covenant member until such time as they bear fruit that says otherwise. There is an expectation that as a child matures that he will make the faith of his fathers into his own. The Jews have bar mitzvah (or bat mitzvah) while Christians in many parts of the Church have Confirmation. Confirmation is a reaffirming of the vows made at the infant baptism of a child.  This is where the child makes the faith of their parents into their own.

Confirmation also serves another use which biblically solves the rebaptism dilemma. Let me illustrate.

Teddy Texan lives in Houston and is attending the local mega-church run by Joel Osteen. Joel baptizes Teddy in front of thousands of people. For purposes of this illustration, Joel uses the correct formula and baptizes Teddy in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Later, Teddy takes a job in Sweetwater Oklahoma and starts attending the Park Avenue Anglican Assembly. Park Avenue is in a very different theological place than Joel Osteen but Teddy wants to join their church. What should they do? Should they require Teddy to be baptized again? Park Avenue knows that Teddy was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but Joel’s theology is heretical so what should be done? Knowing church history, Park Avenue’s Pastor—because he did have formal biblical training unlike Osteen—knows that this very question was faced by the early church. The answer of the early church was Confirmation. Teddy attends classes to be sure that he believes the historic doctrines of the Creeds and then is welcomed into the church via a Confirmation ceremony.

This has been the historic answer to the rebaptism question, not another baptism but a confirmation of faith. Thus the New Testament position of one faith and one baptism is honored and the doctrine of the Church is defended.


Conclusion

The Bible says, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”   
Acts 2: 39

The truth is that the Baptists are the ones that are building their theological house on the sands of their own making. There no biblical warrant for children to wait until they can experience “Believer’s Baptism”. There is no such thing as an “age of accountability” in Scripture. There is no such concept as a “sinner’s prayer” or “Alter Call” in the Bible. The Bible does not know a baby dedication ceremony apart from receiving the sign of the Covenant. The only rebaptism you can find is when someone was baptized by John the Baptist and then again by receiving Christian baptism.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples   and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”  So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.  Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
Acts 18: 1-5

Christians being baptized again by another group of Christian believers is not found in the Bible and in fact is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

I don’t unchurch my Baptist brothers just because they are wrong about one of the core tenants of their theology. I walked in their shoes for the better part of two decades before I was able to set aside their traditions of men and rely on the Bible. I just wish they would grant the rest of Christ’s Church the same grace that we are willing to extend to them.

As for the daughter unit, if she goes forward with joining the Baptists by being rebaptized, she is squandering her inheritance and simultaneously excommunicating her mother and brother. In fact, the practical ramification of rebaptism would be a declaration that she believes her mother and brother are damned and going to spend eternity in Hell. Child, ideas have consequences. I’d like to think you were raised better than that.

Posted by william on 12/14 at 11:15 AM
Christianity & ReligionPermalink

Friday, December 08, 2017

Scandals Explained

Liberals hate Donald Trump and want to attack him. Despite their best efforts, Trump’s base is sticking with him. Most of Trump’s supporters are Conservative and most Conservatives are religious. Liberals have been looking for a wedge issue to peel-off Trump’s base of support. Trump has been married several times and is married to a beautiful woman with perfect children. Further, Trump tends to employ more women than men in his companies. Liberals are sure there is some skeleton in Trump’s moral closet that they can hit him with. But their latest attack has gone horribly wrong…

You see, Liberals lobbed their moral grenades at the President and they bounced off him right back into their ranks and BOOM. First Harvey Weinstein gets fragged. Harvey was the go to guy in Hollywood for fundraising for Democrats including Hillary Clinton. Ironically, one of the first people to pile onto Harvey after the news broke on his conduct was Chelsea Clinton, who got taken to the woodshed about her dad acting the same way as Harvey and arguably even worse. This thread is really worth reading.
Chelsea Clinton Gets Torched After Sharing Thread

Several more dominoes in Hollywood have fallen in the wake of Harvey’s downfall. Many people knew but looked the other way.

Matt Lauer and several others in the media have lost their jobs as well. National Public Radio has lost some executives as well. This trend was ok when it was just Fox News but now it’s a disaster for the Left. Again, people knew and looked the other way.

Al Franken and Charles Rangel have followed in the steps of Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy and lost their jobs as a result. Several others in Congress have resigned or decided not to run. Again, for many of these politicians, many knew but did nothing.

The irony of all this is that Trump is responsible for all of this but did nothing to make it happen. This only happened because he is in office.

For those of us that think this country has been racing to transform itself into Hell on Earth, this purge is a welcome change. Frankly, we have been praying for God to intervene in the direction that we have been heading and this seems to be an answer to our prayers. I really don’t care what Trump says on Twitter, but I care deeply about what he does. He has been a champion of religious liberty and promoting Christianity.

The swamp is being drained just because Trump exists.


Give the above; what do I do about Judge Roy Moore?
The accusations against Moore have proven to be false. Dems have tried the guilt by association trick and it hasn’t worked. For me, the jig was up when Gloria Allred did her press conference about a US Senate race in Alabama from New York City. Gloria didn’t even have the good sense to pretend to go to Alabama and meet with the “victims” and do the press conference there. Believe me, there is enough media on the scene to cover her remarks had she chosen to do so. Also, if the allegations were made in Alabama, law enforcement would be compelled to investigate. That was not her purpose; she was brought in to smear Moore’s reputation. The seriousness of the charges is always more important than the evidence for the Left. And the accuser that Allred produced was a partisan Democrat that was active in the Hillary Clinton Campaign, hardly an innocent victim. Other accusers have had their stories fall apart under examination.

Moore’s accusers have had their stories dismantled by people that knew them including parents and siblings. Any detail that you remember has been debunked but the narrative stands in the minds of many. This is an illustration of he who frames the issue will win the debate or at least has the advantage. How many of you could document what you did 40 years ago to prove or disprove such a claim. Unlike the other people, Moore has never been accused of acting inappropriately since he got married. No pattern of continuing conduct has been alleged. This is markedly different than those that have lost their jobs.

Lastly, back in the 1970’s—which is when all this supposedly took place—the age of consent was 16 in his state. Think about it, could you prove you didn’t kiss Sally behind the gym at 3 pm on May 5th 1978?

More reading on Moore

Cop Accuser—-Unsupported Claims
Efforts to Derail Roy Moore Right From Establishment Playbook

Update
Roy Moore accuser admits she wrote part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama Senate candidate

This why I’m ReallyRight ‘cause I told Ya

Posted by william on 12/08 at 08:29 AM
News & PoliticsPermalink

Saturday, November 18, 2017

When the Gospel is Not Enough

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2: 2

Introduction
Whether ancient or modern, Christians claim that we all need to come to Jesus. Furthermore, while church membership does not save you, most bodies expect that you will affiliate with a group of believers once you have made a profession of faith. This has been the case since the time of the Apostles. It was the practice in the early church that converts would go through a period of two to three years of discipleship and learning before formally joining the church via baptism; often as part of the Easter worship celebration. Catechisms date to the first century; the oldest being the Didache (also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).

In most Christian groups, baptism is the normative method of adding a person to church membership. Membership for people coming to the church from outside also involves some instruction or agreement with a statement of principles. Children raised in the church may follow a different path than outsiders to achieve full membership and privileges in their particular denomination. Following baptism, Christians can access Holy Communion or Eucharist which involves partaking in the symbolic body and blood of Christ.

Thus far, I think I have avoided stepping on anyone’s theological toes but clearly I’m about to stomp on somebody’s.


Membership Has Is Privileges
Church membership is a means of guarding access to Communion but what if it’s a barrier to people joining your church due to extra biblical requirements.

We sing songs like “Just as I Am” But do we really mean it?

Is your church a hospital for sinners or an exclusive club that only allows “the right kind of people” to join?

Frankly, I’ve been struggling with this very question for many months and I don’t like the conclusion that I’ve reached. Let me set this issue up for you and see if you agree.


Positive Spin
First, there are two different ways to define or describe your beliefs. You can use negative statements or positive ones.

Negative example
“I don’t drink and I don’t chew and I don’t go with girls that do.”

Positive example
“I believe in healthy life choices and avoid the common vices of the ignorant. My ideal life partner will embrace similar views to mine.”

As the old song says, “Emphasize the positive.”

Sometimes by stating the positive answer, you are leaving unstated that the opposite condition is bad.

Have you ever heard someone say something like this? “I believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation and I look forward to spending eternity with Him.”

This is a very positive statement and a true one. However, what is left unstated? The negative corollary can be condensed to this, “If you reject Jesus then you will spend eternity in Hell.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith—when dealing with things like the Ten Commandments—states both what is forbidden and what is commanded by God’s Law.


Remarkable Claims
In the church that I attend, the Preface of the denomination’s Constitution concludes with this remarkable sentence:

Accordingly, we profess that the principles set out in this Constitution are binding on us in the same way as are the historic confessions of faith, catechisms, and creeds of the church listed below.

The church’s constitution is just as binding as the Historic Creeds! Let that sink in for a moment before you continue reading my post.

In light of both the above; namely, people stating their viewpoint in the most positive way and the Constitution of the church being equal to the Historic Creeds, please read the following carefully.

Accordingly, we reject the subordination of the family and church to the State in matters of faith and religious practice. As an extension,

(i) We believe in promoting and supporting the training of our children in Christian educational institutions, especially in the home schooling method.

Book of Church Order, page 6 (B. 2. e. WCF 23)

What is left unstated? What is the negative of these statements?

Positive—what is commanded
“We reject the subordination of the family … to the State…we believe in … training our children in Christian educational institutions…”

Negative—what is forbidden
“We accept the subordination of the family … to the State…we believe in … training our children in State educational institutions…”

Translation: Good Christian parents don’t send their children to public schools.


Here is a portion of Deuteronomy 6  which will be discussed below:

And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

(Variations of the word “command” appear 14 times in this chapter.)


We promote and support the Christian educational training of children

The Bible gives parents the clear direction in Deuteronomy 6 that they are to train their children in the statutes of the Lord throughout the day. This mandate is compromised when children are sent to public institutions of learning where they are indoctrinated in the principles of secular humanism and influenced by worldly peers and teachers. The result of such secular instruction is a weakened church and divided families. We promote, instead, those educational alternatives which are guided by and serve Biblical principles and purposes. These include Christian homeschooling and biblically regulated covenant schools.

Distinctives

Please note that the “clear direction in Deuteronomy 6 ” is described as a “mandate ” in the next sentence. If a mandate is found in Scripture then I think it can fairly be described as a Command of God.

Using word substitution the second sentence reads as follows:

“This Command of God is compromised when children are sent to public institutions of learning where they are indoctrinated in the principles of secular humanism and influenced by worldly peers and teachers.”

Granted that it’s been a few years since I was in a Sunday school room, but don’t we tell children that sin is the result of breaking God’s Law, His Commandments?

Here is the logic:
1 God commands us to educate children “in the statutes of the Lord throughout the day.” This is God’s Will, His Command, His Instruction.
2 This Commandment (mandate) is violated by sending our children to a State run government school.
3. Disobeying God’s Commands is sin.
Therefore, sending your child to a public school is a sin.


Even if you want to stop short of describing sending children to public school as a violation of God’s Commandment (or you’re just squirmy about it), per the above you are still sinning because James 4: 17 states:

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.



Privileged Have Their Membership
This is the set of rules that governs the church that I have been attending for the last few years. Over time, this distinctive has really grown to bother me. In my previous blog, I spoke of the suspicion of strangers and the simultaneous lament that the church is not growing. Now throw a prohibition against public schooling in the mix. I look at the totality of the beliefs and practices that I have mentioned and marvel at how we have twisted the Gospel of Christ.

So what happens if Bobby Baptist were to experience the Light of the Reformation and as he begins to embrace the likes of John Calvin, he comes to our church? Or Peter Pagan manages to run the gauntlet and get a chair during our service and then comes to a saving faith as he hears the Gospel from the pulpit?

What are we to do?

In a state like California, a married couple with children is likely to be struggling with two college loans, two car payments, a mortgage, and a host of other bills. Both he and the wife work and their children are in public school.

Believing the Gospel is not enough in our congregation. At what point do we have to deny people access to the Lord’s Table because they are openly sinning against God’s Commandment by sending their children to public school?

It is common practice in the church that people in open rebellion and sin are not only prohibited from Communion but will be subject to the discipline of the church including trial and excommunication if they don’t change their ways.

My family is the only non-home school family that is a member of the congregation. We often joke that we were the most conservative members at our previous church and now we are the most liberal. But all kidding aside, this is a serious issue.

We have added a socio-economic barrier to church membership that discriminates not on the basis of the Historic Creeds and Christian Faith but an additional demand of income ; so if God doesn’t bless you materially as much as somebody else then we don’t want you. If you were a young man that made poor financial decisions—as defined by Dave Ramsey—then you can’t be in our little club?

What happened to James 1: 27?

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Remember that applying Deuteronomy 6 to the issue of public schools is a serious doctrinal position. The Commands in this passage are clearly not optional.


Consequences of Exclusivity
The culture of distrust of strangers which I discussed in a previous blog and condemnation of those not home schooling their children colors the actions of our congregation. The things that I have described about the church not only keep people from getting in but keep us from reaching out.

We are unwilling to go to the highways and byways and compel them to come in. We systematically refuse to get involved in our community. I can’t help but wonder if this is because we only want to minister to people that already are predisposed to agree with us. However, people that home school for religious reasons are typically already involved in a church somewhere and not usually looking to jump to another congregation.

If we really want to grow our church we need to reach out to the unchurched or those underserved by their current house of worship. We purposely offer no programs for youth or children because we are “family integrated” which means that children sit with their parents during church. We don’t own our own building so there are no mid-week services or events. The net result is that we can’t out do the programs offered by the local mega-church, so we refuse to offer anything. Thus, our only real opportunities for growth lie in converting the heathen or reaching people that left the church earlier in their youth.

Try this scenario. Our friend, Peter Pagan and his wife have experienced a conversion by attending our church. They believe in all the tenants of the Historic Creeds and ask the pastor to join the church. At what point do you ask about having his wife quit her job and moving the children out of the public school?

If the church really believes what it claims, would it be unreasonable to comp the family so they can attend Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University and help them develop a plan to be able to live off of one income? What about childcare and medical benefits for the family? Can we help the father develop his skills and get a better job to make all this achievable? Sadly none of these things has ever been discussed, let alone implemented.

Christian education—especially home schooling—is not just a preference of the denomination it is a “mandate”. How does Peter Pagan get from where he is to where the denomination says he should be? Sadly, he is left to his own devices.



Conclusion
Now I’ve shared my dilemma with you. Coming “just as I am” is just not good enough. I clearly can’t change the rules of the denomination or the culture of the congregation. But where else would I go? I agree that in theory a Christian Education—however that is defined—is better than the government option in many instances but…

To circle back to the beginning of my discussion, is my church a hospital for sinners or an exclusive club that only allows “the right kind of people” to join?

Meanwhile, if you have paid off your student loans, cars, mortgage, and credit cards; your wife can stay home all day to cook, clean, and teach the children; and you can throw ten percent of your income into the collection basket each month then look us up; we’ll be happy to have you. Oh, and don’t forget about the potluck after the service.

 

Posted by william on 11/18 at 03:35 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Stranger Danger or Opportunity

I often critique or admonish the behavior of other folks on this blog. Often it is because of something that I care about or view as a potential learning opportunity for readers. This blog post is about my church and a set of problems that I have been having with them. I can think of three things with which I have real disagreements with the leadership. Two of the three will be discussed publicly and the other will not. The present subject is the first upon which I wish to vent.

Strangers

The Bible has much to say on the subject of strangers. Some folks clearly do better than others in regard to how they treat new people. Here are some sample passages from the Bible:

• Rahab the harlot treated strangers well and became an ancestor of Jesus.
• The people of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to fornicate with the strangers (angels) visiting their cities on the final night of their existence.
• Joseph treated his brothers harshly and with many trials before revealing himself.
• The disciples were told that if they were treated badly to shake the dust off their feet when leaving an unwelcoming town.
• Hebrews tells us, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”
• Exodus reminds the Jews, “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
• Matthew quotes Jesus, “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:...”
• Paul wrote the Ephesians, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”
• John said, “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;”

Given the weight of biblical evidence, it is clear that we are to treat strangers the same way as those we know. People that have one set of rules for themselves and another for the masses are violating Scripture.

Furthermore, those claiming any part in the theology of John Calvin bump into the doctrine of Predestination. One thing that Predestination means is that everything has been ordained by God for His purposes. Unfortunately for my church, that includes encounters with strangers.

My church is openly hostile of strangers. We meet in a rented public building next to a very large park. We place signs out on the street showing folks where we meet and then lock all the doors to the building. We used to have unlocked doors that were guarded. For some reason, allowing folks to enter the building that want to use the bathroom is equated with inviting bad guys into our place of worship.

Many men in my church carry firearms to the service and many of the young men carry as many as three knives. Young children are expected to be escorted to the bathroom and are never left unattended.

Are we hyper-Calvinists or what? Why can’t a stranger entering our door be viewed as a Providential appointment to share the Gospel? Why not expect that people will respond favorably to Christ and stop assuming that everyone that we don’t know wishes us ill or is at least an irritation that we don’t want to deal with? What happened to give a cup of water in the name of the Lord?

It is ironic that members lament that our numbers are not growing and wonder why? “Welcoming” is never a word used to describe our fellowship. It seems to me that we are way too busy hiding under our bushel basket instead of being a light. Yeah, lights may attract moths but it also can lead people to safety.

The final irony is that two members of the congregation are registered sex offenders and nobody is afraid of them. (This policy towards strangers predates the attendance of either man.)

Posted by william on 11/15 at 09:29 PM
BloggingPermalink

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Happy Veteran’s Day 2017

I got back into the old uniform for the first time in 29 years and walked in the Veteran’s Day Parade in Elk Grove today. Its was moving to be thanked for my service.

I was also blessed to hear my wife sing three songs at the event. God Bless America, Star Spangled Banner, and Amazing Grace.


image


What a contrast from the time when I got out of the Navy back in 1988 and was looking for a job. I distinctly remember applying for work at a local Filco. I handed the guy my resume, he laughed at me, handed the resume back to me, and told me to get out of here. The thought of this treatment still stings.

Posted by william on 11/11 at 02:55 PM
BloggingPermalink

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Car Pool Troubles

A story in the news yesterday is gut-splittingly funny on several levels but before I get there, here’s my background on this issue.

During a lazy summer day a few months ago, I met with an occasional contributor to this very blog near the Toys R Us in Elk Grove. As I was minding my own business just walking through the parking lot, I beheld a sight that I shall never forget.

A small car passes me heading away from said toy retailer that is driven by a woman with a most unusual load on the roof of her vehicle. She has one hand on the steering wheel of her little Toyota and the other out her open window holding onto a plastic swimming pool about fourteen inches deep and six or seven feet around. No straps or other safety devices were holding the pool onto her car, just one hand out the window.

Needless to say, I was shocked that anyone would be so brazen (and stupid) to endanger others in her clearly selfish quest to get this pool back to her house. Clearly a gust of wind or a passing vehicle would easily be able to cause her to lose control of the pool and drop it into the middle of the road thus causing and accident and rendering the pool useless.

Clearly this woman was daring the laws of nature and physics to doom her cargo.

Apparently this was not an isolated incident.

A Wisconsin woman is facing charges after her 9-year-old son was tied to the roof of their minivan to help hold down a plastic pool.

Prosecutors allege 28-year-old Amber Schmunk had her son hold down the molded pool they’d just purchased because it wouldn’t fit inside the van.

Boy Tied To Minivan’s Roof To Hold Down Plastic Pool

Schmunk told cops she “had no way to strap it down so she had her [son] climb on the roof to hold it down while she drove,” and later said she did strap the boy down inside the pool, according to the complaint.

Perhaps a rope around his wee ankle to keep him connected to the pool like a surfer to his board?


image
Amber Schmuck: Car pool mom

Schmunk said she “believed it was OK as her father let her do things like that when she was that age”

Mom strapped son to the roof of minivan to hold down plastic pool

Once I saw her name, I thought, did you ever notice that in books like the Bible, that a person’s name often describes a characteristic of their personality? Her name looks a lot like a word you may know: Schmuck. Per the Internet, “the definition in American English is a pejorative term meaning one who is stupid or foolish”. In this case if the shoe fits…

Oh, no surprise that no Mr. Schuck is mentioned in any version of the story that I can find.

 

Posted by william on 11/02 at 01:01 PM
News & PoliticsPermalink

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Trump, Russia and Other Nonsense

“As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
—Donald Rumsfeld

Candidate Donald Trump was not given a snowball’s chance in hell by the political class when he announced his run for office. The smart money was on people like Jeb Bush. With a full slate of House and Senate races already in the pipeline, Trump had few options available in terms of available personnel when his campaign started picking up traction with voters. The top tier political consultants and more experienced people were already committed to other campaigns. Trump was at a disadvantage in terms of traditional campaigning. Thankfully for him, he was willing to spend his own money to make-up the difference in media buys.

For a while, this served him well but he had huge holes in his organization as he entered the spring of 2016. In many cases, he was left with a combination of inexperienced or disreputable people to run his campaign. Roughly speaking, these folks could be called the “bottom feeders” of the political world.

Such was the case in California. Trump basically had a choice of two consultants to choose from when he began gearing up his California operation. If you recall, it was looking like Trump might need the delegates from the winner-take-all state of California to seal the nomination against Ted Cruz. Trump’s California choices were folks with availability to work for him because they had losing records in running statewide campaigns.

If you apply this personnel deficit on a national scale, you might start to understand why Trump kept changing personnel throughout the campaign and during his first few months in the White House. In fact, even as recently as last month he is still changing people faster than the Senate can confirm them.

The special prosecutor and indictments that were unsealed don’t lead to Trump as the author of any wrongdoing.  The wrongs alleged in the indictment dates back to 2014 and even before; long before Paul Manafort was on Trump’s payroll. The media is still stuck on their Russia narrative but the facts lead elsewhere. Assuming this prosecutor is an ethical guy—which I know is a charitable gesture, if your last name is Clinton or Podesta, you might want to “lawyer-up”.  Trump will survive this sideshow and Hillary will fade away if she knows what’s good for her. 

Addendum
I was contacted by the Sith Lord who shed some more light on the reason that Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort in the first place.

If you recall, as the Trump campaign was winning various state primaries, Ted Cruz supporters were systematically trying to highjack the delegate selection process to get Ted more delegates than he was winning at the ballot box. By doing this, Ted was boosting his delegates in many states with more relaxed systems of delegate selection. Their goal was to deny Trump an outright victory on the first convention ballot and force a brokered convention where Cruz hoped to pick up more supporters in subsequent ballots. Some Trump delegates were actually Cruz supporters that would then be free to vote for Ted after the first vote. Many Establishment types were also hoping for a brokered convention where they planned to dump both candidates and bring in someone like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

It was because of this possibility that Manafort was hired. Per the Sith Lord, Manafort was instrumental in the last brokered convention where he flipped delegates from Reagan to Ford at the 1976 Republican National Committee Convention. Manafort was the “enforcer” for Gerald Ford making offers that delegates simply couldn’t refuse.

As the likelihood of a brokered convention fight between Cruz and Trump dissolved, so did Manafort’s influence in the Trump campaign. He lingered long enough to help with the transition into the White House and then Manafort and Trump parted ways.

Posted by william on 11/01 at 03:40 PM
BloggingPermalink

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Happy Reformation Day Plus 500 Years

Reformation or Revival, we need a little more Jesus in our lives today.

On Oct. 31, 1517, an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther posted 95 debate questions on the door of Wittenberg Church, which began the movement known as “the Reformation.”
Link: 500 Years Ago Today: The Birth of Protestantism

Posted by william on 10/31 at 06:13 AM
BloggingPermalink

Monday, October 30, 2017

Murder of Old Classmates

I saw this article on Facebook over the weekend and it made lots of emotions get stirred up inside.

The article was posted as a link to the Davis Enterprise newspaper. It was about a man convicted of murder who had served about one year of his sentence and was being released by the Department of Corrections. Yeah, you read that correctly. Kill a guy and get charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter and serve a year and then go free!? I knew Governor Brown was letting folks go without serving their sentences but wow!

Here is part of the Enterprise article:

Jeffrey Lemus, who is about a year into his seven-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, has fewer than six months to live after being diagnosed with liver cancer and advanced cirrhosis, according to a compassionate release report prepared by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Although Lemus remains ambulatory and independent in his daily activities, “the progression of the disease is rapid with extreme unlikelihood of improvement,” CDCR Secretary Scott Kernan wrote in a Sept. 21 letter to Judge David Reed, who is due to decide Nov. 6 whether Lemus’ sentence and prison commitment should be recalled.
Terminally ill prison inmate from Woodland may be released

So Mr. Lemus is sentenced on October 25, 2016 and on September 21, 2017, CDCR is looking to set him free. It’s not like the taxpayers are getting out of supporting this guy’s medical expenses so why kick him loose? So he can spend time with his family?

But the article gets better. The guy who was killed was Kelly Choate. I knew him. We went to elementary school together at Holy Rosary Catholic School. I remember he and his brother Barry and their sister.

“…an emotional Kasie Choate, the victim’s daughter, urged Reed to reject the CDCR petition and keep Lemus behind bars.”

“Whether he be healthy or fatally ill does not change the fact that he killed a person,” she added, noting that Lemus is still able to visit with his loved ones in prison. “What about my dad? He didn’t get that. He didn’t get a warning, a diagnosis of his last days. He didn’t get to prepare for his death.”

This tragedy is bad enough for the family it is not the only one:

Once again, tragedy has befallen the Choates.

The longtime Woodland family is mourning the death of Kelly Mason Choate, 53, who was fatally stabbed Saturday night during an altercation at Kenny’s Bar & Grill on East Street.

His death — which the suspect says resulted from an act of self-defense — comes nearly 29 years to the day after that of his twin brother, Barry Choate, whose 1986 Thanksgiving Day murder remains one of Woodland’s unsolved homicides.

“Their father has lost four sons,” Lisa Hulse, Kelly Choate’s ex-wife, said in a phone interview Monday. In addition to the twins, she said, two of their half-brothers have met untimely deaths, including one who passed away just a few months ago.

Barry Mason Choate was a month shy of 25 when a man searching for recyclables on the morning of Nov. 27, 1986, found his body on First Street south of Main. He’d been shot twice in the jaw and neck by a killer who’s never been identified.
Woodland homicide victim mourned; suspect claims self-defense

So the sister—whose name I have purposely omitted—has lost all four of her brothers, two to homicide. Wow. It’s spooky that I knew both men.

I can understand that Kelly’s family is distraught at the thought that his killer will not have to serve his sentence which they believe was lenient to start with. I’m sad for the family and hope that CDCR gets to hold Mr. Lemus a bit longer.

 

Posted by william on 10/30 at 05:40 PM
BloggingPermalink

Friday, October 27, 2017

Las Vegas Shooter

I have waited a while to mention this topic in hopes that facts would make for a better discussion but the number of Facts-capital “F” are frankly very few.

We know the following:
• The attack was premeditated
• The guy modified legally purchased weapons
• He had a laptop, a hammer, and many guns
• A chart for shooting that calculated for gravity acting on a bullet over distance was in the room
• It took 72 minutes from the first shots until the police breached the door where they found the man already dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot.


One last fact, the man was a perfectly rational Liberal. Why?
• He didn’t attend church
• Was not a militia member
• Was not a Trump supporter
• Was not a Republican

If any of the above was true, we would still be hearing about it.

Oh, he was a millionaire and registered to vote Democrat in Florida.

The autopsy showed that he had a “normal” brain.

Liberals—who deny the existence of evil—are mystified how to explain away this whole incident because it doesn’t fit their way of looking at the world. However, not allowing a crisis to go to waste, they began demanding that their god (government) take better care of them by demanding more stringent laws on law abiding citizens.

A friend’s daughter was at the concert that night as were some others that I am aware of. It is tragic but sadly more things like this will happen. Evil flourishes in a world that turns its back on God. Welcome to another judgment day.

Posted by william on 10/27 at 03:46 PM
BloggingPermalink

ESPN Promises Employee Christmas Axing

It’s earnings season for many companies and some are trying to stop the bleeding in time to affect their next quarterly reports. ESPN has done more number crunching as their viewers are still fading away and decided to ax more employees just before Christmas.

ESPN is planning another round of layoffs just six months after the network fired more than 100 employees, Sporting News reports.

Multiple sources told the sports news site that 40 to 60 people including on-air talent and radio personalities may be sent packing.

The layoffs could come as soon as late November or early December.

ESPN preparing for more layoffs, report says

Too bad they don’t quit cramming Liberal politics down viewer’s throats and just do sports. Sadly what isn’t politics these days on their network is chronicling the crime story of the day as these multimillionaire brats misbehavior on and off the field brings dishonor on the athletes that are supposed to be better than us in ways that used to be admirable.

Posted by william on 10/27 at 05:58 AM
News & PoliticsPermalink

Monday, October 23, 2017

Jon Fleischman goes full CRA at GOP Convention

image
By “X” the man with no name

The GOP convention took place in southern California this past weekend and what a doozy it was!  Steve Bannon—the former Trump advisor—did a keynote dinner which is surprising due to the number of people in the CAGOP that hate everything about him and President Donald J Trump.  This led to some interesting developments.

Former CRA President, Jon Fleischman did a full 180 on Trump. He put out an email to all of his “readers” saying Bannon was on fire, and on point lighting up the establishment! 

Wait, full stop, isn’t this the same guy who skipped the Convention in Cleveland, Ohio as a delegate because he hated Trump?  Didn’t he spout off over and over again about how conservative “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz was?  He also basically quit the party and wanted to punt the election to Hillary Clinton so we could try again in 2020?  Wasn’t he a ringleader of the Never Trump faction of the Republican establishment? So now this same Fleischman wants us to believe that he supports the President?

In short ,Fleischman and others in the CRA like to pick winning horses after the race is run. This is not a principled stand. The truth is that Trump has proven more conservative than any candidate backed by Fleischman or CRA. It reminds me of the saying “Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.” Jon is piling on the “Me Too” Express long after the train left the station. Where else could he go? There’s no way he can back the Republican Congress for advancing their agenda.

This is not an isolated example.  How many times did the CRA endorse Kevin McCarthy?  He is no conservative.  However, every time he’s in front of a microphone McCarthy calls himself a conservative. He proudly said so on many occasions this past weekend. Truth is that Keven has never met a conservative that he wasn’t more than happy to throw under the bus to advance himself.

Fleischman and CRA endorsed John McCain and Mitt Romney, because they would rather jump on the bandwagon than stand for any principles.  The CRA and Fleishman were so cocksure Trump would lose the Presidential contest that most didn’t even vote in the November election; Fleischman proudly admitted this on his blog!  The CRA—like Fleishman and the CAGOP—are trying to act as if they were behind Trump from the get go but they weren’t unless they mean behind Trump the way the Roman Senate was behind Julius Caesar one March 15th many years ago.

Trump did exactly what he said he would do in DC, drain the swamp; I—just like William—believe he is shining a light on the swamp!  Trump is exposing the liars and the charlatans that claim to be conservatives, but are frauds.  The whole Republican establishment is running like cockroaches that were caught in the light when asked to enact their campaign promises into law. Talk about duck and cover! Notice that not a single congressperson from the Orange County area—where the convention was held—showed up?  The four of them know their careers are in peril and wanted no part of Bannon calling them out in front of convention attendees. 

The point of this post is that next time you see or hear a CRA member or CAGOP member talking up their conservative credentials; don’t believe them, they are just wolves in sheep clothing.  Actually better yet, they are lambs in wolves clothing.  This group will always run from their conservative talking points and endorse or back someone who has no credentials at all such as Ted Cruz.  It’s over for CAGOP and CRA. They should just pack up their tent and go home.  And Fleischman, do everyone a favor next convention, have a flip-flop party for Trump on your own dime, or even better change your blog from the “Flash Report” to beliefs you can change in
…in a flash.

“X”

Posted by william on 10/23 at 07:37 PM
BloggingPermalink

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

NFL Bleeds Greenbacks

Not surprisingly, the NFL is bleeding cash as a result of dissing the national anthem.

Remember the axiom, he who defines the issue, wins the debate. Kneeling was originally ill defined as a full throated support of killing police because a few of them may have done “the wrong thing” while on duty. Much of this was based on lies that were popularized without vetting the evidence. Yet another example of not letting facts get in the way of a good narrative. Yes, there are examples of police wrongdoing but they are few compared to the number of people wearing a badge and protecting our communities. Few of these are motivated by race contrary to what Kap and BLM said.

Tying the NFL to a race issue in this way is stupid because the overwhelming majority of players are minorities in privileged positions. I don’t think most even know why they are kneeling except because they don’t like Trump. Trump called them out and a hell broke loose. As Merle Haggard once said:
“When they’re runnin’ down our country, man
They’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me.”

This is what Trump saw and he also saw that the NFL refused to police their own and said what he thought. Their problem is how to get back on track and not look like President Trump is right. Whether you like him or not, Trump is on the right side of this issue and so, thankfully are many Americans.

The field of play in a sport is not the forum for individual expression. In fact on a team, you should expect to have to watch what you say and how you behave. You represent the team 24/7. The NFL has refused to hold players to account for many years, some of us have finally had enough.

Hey NFL, if you respected anything other than money, this never would have happened. First rule of holes is quit digging. Anyway, the fallout has started to hit the broadcast networks.

CBS earnings to disappoint due to weak NFL ratings, Credit Suisse says

The analyst said CBS’ Sunday NFL ratings are down 17 percent year over year during the first several weeks of the football season, according to the report. Sheikh released a similar report last week on Twenty-First Century Fox’s earnings, which he also expects to disappoint thanks to weaker ratings by the NFL.

Posted by william on 10/17 at 08:15 AM
News & PoliticsPermalink

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

NFL on its Knees

Lest you thought fielding players with multiple felonies, dissing the national anthem, and concussions are the only issues facing the NFL try again.

Here are two stories that you might have missed:


1 The NFL is facing strong headwinds trying to sell tickets in California. None of the four NFL teams in California is prospering.

California’s Breakup With the NFL

The 49ers have ceded Bay Area primacy to the NBA’s Golden State Warriors. The average ticket price on the secondary market for 49ers home games has dropped 32.5% since they moved to Levi’s Stadium in 2014 , according to Jesse Lawrence, founder of TicketIQ, a search engine that aggregates ticket listings.

This year, attendance has cratered. Through the Rams’ first three home games, they have averaged just 59,162 fans per game—which leaves a vast emptiness in the NFL’s largest stadium, which can hold more than 93,000.



2 In addition to all this, the Raiders have apparently been caught throwing a game because their white quarterback stood for the national anthem.

Dereck Carr, the QB for the Oakland Raiders, Is said To Have Been Punished By Black Teammates For Standing For Anthem — Makes Stunning Admission Of What Else They Did To Him

Last week, it was revealed that the Oakland Raiders offensive line, who are all African-American, may have intentionally allowed their star quarterback, Derek Carr, their white teammate, to get sacked multiple times because he would not to take a knee during the national anthem prior to the Oakland Raiders playing the Washington Redskins.

It was even reported that an unidentified Oakland Raiders player said of Derek Carr, “If he wants to stand alone for the national anthem, he can stand alone on the field.”
Did the Oakland Raiders Throw Games to Punish Their White QB — Derek Carr for Standing For Anthem?

Posted by william on 10/11 at 12:00 AM
News & PoliticsPermalink

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

NFL = ESPN = The CRA

image
By “X” the man with no name

First of all to let our loyal readers know your humble blogger has returned as internet and power have been restored to the underground bunker here at the X residence.  No word about a hurricane at a local tavern taking place, but a hurricane at a commode did take place; but on to the point of this post. 

The NFL has had a disastrous first couple of weeks and it has only gotten worse from there.  The games have been entertaining—even decent I would say—but the shenanigans surrounding the national anthem are a disgrace.  Ratings are down over 10% from last year; this sounds like a fledging cable channel (ESPN) right?  This past weekend over 100 players refused to stand for the national anthem, and in my opinion that’s ok I guess, because we believe in freedom of speech.  Taking a knee is very disrespectful do not get me wrong; but even worse is holding a fist in the air a la the Black Panther symbol, or sitting on a bench eating.  Both of which have been demonstrated last couple weeks.

Perhaps even more disturbing, the NFL plays a couple games in London a year apparently, and the players continued to kneel for the national anthem, yet stood for God Save the Queen!  So let me get this straight, protest a democracy, respect a monarchy?  Just for the information of many, these protesting players make more money in one year than most Americans will ever earn over the course of their entire lifetimes!  Also anyone take notice that they have never said what they are protesting, also notice the time that protests started?  Both coincide with the rise on one Donald J Trump as both a candidate and nominee for President.  Protesting President Trump, I think that’s okay, but totally contradictory to the stance many of you took when Barack Obama was President!  Remember if anyone said anything bad about him we were racists, etc.  Interesting, we were told to fall in line under Obama, under Trump we are told we have to co-exist!

The NFL is just beginning to feel the brunt of this protesting, and it’s going to get far worse before it gets any better!  Did anyone see the fans demonstrating during and after the games, as well as throughout the week?  Fans ripped up their season tickets (These are not cheap I may add) torched their jerseys (Just like the CRA torched their principles) and have stopped tuning in to the games themselves.  AT&T subsidiary DirecTV is offering a full refund to anyone who purchased their product NFL Sunday Ticket due to the protests.  This is unheard of from a cable company!  Two sponsors of the NFL have pulled their ads from appearing during the games and more are likely on the way.  One of X’s spies, let’s call her a FOX (Friend of X) has even told me the NFL owners are panicking to the point they wanted players to wear a patch that said “Team America” on their jerseys last weekend! 


image
NFL Team America: Putting the F in you


This shows a ship with no captain heading straight for the proverbial iceberg; much like the CRA (Which I left 3 years ago, because I knew this meltdown was coming).

This became a problem with the NFL—just like it has with ESPN—because neither know the temperament of either their audience or fans.  NFL fans tend to be more conservative; which is why I am not sure why the NFL didn’t do more to address these protests before they became an issue.  The fans booed the protesting players and the NFL and the players came back saying they were praying… sounds bogus to me.  One former NFL player was given a segment on ESPN saying how standing for the national anthem is not any different from wearing the flag as a shirt or bikini.  My rebuttal to that player is I don’t think anyone considers a shirt or a swimsuit an act of disrespecting the flag, kneeling is. 

Anyone notice the players never defined their protest?  Was in police brutality?  Black Lives Matter?  Donald Trump? Inequality?  The problem when you do not define your movement, the public, or the powers that be; will do that for you.  Donald Trump did, after it appear the owners and the commissioner had become squishy, Trump labeled the protest as disrespecting the flag and the country—which it does.  Since Trump’s comments, the tables started to turn, the players never reacted and now Jerry Jones and Stephen Ross, two powerful owners; have said to their players “Stand for the anthem or you won’t play.”  The players didn’t define their movement, so others did it for them!

Maybe the CRA should consult with these players since they hate Donald “the dictator” Trump as well.  Trust me I was at the endorsing convention, Cruz had no chance to be nominated, yet was overwhelmingly endorsed. Also, concerning two members from the local Sacramento chapter, I would love to debate anything I have written on this blog with you, but I’m sure you’re still busy working on your “resolution to admonish the cap and traitors.”

“X”

Posted by william on 10/10 at 03:38 PM
News & PoliticsPermalink
Page 1 of 56 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »