Welcome to the Conservative Christian Movement Podcast episode 012 titled “Speak the Truth”. Today on the Conservative Christian Movement Podcast I’ll give details on Saul Alinsky’s Eleventh rule for Radicals, We’ll continue talking about Johnson Amendment in depth. I’ll finish with more examples of liberal melt downs. Show Notes for this episode can be found at CCMPodcast.com. Thank you for joining in, without any more Introductions, let’s get started.
The verse of the day:
Proverbs 11:3 Living Bible (TLB)
A good man is guided by his honesty; the evil man is destroyed by his dishonesty.
In our political system we elect (hopefully) human beings, all of which according to the word are sinful beings. I am sinful, you are sinful; we ALL are sinful and have fallen short of the glory of God. That means none of us are particularly worthy of God’s grace, though because He loves us, we are set free of our sins. We are also limited in our capacity to live like Jesus lived.
Aside from good works, our greatest sign of a moral compass is our honesty. As we hire our representatives at the local, state and federal levels, more data exists, giving permanent evidence as to how well they have lived up to their word. In that respect those who fall short can legitimately be fired, while those who have the fortitude to live up to their words and work hard for you, can be blessed with re-election.
Making the choice to give the job and take it away is a personal task each of us, especially Christians, must take– and take seriously if we are to every fight back from the brink of destruction for which turning away from God has led us.
The Eleventh Rule for Radicals—
- The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside;
The eleventh rule follows closely behind the tenth. Sustainment of attacks is required. But what is it that Alinsky means by “Counterside?” Let’s presume for a moment, any attack by an Alinsky follower is made up mostly of half-truths. The activists publicly state something about company X and continue making the statements over time. The company can react in one of a few ways. They could simply ignore it. They could make a simple statement in defense. They could react with multiple statements.
If reacting with multiple statements, by perhaps multiple people, there is a risk of contradictory statements or even a perceived admission of truth to the claim. Therein lies the counterside. Now the activist can act shocked at the admission, offer a “told you so” and then ratchet the pressure. The counterside now is a changing defense which simply proves guilt in the mind of people.
We see this tactic frequently in hopes of causing an outburst and the hope for increased negative tone on behalf of our president. I’ve talked about Russia in prior episodes. We have a full year of denials on behalf of the administration and a full year of accusations from Democrats and a possible presidential interview with the special counsel, Robert Mueller (which I fully expect to be a gotcha circus). If I had a phone line direct to the white house, I’d say don’t do it… Fodder WILL follow.
And now, part 2– The Johnson Amendment
We talked last week about Lyndon B. Johnson nearly losing a primary election to a candidate supported by a 501 c (3) organization. This was the impetus to the change in the tax code.
As a result, upon winning the election, Johnson saw fit to ensure this doesn’t happen again. What can we learn from this? If a law is used to beat a liberal, change the law. Any time we hear the Johnson Amendment in the news, it is reflective of conservatives and yes, Pastors in the pulpit. You see, the Bible is in direct conflict of Liberal policies, in most cases. Maybe I should say it in reverse, that Liberal Policies are in direct conflict with the Bible. That’s probably the right way to say it. It comes down to just a few issues really– abortion, homosexual marriage and public celebrations of Christianity.
Can you as a Christian, sitting in a church on Sunday imagine your pastor endorsing a candidate who supports abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and does not celebrate the birth of Jesus or His resurrection? Not likely, thought there are some churches who would do exactly that (more on that later).
Johnson knew churches were a primary recipient of the benefits of 501 c (3) status, and thus could shut them down through legislatively threatening that benefit. It worked for years and continues to keep the pulpit, for the most part out of the public policy grudge match. Another result of this is a failure to press Christians in the church to get out and vote.
With the current administration vowing to eliminate the Johnson amendment, many in the press are downplaying the effects of the amendment. They claim the church has many rights to influence the congregation. Perhaps that is true, however the threats placed on them by the amendment, changes the behavior of the church, forcing them to hold short of even mentioning voting, candidates– especially by name, Biblical issues or supporting such positions with scripture. This all in the name of protecting the benefit of tax free existence, something the liberals consider a free ride on the government.
There are in my opinion, two reasons liberals would keep the amendment in place.
- To ensure Conservative Christians stay out of politics as much as possible.
- To ensure donations to candidates are not funneled through tax deductible charities such as churches.
To be clear, it is not just liberal democrats who want the amendment to remain in place. Liberal Republicans do too. The one reason is any Christian voting according to Biblical teachings would be less likely to support those of liberal nature than conservative politicians.
If you believe I am wrong on that, you need to look no farther than the list of people who support keeping the amendment in place. I found a letter (linked below) of pastors who petitioned the government to leave it in place. Low and behold what I found were churches with gay pastors and churches who support the LGBTQ agenda. Additionally, Atheist organizations, liberal Democrats and an organization known as Americans United for a Separation of Church and State. The harm as they state is this:
Many signers explained why this issue was important to them. For example:
- “When we throw our endorsements behind particular candidates and parties, we have crossed an important line which carries us beyond serving as the spokespeople for the moral and ethical teachings of our faiths and into the role of partisan political propagandists.” – Rabbi Henry Karp of Iowa
- “It was news to me that my freedom over the last forty-five years in the same pulpit had been limited. Not true. Nothing will destroy the witness of a local congregation [more] than to invite unbridled partisan politics.” – the Rev. Gary Burton of Alabama
- “Political groups will use compliant churches as PAC funnels, allowing unlimited political donations and making them tax-deductible.” – Imam Rashid Patch of California
Rabbi Henry Karp is, according to his blog anti-Trump and a reform Jew. Reform Jews are committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large. I tend to agree with Rev. Burton, however, the church absolutely must get involved in partisan politics if only to define the problem, and push a solution to the congregation. Otherwise, I find no disagreement with the Reverend. As for Imam Rashid Patch, I did not dig deep enough to look into his heritage, however his facebook page is clearly anti-Trump and seems a bit anti-Semitic.
What we see here is those who are against repeal do not have Christian thinking in mind, well mostly. Others just think it works well enough as it is without repealing it.
I feel it should be repealed, however I do not want church money to go to candidates. I think on that front, most of us agree. I do however want Pastors to be free to call out politicians who do not share Christian values.
In the meantime, if you are of Christian values and want to prepare for the coming primary elections in each state and the general election in November, check out iVoterGuide.com. Simply enter your zip code and it will give you lots of details on local and state races. It will do the homework for you based on a candidate’s history and score them on the conservative-liberal scale.
The Liberal Rants of the week…
I have two for you this week. First we have former Secretary of State Madelein Albright. When I was younger, I would refer to her as Madeleine Halfbright, you know in my youthful exuberant days. But it seems our “democracy” not our Republic is at risk with President Trump at the helm. It seems Miss Albright believes true dictators around the world point to his actions as justifying their own dictatorial actions. She calls the president a fascist, in her words as a government controlled by one party. Well, by her definition, we had that at the beginning of President Obama’s administration and we seemed to survive that fascism.
Hey Madeleine, calling the president a racist hatemongering is not truthful and it is not helpful. I’m just sayin’.
Then we have MSNBC (Yes, it still exists, though few watch it) and their merry band of analysts. It seems their lifelong dream is about to come true. With the hope of finally seeing the president questioned by Mueller, the liberal dream of seeing the president in prison is at hand according to MSNBC.
As I mentioned earlier in this episode, speaking with Mueller in any form is a recipe for disaster. It plays into the hands of liberal activists at every turn. The slighted embellishment or omission would be a trip to the grand jury, or the federal equivalent where Mueller is concerned. Seeing this outcome would serve the 40% of Americans who actually wanted Clinton to win.
I had less than zero respect for anything President Obama had to say, for good reason, but seeing him in prison never once crossed my mind. As I’ve said a few times in my show, politics is a board game, you win some and you lose some, but you should always play fair.
Join the discussion at CCMPodcast.com. I look forward to your comments about this week’s show.
Coming in the next episode, I’ll cover Alinsky’s Twelfth rule for radicals and finish looking into the Johnson Amendment. As always, I’ll find more examples of liberal melt downs. Hopefully, YOU will share your reaction to my show.
My question for you today is this: Are you concerned about Christian Voter turnout? Let me know.
Leave a message on Speak Pipe, voicemail or email. Each method isfound on my contact page, ccmpodcast.com/contact, I’ll likely share it on the show.
Until next time, be blessed.
The president in shackles–
Faith Leaders Letter– (Download link)
Bible Verse from Bible Gateway–