New York Times Blames Evangelical Christians for Coronavirus

Susan (no last names released) bows her head in prayer as she and fellow fourth-grader Carolyne (L) attend a prayer service to give thanks that no one has died since a car plowed into 12 children, including Vanessa, and three teachers the day before at Westminster Academy Christian Day School, …

JOEL B. POLLAK 27 Mar 2020

The New York Times published an op-ed Friday that blamed evangelical Christians for the coronavirus pandemic.

The argument, by journalist and author Katherine Stewart, is that because religious voters supported Trump, that means he governs without regard for science.

US President Donald Trump (C) stands in a prayer circle during a meeting with African-American leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2020. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

Stewart also claims that Republicans, more than Democrats, are likely to deny science.

In her op-ed, titled “The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals,” she writes:

Donald Trump rose to power with the determined assistance of a movement that denies science, bashes government and prioritized loyalty over professional expertise. In the current crisis, we are all reaping what that movement has sown.

At least since the 19th century, when the proslavery theologian Robert Lewis Dabney attacked the physical sciences as “theories of unbelief,” hostility to science has characterized the more extreme forms of religious nationalism in the United States.

She then goes on to provide several quotes from pastors who pushed back against the idea of closing their churches.

Stewart admits: “By all accounts, President Trump’s tendency to trust his gut over the experts on issues like vaccines and climate change does not come from any deep-seated religious conviction.”

But she adds: “But he is perfectly in tune with the religious nationalists who form the core of his base.”

Read the full op-ed here.

Evangelical Christians (Justin Sullivan / Getty)

TURLOCK, CA – MAY 29: Attendees pray during Franklin Graham’s “Decision America” California tour at the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds on May 29, 2018 in Turlock, California. Rev. Franklin Graham is touring California for the weeks leading up to the California primary election on June 5th with a message for evangelicals to vote. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Since the start of the coronavirus crisis, Trump has repeatedly deferred to scientists, doctors and experts in the administration — particularly Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Debbie Birx, who feature in his daily press briefings.

Notably, scientists have confirmed that President Trump’s travel bans on China and Europe slowed and limited the spread of the disease in the United States. In Fauci’s case, he specifically urged the travel ban be imposed on Europe.

All of the Democratic candidates for president opposed those bans.

Former Vice President Joe Biden called the China ban “hysterical” and xenophobic, and panned the Europe ban after Trump announced it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2020/03/27/new-york-times-blames-evangelical-christians-for-coronavirus-pandemic/

VA announces proposed rule regarding equal treatment of faith-based organizations in VA-supported social service programs

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)  proposed a rule, Jan. 16, that would implement President Trump’s, May 3, 2018, Executive Order (EO) establishing a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, to remove regulatory barriers allowing religious and non-religious organizations equal treatment in VA-supported social service programs.

The proposed rule ensures VA-supported social service programs are implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution and other applicable federal law.

Under current regulations governing these programs, religious providers of social services — but not other providers of social services — must make referrals under certain circumstances and must post notices regarding this referral procedure. VA’s proposed rule would eliminate religious providers from this requirement.

The current hindrances were not required by any applicable law, and because they were imposed only on religious social service providers, they are in tension with recent Supreme Court precedent regarding nondiscrimination against religious organizations. The proposed rule will foreclose other unequal treatment of religious organizations by ensuring they are not required to provide assurances or notices that are not required of secular organizations.

By compelling religious organizations, but not secular organizations, to post special notices and make referrals, the alternative-provider requirements unequally placed impediments on religious organizations and cast unwarranted suspicion on them

Additionally, the proposed rule will clarify that religious organizations may apply for awards on the same basis as any other organization and that when VA selects award recipients, VA will not discriminate based on an organization’s religious character. The proposed rule further clarifies that religious organizations participating in VA-supported social service programs retain their independence from the government and may continue to carry out their missions consistent with religious freedom protections in federal law, under the First Amendment.

The proposed rule incorporates the Attorney General’s 2017 Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies, Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty.  That memorandum was issued pursuant to President Trump’s, May 4, 2017, Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, which guides all federal administrative agencies and executive departments in complying with federal law.

“Protecting religious liberty is a key part of ensuring Veterans, families and potential partners — no matter their religious beliefs — feel welcome to work with and seek services from VA,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “These important changes will help us accomplish these important goals.”

https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5384

VIDEO The War to Destroy Christian America

David Horowitz’s new book examines the secular left’s dark agenda.

 

Mar 6, 2019 Mark Tapson

Today, the free exercise of religion has ceased to be a guaranteed right in America. Instead, it has become a battlefield. – David Horowitz

For years, Morris County in New Jersey had been giving historic churches money to make repairs under an historic preservation program. In 2015, the State Supreme Court ruled that taxpayer funds should not be used to repair places of worship. A challenge to this ruling recently went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that “[b]arring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic-preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion.” This “would raise serious questions under this Court’s precedents and the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee of equality.”

This seems like a relatively minor, local issue but it is yet another instance of the fierce conflict referred to in Horowitz’s quote above. As the Freedom Center’s founder notes in his brand new book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, we are engaged in “a war against this nation and its founding principles: the equality of individuals and individual freedom. For these principles are indisputably Christian in origin. They are under siege because they are insurmountable obstacles to radicals’ totalitarian ambition to create a new world in their image.”

Those totalitarian radicals are today’s progressives. “Since its birth in the fires of the French Revolution,” Horowitz writes, “the political left has been at war with religion, and with the Christian religion in particular.” He knows this from personal experience. As a “red-diaper baby,” he learned early on that his parents and their leftist friends were true believers in a faith, but not one concerned with the fate of souls. The label “progressivism” masked their true religion, which was Communism, and their “cause was the salvation of mankind” – but “they thought of themselves as the redeemers, not God.”

As Horowitz demonstrates in his slim but compelling and disturbing new volume, the left’s ruthless antagonism toward Christianity stems from its own arrogant determination to shape the world according to atheist Karl Marx’s utopian vision of perfect equality and social justice (with Edenic environmental harmony thrown in for good measure). “Those who believe they are changing the world, or saving the planet, or transforming the human race,” Horowitz writes, “are intoxicated with self-aggrandizing pride.” Those afflicted with this arrogance, such as the so-called New Atheists like political comedian Bill Maher, condemn the violence and bigotry spread in the name of religion (especially Christianity; Islam is usually off-limits to condemnation partly because it shares an anti-Western animosity with the left, and partly because open criticism of Islam tends to get the critic targeted for death). But they “are blind to all the positive influences religion has had on human behavior, and they ignore all the atheist-inspired genocides of the last 250 years,” Horowitz writes. He rightly points out that the danger lies not in religion but in human nature; it is our flawed humanity that sometimes poisons religion, not the other way around.

The left, however, is loath to acknowledge this because human nature is messy and incompatible with their utopianism; thus it must be either ignored, denied, or forcefully molded to fit the glorious collectivist dream. Similarly, our nation’s Christian roots must be denied or cut off to pave the way for the realization of that dream. Horowitz explains, for example, that “America is the logical, if not inevitable, development of the Protestant Reformation,” which “led directly to the principle at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, that ‘all men are created equal’ and endowed with rights by their Creator – rights no government has the authority to deny.”

But the statist left demands this authority for itself, so it seized upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to undermine American religious traditions, and found a willing instrument in an activist Supreme Court: “In one despotic decision after another, the Supreme Court inflated the Establishment Clause while letting all the air out of the Free Exercise protection. Again and again, the High Court jammed its radical redefinition of the First Amendment down the throat of an unwilling, unready society.”

“Once the left had built a wall of separation between church and state,” Horowitz continues, “it had to change history and make the past conform to the present.” Thus, for example, schools and textbooks began to reflect a de-emphasis on our Christian roots, such as referring to the early Pilgrims as merely “settlers” or “European colonizers.”

Horowitz identifies the weaponized Supreme Court as the principal villain in this drama:

In case after case – religious expression in schools, contraception, abortion – the Supreme Court handed down a string of earthshaking decisions founded on the flimsiest and even bogus constitutional reasoning. The unintended consequence of these decisions was to place the Supreme Court on the front lines of an epic culture war. It was not merely a war between left and right, but between secularism and religion, especially the Christian religion. The secular left had discovered an all-powerful instrument – the Supreme Court – with which it could impose its radical, anti-Christian agenda on an unwilling nation.

The cast of characters in Dark Agenda includes the rabidly anti-Christian activist Madelyn Murry (later O’Hair), who filed a lawsuit against school prayer which Horowitz calls “the Fort Sumter of the war over religious liberty.” Murray shrewdly found an ally in the Supreme Court, and the rest is history: “A circus put on by a calculating, truth-challenged anti-American crackpot, egged on by ACLU radicals, provided an opportunity for eight lifetime political appointees, elected by no one and accountable to no one, to reinterpret the Constitution, overturn nearly two centuries of precedent and tradition, and change the life of a nation.”

Horowitz also tells the tale of eugenicist Margaret Sanger, a feminist icon who declared in her manifesto Woman and the New Race that women could be liberated from what feminists perceived to be the bonds of motherhood by means of “reproductive freedom,” and may, “by controlling birth, lift motherhood to the plane of a voluntary, intelligent function, and remake the world.” [Emphasis added] Sanger strove to implement her aims by promoting the previously socially unacceptable tools of contraception and abortion.

Horowitz describes how, in order to get the Supreme Court to legalize abortion, feminists sought a sacrificial lamb, a woman whose case would be compelling enough to assure legal victory. That lamb was Norma McCorvey, manipulated into serving as the “Jane Roe” of the immeasurably damaging Roe v. Wade decision (McCorvey never actually had an abortion and became an anti-abortion advocate).

The cast also includes Horowitz’s friend Christopher Hitchens, the New Atheist author of God is Not Great; constitutionalist Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, infamously demonized by Ted Kennedy and the anti-Christian left; Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker the left tried to destroy because he refused to compromise his Christian beliefs by baking a wedding cake for a gay couple; and of course, former president Barack Obama, whom one faith-based website declared “America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President.”

Today, after eight years of Obama’s relentless castigation of Christian institutions and individuals as bigoted (Horowitz even provides a timeline of hostile acts toward people of Biblical faith during Obama’s tenure), President Donald Trump has been embraced by the religious right despite Trump’s problematic personal character because, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put it, “My support for Trump has never been based upon shared values; it is based on shared concerns.” Predictably, in its obsessive hatred for Christianity and for the upstart political outsider who “stole” the White House from progressive icon (and Saul Alinsky protégé) Hillary Clinton, the left set out to delegitimize Trump by claiming the religious right’s backing is grounded in racism.

This critical front of the culture war that has riven our country still rages. David Horowitz’s Dark Agenda is a must-read for every citizen who wants to understand, and to fight back against, the radically secular drift of our country and the assault on America’s core values, traditions, and freedoms.

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/03/war-destroy-christian-america-mark-tapson/


David Horowitz: The War to Destroy Christian America


Christianity Today and the problem with ‘Christian Elitism’

By John Grano and Richard Land, Editorial

Christianity Today editor Mark Galli’s “lofty” op-ed last week calling for President Trump’s removal from office touched off a firestorm of criticism and dissent from scores of evangelical leaders, and the backlash and debate have reached “critical mass” since its publication. Meanwhile, secular media immediately seized upon the CT editorial to argue that evangelical support for the president was finally crumbling under the weight of impeachment by the House of Representatives.

After all, when Christianity Today, the “flagship” magazine of evangelicals, founded by Billy Graham himself, turns against the president, then the long hoped for evangelical exodus from Trump must surely have finally commenced.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth, as made clear by the Graham family itself. The great evangelist’s son, Franklin, divulged that his father “knew Donald Trump, believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump.” He then went on to say that his father “believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.”

Additionally, almost 200 evangelical leaders signed a joint letter opposing the CT editorial and asserting that CT itself is a shell of its former self and that CT speaks to, and for, fewer evangelicals with each passing year.

What was the spirit animating CT editor Galli’s “thunderbolt” from on high? The answer is likely found in the self-appointed Mount Olympus from which Mr. Galli made his “moral” pronouncement. After Trump’s election, Mr. Galli bluntly confessed:

“I know hardly anyone, let alone any evangelical Christian who voted for Trump. I describe evangelicals like me as ‘elite’ evangelicals … and this class of evangelicals has discovered that we have family members so different they seem like aliens in our midst. These other evangelicals often haven’t finished college, and if they have jobs (and apparently a lot of them don’t), they are blue-collar jobs or entry-level work. They don’t write books or give speeches; they don’t attend conferences of evangelicals for social justice or evangelicals for immigration reform. They are deeply suspicious of mainstream media. A lot of them voted for Donald Trump.”

These words are chillingly similar to former President Barack Obama’s description of rural voters who “cling to their guns and Bibles,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s characterization of Trump supporters as “deplorables,” and most recently, Beto O’Rourke’s smug threats against biblically orthodox churches and citizens who own a certain type of rifle. These are the words of elitists who look down upon opponents as inferior human beings who need to be controlled, not debated.

That is the toxic emotional and spiritual stew in which the attitude animating Galli’s editorial festered into life.

This attitude is distinctly unbiblical. In Philippians, the Apostle Paul describes Jesus —the only one who rightly deserves elite status — as one who, “though in the form of God, did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself.” Instead, Jesus washed His disciples’ feet, fellowshipped with sinners, tax collectors and the racially “unclean,” and was the first to champion equality for women, slaves, and even lepers.

Mr. Galli asks evangelicals supporting Trump to consider how continued support for the president will impede and compromise evangelical witness for Jesus to an unbelieving world. One might well ask Mr. Galli how his obvious elitist disdain and corrosive condescension for fellow Christians with whom he disagrees, as ignorant, uneducated, “aliens in our midst” might well damage evangelical witness to an unbelieving world. Unbelievers might well conclude, “These Christian preach love for neighbor, but they certainly don’t seem to practice what they preach!”

You may think Trump is a narcissistic, morally challenged, belligerent cad who has no business being president — except for the pesky constitutional fact that over 60 million American voters elected him to it. You may see Trump as a modern day Cyrus, the Persian king who did God’s bidding in assisting in the restoration of Jerusalem. You may think Trump is a Samson-like hero called to realign the Supreme Court, to redirect the economy toward the American worker, and/or to tear down the pillars of Deep State corruption in modern Washington. But whatever you think — and however you vote — America will certainly survive and is, in significant ways, thriving under a Trump presidency — even if it lasts another four years.

However, our religious and other freedoms will not long survive a government of elites so convinced of their superiority that they are willing to compromise constitutional due process, after illegally manipulating the nation’s national security and law enforcement apparatus behind the scenes, to depose a duly-elected sitting president — all the while declaring arrogantly to the American people that it is for their own good.

These are the fellow travelers that Christianity Today is clearly aligning itself with at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. CT’s op-ed does not represent evangelical Christianity today, yesterday or in the future. After all, a majority of Trump’s evangelical support has been triggered by his opponents’ advocating policies that make him appear to be, at the very least, the lesser of two evils in a binary contest.

CT’s disdainful, dismissive, elitist posture toward their fellow Christians may well do far more long-term damage to American Christianity and its witness than any current prudential support for President Trump will ever cause.

John Grano is Senior Managing Editor of The Christian Post and Richard Land is it’s Executive Editor.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christianity-today-and-the-problem-with-christian-elitism.html

Greatness Comes From Service

“Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:26-28 NIV

A few years ago I was attending my son’s state cross country meet. As I glanced over my shoulder I saw a man wearing an Army Ranger shirt. He looked military and sounded military. You have probably heard that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably, you guessed it… a duck. Now I have to admit. I was in awe. Throughout my upbringing, I wanted to be an Airborne Ranger. I really, really wanted to be an Airborne Ranger. I had the official Ranger handbook and started working on those skills when I was a young teenager. Now on this October afternoon, I am hung up on this definite concoction of masculinity, honor, service and respect as I tried to get the gumption to spark up a conversation.

I finally mustered up the nerve to step over and start talking to him. We spoke as if we had known one another for years. He was surprisingly upbeat as he told me about the seven tours he had accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thanked him for his sacrifice and service and told him about my time in the Navy working on F/A-18 aircraft. Although I felt a little small in the shadow of this well-spoken and seasoned Army Ranger, he made a big impact on me. He affirmed my service. He affirmed something in me that I had never really believed until that day. He said, “You guys were force multipliers on the battlefield. We knew that when you guys were around we were going to be okay.” Suddenly I didn’t feel small any longer. I felt like an equal, a valuable contributor, and a force multiplier. This has been etched in my mind ever since and makes me think of some other “force multipliers”.

Every man (and woman) can become a force multiplier for good! A force multiplier multiplies and maximizes potential in others. Jesus, the ultimate force multiplier, has much to say about how to be a force multiplier for good. On a spring day in the bustling city of Jerusalem, the mother of James and John asked Jesus for a favor, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” (Matthew 20:21 NIV, 2011) You have to admit that’s a bold ask. Not surprising, this sparked anger and jealousy in the other 10 disciples. Jesus opposed their selfish ambition and self-importance by making them look at their motives. It even made Peter speechless. I can only imagine the tension and anticipation in this moment. What would Jesus say next? Maybe they were even wondering what they did wrong? Maybe they thought they were entitled to the position? We may never know, but what we do know is Jesus’ message refined greatness and purpose for the citizens of Heaven.

Greatness comes from service to God and others not positions of authority over others. Jesus connected the dots of greatness, usefulness and service. Notice how the Apostle Paul described a husband’s role and responsibility in a marriage covenant. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25–27, NIV84) God’s purpose for the man in marriage is to serve and sacrifice for his wife like Jesus did for the redeemed. Husbands serve God by serving and sacrificing for their wives.

Men become force multipliers when they stand in the gap for others. This game changing reality turns selfish ambition on its head. The man’s way to greatness is in service to God and others. A man needs to know the true purpose for his masculine strength or he will abandon or abuse it. I believe that men want to be honorable. For instance, little boys in church hear the compelling stories of Joshua, Moses, David, Gideon, and Jesus. Their little hearts swell with big dreams of being like these men. Did you notice that all of these men obeyed God and served others in their various roles?

Deep in the recesses of brokenness and regret, a man’s heart may have life but no vision or pathway for his masculine traits to be rendered useful. The vision is right in front of you and the time is now. In many ways, a man can become whom he chooses to be. If a man wants to be a force multiplier, he surely can.

Discerning Reflection: Would God be happy with the way I serve and lift up others? Would people around me say that I serve and sacrifice for the right things? Who is it I need to start serving so I can be a force multiplier? What do I need to do now?

Prayer: Father, please help me to live a life of service to you and others. I will let your kindness lead me to repentance if I have failed, so I can glorify you and bring good into my world.

Chad Zueck

For more on A New Kind of Man go to: www.beanewman.com
Also check out the A New Kind of Man community on Instagram: @anewkindofman
For more inquiries about podcasting, speaking and writing send messages to chad@beanewman.com.

Guest- Chad Zueck- Greatness Comes From Service

VIDEO Franklin Graham labels Trump opposition ‘demonic’; Rick Perry labels Trump ‘chosen one’

By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

The Reverend Franklin Graham has described opposition to President Donald Trump as being “demonic” in a recent interview with author and radio personality Eric Metaxas.

In an interview with Metaxas posted to YouTube last Thursday, Metaxas asked Graham his opinion on the current political climate, especially those opposed to President Trump.

“What do you think of what is happening now? I mean it is a very bizarre situation, to be living in a country where some people seem to exist to undermine the president of the United States,” asked Metaxas.

Graham described what Metaxas was talking about as “almost a demonic power,” which led the radio host to interject and say that he did not believe the term “almost” should be included.

“It is a spiritual battle,” agreed Graham, who then touted the Trump administration’s handling of the economy, saying that the nation has “an economy that is just screaming forward.”

“All of this is because Donald Trump said he was going to turn things around and make American great again. He cut taxes and that cutting added fuel to this economic engine that we’re enjoying right now.”

Peter Wehner, senior fellow with the Ethics & Public Policy Center, denounced Metaxas and Graham’s comments in a column for The Atlantic as “theologically distorted and confused.”

“There is no biblical or theological case to support the claim that critics of Donald Trump are under the spell of Satan. It is invented out of thin air, a shallow, wild, and reckless charge meant to be a conversation stopper,” wrote Wehner.

“Just ask yourself where this game ends. Do demonic powers explain opposition to all politicians supported by Graham and Metaxas, or to Trump alone? Would they argue that all Christians (and non-Christians) who oppose Trump are under the influence of Satan?”

Lisa Sharon Harper, an author and senior fellow with Auburn Theological Seminary, took to Twitter to state that she “can’t believe I actually used to respect” Metaxas.

“He positioned himself as an Evangelical thought leader on daily discipleship. Feels like a horror movie now,” she stated on Saturday.

“All these people seemed so good then. Now we see: It was a mask. Under the mask they were white nationalists.”

For his part, Metaxas took to Twitter to reject the claim that he and Graham were labeling all opposition to Trump as being “demonic” in nature.

“No one called the people opposing Trump ‘demonic’. There can be spiritual forces involved w/o the people themselves being ‘demonic’!” he tweeted on Sunday.

“And you can like a prez w/o agreeing w/everything he ever said or did. That’s hardly ‘worshiping’ him as an idol. This is getting icky.”

The Metaxas program controversy comes as Energy Secretary Rick Perry labeled Trump “the chosen one” in a recent interview on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends.”

“God’s used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn’t perfect. Saul wasn’t perfect. Solomon wasn’t perfect,” explained Perry to “Fox & Friends,” noting that he also considered President Barack Obama to have been the chosen one for his time.

Perry added that he shared his interpretation of how the kings in the Old Testament should be applied to today’s presidency with Trump in a “one-pager.”

“I said, ‘Mr. President, I know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one and I said, ‘You were.’ I said [to Trump], ‘If you’re a believing Christian, you understand God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our government,’” Perry said.

Perry was likely referring to comments made by Trump in August when he referred to himself as the “chosen one” and looked up in the sky. Trump later clarified that he was being sarcastic.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-labels-trump-opposition-demonic-rick-perry-labels-trump-chosen-one.html

VIDEO Hear the Prophesy Made Before He Ever Entered the Race. Will Trump Be a Two-Term President?

The Untold Story of Prophecy and the 2020 Election: A Praying But Not Religious President, Dark Veil Over America, SCOTUS, Impeachment — and More

By   November 6, 2019 

As we approach the 2020 election, and with impeachment news daily in the headlines, there are Christian leaders who prophesy that Donald Trump will indeed win. It is an untold story of prophecies and spiritual signs that is off the radar screen of the secular media, which would never cover it except to ridicule. Yet many Christians believe God still actively guides us not only through the Bible, but through the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Most Americans are aware that our nation is deeply divided, and the campaign season for the 2020 election is bringing that to light as never before. Most pundits would say it’s between conservatives and liberals or maybe against progressive leftists and constitutional conservatives on the right. But all see it in academic or secular terms.

Should We Believe Modern-Day Prophets?

Many Christians believe in the existence of modern-day prophets — people with a spiritual gift enabling them to tell others what God is saying. Therefore, it’s no surprise that when various prophets have said God has raised up Donald Trump, many believe it’s true. Could God be speaking to us today, and does He still have plans and purposes for America?

Because I know many of these prophets and have reported on them and what they say from the Lord, I have tried to document them in various ways, including the books I’ve written. I understand the reasons that some might be skeptical or totally disagree. For one, some prophecies are obscure or mostly symbolic.

Add to this that the prophets sometimes seem to be wrong, and that prophecies given in earlier times just weren’t documented unless written down at the time.

The number of prophecies about Donald Trump, many of which have gone viral, is one of the reasons Trump received so much support from the Christian community, especially charismatics and Pentecostals.

I believe we can overcome these concerns, in part because of modern electronics and the fact so many church services where prophetic words are given are now recorded and available online. This gives us a chance to evaluate them after the fact and to try to understand what’s happening from a spiritual perspective. I believe there is a spiritual significance for the tumultuous times in which we live, because there were several prophecies spanning several years. And, they came true!

The number of prophecies about Donald Trump, many of which have gone viral, is one of the reasons Trump received so much support from the Christian community, especially charismatics and Pentecostals. Not only is Trump a champion of religious freedom who is keeping his promises, but there is also a sense that somehow, some way, God is behind this unlikely builder from Queens.

“A President That Will Pray”

One of the most talked about prophecies on YouTube, viewed by more than 1.2 million people (yet virtually ignored by the media) is by the late Kim Clement. In 2007, he prophesied in a service in Redding, California, that “Trump shall be a Trumpet,” and even more startling: “God says, I will put at your helm for two terms a president that will pray.”

Other than the mention of the Trumpet, there is no specific mention of Donald Trump. Only in hindsight have people latched on to this video as a prophecy about Trump and passed it around.

I first met Kim Clement in the late 1990s so I knew his story. He moved to America from South Africa where he had been trained to be a classical pianist and later played in a rock band. When he nearly overdosed on heroin, that crisis caused him to become a Christian in 1974. Gradually as he grew in his faith and ministry, he developed a reputation as a seer, a prophet. In charismatic worship services he would often accompany himself on the keyboards and sing or preach his prophecies. (Unless you were raised a Pentecostal, this form or worship may seem odd.) A sort of mystic, Clement would often shake his head of long dark hair as he spoke or sang.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

This resulted in a very heavy “atmosphere” in the service — almost mystical — and most people in the room seemed to believe that God really was speaking through Clement.

In Redding in 2007, Clement also prophesied: “There will be a praying president, not a religious one. For I will fool the people, says the Lord. I will fool the people. Yes, I will. God says. The One that is chosen shall go in and they shall say, ‘He has hot blood.’ For the Spirit of God says, yes, he may have hot blood, but he will bring the walls of protection on this country in a greater way and the economy of this country shall change rapidly, says the Lord of hosts.”

Only in hindsight can we notice what he said about Trump having “hot blood” or that he would build walls of protection or help the economy boom. But most interestingly of all is that he said, “Listen to the Word of the Lord, God says, I will put at your helm for two terms a president that will pray, but he will not be a praying president when he starts.”

A Man After God’s Own Heart

Seven years later, on February 22, 2014, more than a year before Trump announced he would run for president, Clement prophesied that God had allowed a veil to be put on this nation “for in darkness, faith grows.” He went on to say he found a man after his own heart like King David who would be singled out for the presidency of the United States. Clement continued: “I have searched for a man … who would stand in the Oval Office and pray for the restoration of the fortunes of Zion (Israel).”

“Watch how I will change everything, for there shall be those who are in justice, and there are those who are in a strong position (I am just hearing this now) in the highest court in the land. The highest court in the land. The Supreme Court. Two shall step down. For the embarrassment of what shall take place. But I wish to place in the highest court in the land, righteousness. And they shall attempt to put others in to reach their endeavors.” But God says, ‘Hear me tonight. Hear me today. I have this whole thing planned out, according to My will.’”

For many conservative Christians who feel their nation is deteriorating before their eyes, such words bring hope. Even if they don’t know whether to believe, they want to.

In the same meeting, Clement shared a recent vision he had where he saw a group of people and a man emerged from among them that he sensed God had singled out for the presidency of the United States: “And the Spirit of God said, ‘This man will throttle the enemies of Israel. This man will throttle the enemies of the West. And there are highly embarrassing moments that are about to occur for many, many politicians in this nation. There will be a shaking amongst, there will be a shaking amongst the Democrats in the upcoming elections, but unsettling for the Republicans.’”

“They will shout, ‘Impeach, impeach!’ but this will not happen.”

Then he asks rhetorically, “Why is God doing this? For God said, “I am dissatisfied with what emerges from both parties.”

“And then there is a nation He showed me, He took me, itching for a new kind of war with America. They will shout, “Impeach, impeach,” they say. But nay. This nation shall come very suddenly, but it shall not come in the time of President Obama. It shall come when this new one arises. My David, that I have set aside for this nation … They will shout, ‘Impeach, impeach!’ but this will not happen.

“God says, ‘Once you recognize the man that I have raised up, pray. For the enemy will do everything in its power to put a witch in the White House.’ For Jezebel has chased away the prophets and even Elijah. Now I have said, ‘Go back.’ For this shall be dismantled so that there will be no more corruption in the White House,” says the Spirit.

For those who are wondering, Kim suffered a stroke in 2015 and passed away in November 2016, the same month Trump was elected. So there is no way someone could have recorded him saying these things after they played out during Trump’s presidency and post-dated it to look like he said them in advance. Both prophetic words were given before Trump had even announced he was running for office.

Clement said more, and not all of it has come to pass. But to me it’s interesting that between these two prophecies he touched on most of the significant issues at stake during Trump’s presidency, and he uttered specific words about Trump that have come true.

 

Stephen E. Strang is an award-winning journalist, founder and CEO of Charisma Media and author of the best-seller “God and Donald Trump.” This content was excerpted from his new book, “God, Trump, and the 2020 Election,” out Jan. 14.

Original here


Obama Tried to Discriminate Against Conservative Faith Groups. Trump Is Reversing That

Nicole Russell / November 14, 2019

Several faith-based adoption agencies have been tangled in litigation over allegedly “discriminating” against prospective parents. Thankfully, a new Trump administration rule could alleviate some of their legal battles, protect religious liberty, and help kids in need of adoption.

On Nov. 1, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would reverse key parts of a 2016 rule issued by the Obama administration.

The 2016 rule barred the agency from giving out grants to organizations—like adoption agencies—who refused to place children with same-sex couples. This new rule would roll back that regulation and require the agency to avoid discriminating against private entities who operate according to their faith, according to federal nondiscrimination law.

Health and Human Services stressed that “the federal government not infringe on religious freedom in its operation of HHS grant programs and address the impact of regulatory actions on small entities.”

While the announcement didn’t explicitly mention adoption agencies, it could very well affect the faith-based adoption agencies that receive federal grants and which have been accused of using their faith as a guise for bigotry, because they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Some state leaders, like Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, have been trying to force faith-based adoption agencies to change their religious beliefs about marriage or else close their doors.

The state’s main target has been St. Vincent Catholic Charities. Even though St. Vincent had placed children with same-sex couples, the state went after it because it wouldn’t organize adoption home studies with gay couples—something the state required of grant recipients.

Nessel flashed her own bigoted views on Twitter earlier this year.

The judge who ruled on this case, Robert Jonker, pointed out the state wasn’t just targeting St. Vincent’s public actions, but its belief system. He said “the state’s real goal is not to promote nondiscriminatory child placements, but to stamp out St. Vincent’s religious belief and replace it with the state’s own.”

In March, Michigan reached a settlement, along with the ACLU, against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, St. Vincent Catholic Charities, an adoptive family, and a former foster child who had joined the suit.

The settlement affirmed a 2015 law that said groups that receive state funds and refuse to provide foster care or adoption services that conflict with their religious beliefs are actually in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

Fortunately, this settlement was challenged and a federal judge ruled in their favor in September, halting the attorney general’s discrimination campaign.

In his opinion, Jonker clearly found that the discrimination at work was not St. Vincent’s bigotry guised as faith, but state animus toward religious organizations, even ones whose specific aim is to help needy children find loving homes.

The Trump administration’s newly proposed rule would affirm rulings like this.

While many mainstream news organizations are framing this new proposal as one that will now allow faith-based adoption agencies to “discriminate,” the more accurate way to view it is that it would roll back the anti-discrimination rules Obama had implemented during his administration.

Those rules were a veiled attack on religious liberty and the consciences of faith-based families and adoption agencies.

Obama claimed it was discriminatory for faith-based agencies to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a pretty standard teaching among many mainstream religions in America.

In reality, it is far more discriminatory for the state to require people, an organization, or a business to suspend their religious beliefs or violate them.

Upending these unconstitutional provisions is the right thing for the Trump administration to do, but it’s not clear how much this will help faith-based adoption agencies who are currently fighting discrimination lawsuits.

It all depends on whether states acquiesce to the new rule or continue to fight in court. While this proposed rule would remove the threat of the federal government stepping in under a federal anti-discrimination law, it wouldn’t necessarily prevent the states from engaging in these legal battles.

St. Vincent’s isn’t the only adoption provider caught up in this legal fight. Bethany Christian Services and Catholic Social Services are engaged in a similar fight with Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services.

In addition, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services has been suing New Hope, a religious nonprofit, because it prioritized placing children in homes with a married heterosexual couple.

That’s four faith-based organizations that could continue to live by their Christian beliefs if the respective states honored the newly proposed rule. But of course, that’s not guaranteed.

It’s nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly how many children might be affected by this new rule. But we can get an idea by looking to Michigan.

When Jonker ruled in the adoption agencies’ favor, he pointed out that “Michigan has a chronic shortage of foster and adoptive homes” and that there were “approximately 13,000 children in foster care, about 2,000 of whom have a permanency goal of adoption.”

The state works with 57 agencies, most of which are private.

“[I]n the last four fiscal years,” he said, “St. Vincent has served an average of 74 children in its foster care program every year, and through its work over 100 adoptions for foster children were finalized.”

It’s not entirely new for federal agencies to introduce regulations that reflect a particular administration’s policy agenda, but it is a serious problem when an administration’s executive actions become the de facto means of lawmaking. That’s not how the Constitution requires laws to be made.

In this case, President Donald Trump isn’t making new policy. He’s undoing bad policy that was a gross overreach when the Obama administration introduced it.

There was no law directing Health and Human Services to expand anti-discrimination laws, but former President Barack Obama went ahead and did it anyway, just before his final term expired.

Trump is simply undoing this—not only for the betterment of faith-based adoption agencies and the needy kids they serve, but for the rule of law and the regulatory agency that would enforce it.

Obama Tried to Discriminate Against Conservative Faith Groups. Trump Is Reversing That.

Appeals court revives attack on nuns who refused to facilitate abortion

Now 9th Circuit decides what they should believe, and how deep their beliefs should be

Oct 24, 2019

Little Sisters at the Supreme Court (Image courtesy Becket Fund)

It was Barack Obama’s pro-abortion Washington insiders who took the broad outline created by Obamacare and wrote the rules that would require an organization of faithful Catholic nuns to fund abortion.

Which is just not going to happen.

And the Supreme Court has turned that idea down twice already, but the war against the Christian nuns still rages on inside the nation’s courtrooms.

The latest was this week’s decision at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges once again put themselves in the position of deciding what the nuns should believe, do believe, and how strongly they believe it.

The background is well-known: In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services under Obama’s administration created a federal demand that employers provide contraceptives, including the week-after pill, free-of-cost in their health insurance plans.

There were no exemptions for religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who help the poorest of the poor around the world who are at the end of their lives with nowhere else to go.

“These nuns have dedicated their lives to their faith and to serving the poor. Yet, these women were sued and told that they must violate their conscience by providing contraception through their insurance,” explained a report by the Family Research Council.

In 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected lower court decisions against the group, concluding the government should be allowed to “arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates the petitioners’ religious beliefs.”

In 2017, President Trump released an executive order directing federal agencies to address the faith objections to Obama’s plan. Shortly after followed a new federal rule.

But now state officials, in Pennsylvania and California, taking over for the Obama agenda, demanded at a state level that the nuns pay up for abortions.

Rulings from the 9th Circuit, and earlier the 3rd Circuit, have claimed that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to exempt the nuns from state demands.

The FRC, in a commentary, explained, “The Supreme Court needs to settle the debate and rule that the government cannot require people and groups to violate their conscience by providing contraceptive services. The court should uphold the HHS rule, which protects the inherent human right of religious liberty. This liberty promotes the common good and allows society to flourish. The Little Sisters of the Poor certainly promote the common good as they assist the poorest in society. Violating their conscience ought not to be a precondition for the Little Sisters assisting those most in need.”

The ruling from the 3rd Circuit already has been appealed to the Supreme Court, according to officials for Becket, which is representing them.

“Over the past three years the Supreme Court has twice protected the Catholic nuns, but the states have dragged them back to court,” Becket said. “In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Trump, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro threatened the Little Sisters’ ministry by challenging their religious exemption, forcing the Little Sisters to continue to defend themselves in court.”

The appeal to the high court explains: “Since late 2013, this court has repeatedly been presented with questions concerning the relationship between the federal contraceptive mandate and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the adequacy of ever-evolving government treatment of religious objectors. In a series of emergency orders, the court protected religious non-profits from facing large fines for noncompliance, but repeatedly refrained from expressing any definitive view on the merits of their RFRA claims.

“In its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, the court discussed the regulatory mechanism available to religious non-profits as one of the several less restrictive alternatives to the mandate’s treatment of religious for-profits. The court understood that there were ongoing challenges to the sufficiency of that mechanism under RFRA, and it emphasized that it was not deciding whether it was sufficient for those who object to it. Nonetheless, by pointing to it as a potential less restrictive alternative, the court seemed to assume that the executive branch had ample power to promulgate some sort of religious accommodation.

“In the fall of 2015, as scores of cases involving religious non-profits worked their way through the courts, the court granted certiorari to decide the RFRA question. But there too the court demurred: the unanimous eight-justice per curiam decision in Zubik noted the ‘substantial clarification and refinement’ of the parties’ positions and remanded for the parties to explore a resolution. Once again, the court seemed to assume ample authority on the part of the executive to accommodate religious exercise broadly enough to bring the litigation to an end.

“Three years later,” the brief says, “it is clear that the litigation will not end unless and until this court provides definitive guidance on the RFRA questions.”

The fight all stems from Obamacare, which requires companies to provide “preventive care” but does not define it. That was left to the bureaucrats in the Health Resources and Service Administration, who jumped at the opportunity to support the abortion industry by requiring “care” services.

At one point there were about 100 lawsuits against the mandate from religious groups and organizations who objected to being forced to violate their beliefs.

In fact, the government, both federal and the states of Pennsylvania and California, admitted women could have access to the contraceptives without the nuns’ participation.

Nevertheless, the states sued to demand submission to the pro-abortion agenda.

“This is a nonsensical political battle that has dragged on six years too long. These states have not been able to identify a single person who would lose contraceptive coverage under the new HHS rule, but they won’t rest until Catholic nuns are forced to pay for contraceptives,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “It is time for the Supreme Court to finally put this issue to rest.”

 

Original here

VIDEO Trump urges U.N.: ‘Stop crimes against people of faith’

‘No right is more fundamental than the right to follow one’s religious convictions’

Sept 23, 2019

 

President Trump on Monday became the first president of the United States to hold a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom, calling on that organization, as well as all nations, to “end religious persecution.”

“Stop the crimes against people of faith. Release prisoners of conscience. Repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. Protect the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed,” he said in his prepared remarks.

“Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions,” he said, pointing out that 80 percent of the world’s people live in countries “where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.”

Trump, in fact, has advocated for religious freedom since he took office.

His state department already has held two Religious Freedom Ministerials for more than 100 governments, has spearheaded the International Religious Freedom Alliance, dedicated $25 million to protect religious freedom and sites and has held the Summit on Combating Anti-Semitism.

It also has provided humanitarian aid to Christians and Yazidis who suffered at the hands of the Muslim terrorists in ISIS. It’s also helped Rohingya Muslim refugees fleeing persecution.

Further, he signed an executive order to advance religious freedom, took action to ensure Americans and organizations are not forced to violate their religious or moral beliefs by complying with Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate, established a new Conscience and Religious Freedom division, protected the right of healthcare entities to act according to their conscience, and finalized a rule providing more flexibility for federal employees whose religious beliefs require them to abstain from work on certain days.

A statement from the White House noted many faith groups are persecuted, but Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

He said, “True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply-held religious beliefs. … We ask the governments of the world to honor the eternal right of every person to follow their conscience, live by their faith, and give glory to God.”

He pointed out that America is different from other nations, in that it recognizes that rights come from God, not the government.

“No right is more fundamental than the right to follow one’s religious convictions,” he said.

Mike Berry, chief of staff for First Liberty Institute, noted, “President Trump has an outstanding record defending religious liberty thus far. Our Founders understood that no nation can long survive without freedom of conscience and vigorous free exercise of faith. If America is to be a city on a hill, our commitment to religious liberty must continue to serve as a model to the rest of the world.”

It was early in 2018 that the Trump administration stood up for religious freedom.

That was when he signed an executive order to ensure “that the faith-based and community organizations that form the bedrock of our society have strong advocates in the White House and throughout the federal government.”

His ordered was called “Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative” and sets up procedures to provide recommendations on the administration’s policy agenda affecting faith-based and community programs and provide recommendations on programs and policies where faith-based and community organizations may partner and/or deliver more effective solutions to poverty.”

In 2017, the DOJ issued 20 principles of religious liberty to guide the administration and months later it announced a religious liberty update to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, raising the profile of religious liberty cases and directing the designation of a Religious Liberty Point of Contact for all U.S. Attorney’s offices.

 

Original here