Against Flesh and Blood

AgainstFleshby Deana Chadwell2/19/15
Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.   Eph. 6:12

When Marie Harf made her naïve pronouncement about winning wars by providing jobs she was masking what most of us don’t want to admit. I suspect that if you peel back that silly statement and look at what’s lurking beneath it you’d disturb a whole colony of scuttling nasty truths, some of which Ms. Harf may understand and a whole species she would not even imagine.

One truth is that we are not the America that stormed through Iraq after 9/11. The America that exists today is a decimated, limp-wristed America.

Too few of us have the moral courage to face danger and deal with it. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor no one quibbled about nation-building, the post-Depression generation suffered no prissy hesitations about our moral right to strike back, and they certainly didn’t propose a jobs-for-the-Japanese program. It’s true that even then America had waited too long to get into that war; my mother often expressed her sense of guilt that we didn’t deal with Germany as soon as we knew what was going on there.

We know very well what’s going on in the Middle East – no one’s keeping the tortures and deaths a secret, and yet too few of us seem to care about the thousands of atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam. Instead of young men standing in lines to enlist in the effort to stops these maniacs, we have crowds of teenagers storming a movie theater to see 50 Shades of Gray. The truth is, a country with insufficient moral fiber can’t win a war.

Harf says we can’t win a war by killing the enemy – which makes as much sense as saying that you can’t win the Super Bowl by making touchdowns – but it is true that today’s commander-in-chief, today’s State Department, the current bureaucracy (who value their jobs more than they value freedom and their fellow man) as well as the Democrat half of the general population is not willing – or able – to commit to the sacrifice of going into a real war. They talk like going to war is just a matter of personal preference; as if being willing to involve oneself in military endeavors was parallel to preferring catfish over caviar.

This seems to be true of most people who have emerged from our institutions of higher indoctrination, of most people in the press, of most people in the arts. The rest of us are deemed incapable of discerning the nuances of Obama’s fairytale foreign policy. I’d like to think he has some magic beans up his sleeve and can call down the giants when we need them, but I never believed in Bean-Jack’s prowess, even as a child.

If I know I can’t pull something off – say someone challenges me to hike up Mt. Rainer — it’s easier to just say it can’t be done than to admit that I’m way too out of shape to manage.  A surgeon isn’t likely to tell you that his own personal skill is inadequate to ensure a successful outcome. He’s not going to suggest that you choose a more proficient doctor. No. He’ll just play down the possibility of success so you won’t be disappointed with the results. Obama knows – somewhere in the bowels of his narcissistic mind – that he couldn’t run a full-out war.

Not only is he temperamentally and experientially incapable of leading a nation in war, he’s spent the last six years demoralizing, demoting, and frustrating our armed forces into paralysis. Our numbers are way down and what military we have is spread way too thin, many of our best generals have been fired, and the VA has ignored its duty of seeing to our wounded and aging veterans. Our soldiers and sailors are hamstrung by impossible rules of engagement and tangled in the web of political correctness. The men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for our freedom find they must watch that freedom drain away through internal bleeding that they can do nothing about. They are disrespected and worse than anything else, told to keep their Christian beliefs to themselves– it’s no wonder that our veterans are committing suicide at an alarming rate.

Not only can you not run a major war with a weak leader and a demoralized military, but you also can’t undertake any major military effort with a weak economy. Fudged numbers do not make a strong industrial response to the needs of a great war effort. This administration has so worshipped at the shrine of climate change and environmental claptrap that we no longer have the capacity to produce the munitions we may need, and we’ve lost, due to Obama’s one-sided negotiating style, any nuclear edge we ever had.

Harf’s statement is disingenuous; what she (or whoever it was who gave her the talking points) really was thinking is not that we can’t win a war by killing jihadis, but that we just can’t win. Period.

Though that’s not the worst of it. This administration has no idea what we’re up against, or, they are part of what we’re up against. Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul pointed out to the believers in Ephesus, “Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

I doubt if Harf and her ilk in and around the White House have a clear idea of what we’re dealing with here. This isn’t just some rabble-rousers in a distant land. It isn’t just a bunch of guys with too much health and high spirits and too little work, just guys who’ve gotten out of hand. Theirs is devilish behavior; they are doing things inspired by Hell itself.

Since Adam and Eve, Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, the most beautiful, intelligent angel ever created, has been trying to derail this human “experiment.” If man fails to follow God, Lucifer wins his appeal and will not suffer the consequences of his pre-human rebellion; neither will the angels who revolted with him. Key to God’s plan for the human race is Israel and from the day God spoke to Abraham and made him a solemn, unconditional promise, Satan has been trying to prevent the fulfillment of that covenant. The birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ really ruined his chances, but Satan was never much for recognizing his own limitations. He still wants to “be like the Most High.” Judging from the hysterical nature of the Islamic furor today, I’d say that Lucifer is getting desperate.

Desperation intensifies, exacerbates hatred, anger, and aggression. The rabid viciousness of Islamic behavior, the frantic zeal with which they carry out their aggression and their unspeakable depravity speak clearly of Satan’s frantic hopelessness. We see his hysteria in the lightning speed with which anti-Semitism is infecting the whole world. My dear Ms. Harf – we are not witnessing a few people airing their “grievances.” No sane human being expresses a grievance by chopping off heads. Something beyond wicked is heading our way, is probably already here, and you have no idea what you’re doing.

Things look grim and two years is way too long to endure the “leadership” of Barrack-in-the-Beanstalk. However. Scary as it is to be up against the darkest force in the universe, God is on the side of the righteous, so let us be righteous; we were once. Let us speak out and leave the empowering up to the Almighty. Go read Psalm 94 and be comforted. Remember that God promised Abraham a land eternal and He will keep that promise.

Deana Chadwell blogs at
About Author Author Archive Email • (2815 views)

Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Against Flesh and Blood

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, I think our military could still do the needed job today if we only had a leader capable of doing his proper job. But Jihad’s Man in the White House has no intention of providing such leadership, or even of seeing the need for it. The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Ashton Carter for SecDef, and reports are that he’s as good a choice as one can expect under the circumstances, but with Carter as with Loretta Lynch I have to ask: If he’s so good, why did Satan’s Spawn appoint him?

    • David Ray says:

      We had already burned ’em down. Our/Bush’s big mistake was trying to nation build. That aside, the “surge” had worked. (I could tell by the liberal hyperventilating response.)
      Unfortunately those in high places insist we put to pasture competent fighters like Gen. Mathis and foist delicate potty trained fools like Wesley Clark and Gen “Diversity” Casey in our ranks.
      In short warriors like Curtis LeMay need not apply.

      Also we’re in desperate need of downsizing these insane rules of engagement. Instead our Lunch-Money-Victim in Chief piled on more rules to help with his bullshit Muslim outreach – no preemptive fire so as to guarantee no civilian casualties – which makes them popular as human shields of course. (Oh what the hell. It only cost us several of Seal Team Six, but fear not . . . that part isn’t in the movie version.)

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Instead of young men standing in lines to enlist in the effort to stops these maniacs, we have crowds of teenagers storming a movie theater to see 50 Shades of Gray.

    Right on, Deana, although if one did enlist in the military to fight these guys, what are the odds that the military and political authority wouldn’t have their heads up their backsides as they do now in terms of actually winning anything permanently?

    Mr. Kung coincidently sent me a link to an article by Kevin Williamson that also makes some good points, including this one:

    The secular imagination is, as an instrument for understanding human action at large, a very limited tool, and one that is entirely inadequate for understanding the cultural phenomenon that the West currently finds itself confronting, which is Islam — not extremism, not radicalism, not terrorism, but Islam itself, a religion that both is embedded in a culture and serves as the foundation in which other cultures, ideologies, and social tendencies are embedded.

    I think he also has some weak points as well, but I won’t get into that. My own take on this is short and sweet: See how the secular mind views the world.

    I do believe that Ms. Harf, in her own parrot-like fashion, believes what she said. What Islamists need is jobs. Rush noted the other day that it’s likely the unemployment rate amongst Jihadists is actually very low. I think he’s right. I mean, Jihad is a job, right? They are being funded.

    Yes, the Left is full of cowards, imbeciles, traitors, America-haters, nitwits, and the like. That almost goes without saying. But the other aspect of this is that Leftism is indeed a religion. It is a way of seeing and understanding the world. To the Left, the “people of color” in the third world are just future clients for their care-giving benevolent socialist welfare state.

    And, of course, the Left tends to have a materialist metaphysics. There is no right and wrong. There is no evil. People do what they do according to their genes and their environment. So if someone is acting up, they just need something (material) that they’re not getting now. Jobs.

    Yes, it’s easy to believe that Ms. Harf is being disingenuous and doesn’t believe all this nonsense. And at some level, I do believe this is true. But whatever the case may be, it is how those on the Left parse the world. We are looking at a deep deep rot of Western Civilization’s moral and intellectual capacity.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is an example of why a faith in a certain vision of the world is dangerous. A faith in the transcendent can’t be disproven, but a faith like liberalism can be, quite easily — and that requires those who would keep the faith to deliberately reject reality.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You bring up a good question, Timothy. And as this site’s (indeed, in all of conservatism) best Christian apologist (amongst those who aren’t actually Christian), let me try to address that point.

        First off, we have to understand the secular/atheist point of view. That view says that “religion poisons” everything (and makes no distinction regarding cult-like thinking inside or outside of religion). That views says that non-religious types are already smarter and less dangerous because they guide their lives by “reason,” not superstition.

        It’s worth noting that almost none of these types will acknowledge the far deadlier ideology of atheism. As bloody as Islam has been in world history, even they don’t quite match the 100 million deaths last century due to socialism/Communism/atheism.

        So, right off the bat, any ideas regarding this issue that come from “secular” types (and that includes probably most libertarians) is suspect because they are not honest about this issue.

        But your self-appointed Christian apologist can’t help but be honest about this. After all, much like in “The Blues Brothers,” I’m on a mission from God. After all, if even the Pope can’t competently defend the faith then someone must.

        And so I do. I know the secular mind like the back of my hand. I know what makes them tick. I know all their little prejudices and conceits. Thus any argument about religion with them is nearly pointless. They, much like Islamic Jihadists, are invested in the idea that they are right, correct, and smarter than everyone else.

        But the fact is, we live in a metaphysical world. And one doesn’t avoid that simply by picking a materialist metaphysics. But it is typical for those on the Left to deny this. Just as they think their politics is the only reasonable way to think, so they think about their metaphysics, that it isn’t actually a metaphysics but is the only “natural” way to think. They do this the the extent that even their very heavy dogma and ideology is not seen for what it is — a religion.

        Religions, per se, are not good or bad because, after all, we do live in a metaphysical world. And by that I mean that existence itself has thrown on our plates something so big, so mysterious, and so important that we cannot go through life pretending that this fact doesn’t exist. So we have to deal with it. There is no avoiding thinking about the Big Picture stuff (even if you are an ignorant scientist, such as Stephen Hawking, and try to erase the Big Picture by conjuring 10500 universes in your made-up “multiverse”). Metaphysical presuppositions go with the territory. Religion, per se, is unavoidable. Atheists are as deeply religious in their own way in terms of how they think the universe actually works, what it’s for, etc. They are just commonly not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

        Religions may be good or bad, and they might also be true or false…or something in between. We’re not in a position to objectively know. But coming down one notch form the metaphysics of it, we can see that there are, in every religion, values that are good or bad. And if it is not self-evident that beheading people because someone has a different idea of the world is a bad thing, then there is no hope for you. But if you believe that generosity is a better value than, say, thievery, then there is hope for you.

        And, indeed, some religions stroke man’s Better Nature (as Christianity does, or can) and some stroke its worse nature (as Islam typically does). And only ignorant people fail to distinguish between the values by dismissing the entire works as “All religions are equally bad” which is what Christopher Hitchens meant by “religion poisons everything.” Why this guy was considered such an intellectual, I’ll never know.

        Faith itself is somewhat of a different question but the same question. Faith, like religions or individual values, can be good or bad — even something in between. Faith can be a humanizing component or cause one to fly airplanes into skyscrapers (or lionize Stalin, as the American Left did). Again, we have to ask what one has faith in. In a benevolent God or a God of war and death (as with Islam)? Or the secular god of “reason” who may be the true Whore of Babylon in terms of how much harm is done by the delusions and conceit that people feed into this idea.

        Those few Christians who “get” it can hold their heads up. But I fear there are not all that many Christians for whom Christianity is a way of life rather than yet another cultural affectation or yet another materialist orientation (where the “free stuff” is simply a Heaven-sent entitlement). But if Jews or Christians adhere to their values and world view, they will be made better people. The same cannot be said of those who hold strictly to Islam (a “moderate” Muslim is one who has to ignore large and central aspects of his faith) or to the secular world view. And this is because of the values each holds and well as the amount of intellectual deceit comprised in either. Any value system and world view worth its salt is not go to leave you such an empty shell that you declare to the world something as stupid as “Gee…I think what the Nazi SS really needed were jobs.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Actually, when it’s convenient, atheists will claim that such ideologies as Communism are religions, so that all their crimes can be used to smear the churches they opposed. Of course, they will never admit that their ideology is a religion. Self-awareness is at a minimum for liberals.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Exactly. And that’s a disingenuous technique. It’s about as honest as saying, “All harmful ideologies come from having ideas.”

            Only a simpleton could believe the formula of “religion equals bad” therefore “non-religion equals good.” But that’s the, err, religious belief many have. The Cult of Reason is not unlike the Cult of Man during the French Revolution.

        • What an interesting comment, Brad. Well said, indeed. It reminds me of G.K.Chesterton’s essay “The Maniac,” in which he contends that it is reason that drives men mad.

          Faith, being the main way we ever learn anything, is common to all men. It is the object of the faith and how well one knows the object of one’s faith that matters. I can have all the faith in the world in The Great Pumpkin, but that will not endow GP with any powers. But if one puts his faith in someone who has earned that faith, that trust, then nothing could be more sane.

          As for religion: I will always contend that Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is not the efforts of creatures to please their creator. It is the creatures’ trusting acceptance of what He has done for them. “For by grace we are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift God, and not works, lest any man should boast.”

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Thanks for the G.K. link, Deana.

            I get the general idea of “You don’t see to believe, you believe to see.” Having been gifted with more of a logic-based brain, I parse things a little bit differently. And thus it will probably always be. But you never know.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Richard Armey once noticed that the difference between a liberal and a conservative (or one of them, anyway) is that a liberal sees it when he believes it, and a conservative believes it when he sees it.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I do believe that Ms. Harf, in her own parrot-like fashion, believes what she said.

      I believe it is inevitable that such non-entities such as Ms. Harf reach high positions in a Leftist system. Honest thinking people are pushed out of important positions unless they are willing to sell their souls for the party. Because of this, those “official” Leftists with any contact to the public generally sound like liars, boobs or both.

      Of course, there is dishonesty on the Right, but I think it is not generally so plebeian.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There seems no doubt, Mr. Kung, that people often constrain their thinking in order to fit into an existing power structure, particularly one that values blind loyalty over free thinking — and particularly regarding a group which engages in Orwellian groupthink.

        I happen to be of the opinion that there are some people (particularly those on the Left and “Progressives”) who come to rely so heavily on cliches and bumper-sticker slogans as a substitute for thinking that they have little else to do but to cling to dumb ideas like a life raft when the waters get rough.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


          I guess the story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” shows this type of thing is part of human nature. But it seems to have reached a whole new level in modern times. One simply has to think of the wholesale nonsense that came out of the USSR or Red China to see the how broad spread it can become.

          But for a pure example of the type, I think Baghdad Bob would be hard to beat.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            This also relates to the “Progressive”/materialist idea that there is no right or wrong, there is only material deprivation. That aspect certainly showed in this woman’s remarks.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Jack Kerwick makes a similar point today at Town Hall, arguing that the pother about Scott Walker’s lack of a college degree ignores the fact that college “education” today tends to be ideological training (which I call indoctrination) rather than genuine education. He cites Marie Harf, with her idiotic rote liberalism about ISIS, as an example. This is the sort of party line she has been taught to parrot without thought. And so with most liberals. The link is:

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            And Nik is probably sitting somewhere in the wings saying “I told you so.” Anyone running for president has to know how to turn these questions right back on the drones who ask them.

            Go ahead. Ask me what I think about “A woman’s right to choose”:

            Well, Oprah, you’ve already polluted the question by phrasing it with a dishonest euphemism. Is it a woman’s right to choose to rob a bank?

            Well then, Mr. Nelson, how do you feel about gay marriage?

            I don’t actually “feel” much of anything. But what I *think* is that nearly overnight what had never ever before in the history of mankind been considered any kind of “right” has been picked up as a cause célèbre. And the point isn’t to satisfy the very few homosexuals who want some kind of long-term relationship. The point is to shove the homosexual agenda down our throats, including sneering at traditional married people. Gay marriage isn’t a matter of expanding rights. It’s a matter of expanding grievances.

            Let me ask you another hot question, no pun intended. Mr. Nelson, are you a global warming denier?

            Yes, I’m a denier, as any reasonable person should be. This is a fraud being perpetrated by a movement — what we conservatives call the “Left” or “Progressivism” — by people who are aligned with Big Socialist Government and are hostile to business and individual freedom. “Global warming” is nothing but a way to grow government and bash business.

            What are your views on Islam?

            Islam has been at war with the world since its inception. When the whole of their doctrine is taken together, it is the reason behind Islamic terrorism. Rather than these terrorists being “radical,” they are instead quite orthodox. And the reason this is so shocking to many in the West is because they’ve been taught that Christians and “the right” are the real threat to freedom and that the Muslims are just another victim group.

            Mr. Nelson, did you go to college yourself?

            Yes, I’ve got a degree in advance conservative studies from the Limbaugh Institute.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Oh, it’s always so painful to watch a political debate and figure how much better you could answer the question. I remember in 2012 when Republicans were asked if they’d accept a budget deal with $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases. My thought was that the proper response would have been on the order of, “As long as we’re discussing pure fantasies, do you prefer Rowling or Tolkien?” One might point out that the budget cuts are always in the future and never actually occur (hence my description of them as “fairy gold”), but the tax increases are always immediate and permanent.

              SF writer Hal Clement mentioned watching the 1992 VP debate and noticing that Gore had made some idiotic comment on science (and Clement was a writer who really knew his science). He anticipated Quayle eviscerating Gore’s idiocy (Clement was a good Republican) — and was disappointed when he didn’t.

              But let’s face it. They’re up there, in front of a TV audience of millions. How many of us would actually do so well under those circumstances?

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                “As long as we’re discussing pure fantasies, do you prefer Rowling or Tolkien?”

                No kidding. And your comment brings up the point that there is such a sense of unreality infesting politics.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    If I know I can’t pull something off – say someone challenges me to hike up Mt. Rainer — it’s easier to just say it can’t be done than to admit that I’m way too out of shape to manage.

    I wouldn’t mind trying that sometime. Let me know when you’re up for it.

  4. Rosalys says:

    “Theirs is devilish behavior; they are doing things inspired by Hell itself.”

    “Scary as it is to be up against the darkest force in the universe, God is on the side of the righteous, so let us be righteous; we were once. Let us speak out and leave the empowering up to the Almighty.”

    Amen Sister! You are spot on identifying both the reason and the solution for the problem. I just reread Psalm 94 and I am comforted.

  5. GHG says:

    You speak the truth my sister in Christ. We can not win against evil with our own strength,

    But the Lord has become my fortress,
    and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.

    so I have faith that God’s Will be done.

  6. James Smith says:

    Maybe we could keep those jihadists busy setting back drafts to put out forest fires or we could find them employment as lumberjacks since they are really good at chopping things.

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    One truth is that we are not the America that stormed through Iraq after 9/11. The America that exists today is a decimated, limp-wristed America. —Deana

    I fear that this is true; especially for some “we” in America. And if it is we have to ask ourselves, why? Is it simply because after 9/11 we had a courageous President, despite some of his warts; and since 2008 we have had an un-courageous, President?

    Does Obama make cowards of us all? And who is “us” And if so, how?

    I think Hamlet’s quote is very apropos here: “Conscience does make cowards of us all” ; and for many self-deluded souls on the Progressive/Democrat left, Obama has become in-effect their conscience. Proxy-conscience has become a cancer on the very soul of our nation.

    It is not just that some people allow others, people and institutions, to think for them in mundane matters; the real problem is that they allow them to determine right and wrong, i.e., be a proxy-conscience.

    This truth is underscored in the arena of propaganda. Reflect upon the increasing use of opinion polls. Why are they used? Ostensibly to measure public opinion; but actually they are used to influence public opinion; and does the media provide the public with news? Not anymore; they are organized to influence public opinion; they are propaganda instruments. Furthermore, Federal Judges have become the most recent and most powerful method for propaganda. Brad Nelson provides the latest and saddest instance of this:

    Well then, Mr. Nelson, how do you feel about gay marriage?
    I don’t actually “feel” much of anything. But what I *think* is that nearly overnight what had never ever before in the history of mankind been considered any kind of “right” has been picked up as a cause célèbre. And the point isn’t to satisfy the very few homosexuals who want some kind of long-term relationship. The point is to shove the homosexual agenda down our throats, including sneering at traditional married people. Gay marriage isn’t a matter of expanding rights. It’s a matter of expanding grievances.
    —Brad Nelson

    Why are these propaganda efforts seemingly so effective?

    To discover why canned laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of yet another potent weapon of influence: the principle of social proof. It states that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct. The principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.
    —Cialdini PhD, Robert B. (2009-05-28). Influence (Collins Business Essentials) (Kindle Locations 1925-1928). Kindle Edition.

    No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
    —Edward Bernays. Propaganda (p. 109). Kindle Edition.

    Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership.
    —Goebbels, Joseph (2009-05-31). Goebbels on the Power of Propaganda (Kindle Locations 23-24). Shamrock Eden Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    There are many parallels to our current times in the USA to the times of the biblical Israelites during the reign of Ahab. Obama has many similarities with Ahab. As was Ahab, Obama is powerful, week, and wicked. Ahab and his wife Jezebel exerted tremendous influence for evil in Israel; and yet, not everyone went along with their cultural-religious “fundamental transformation.”

    Things were so bad that at the height of his dejection, the prophet Elijah complained to God that he was the only one (of God’s servants) left:

    And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
    —1 Kings 19:10 KJV

    But God, as I believe he always will, preserved some faithful followers; and God informed Elijah that he was mistaken.

    Yet I [God] have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
    —1 Kings 19:18 KJV

    I don’t know the size, but there is a remnant of people in America who have not bowed their knee to Obama’s Godless changes.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      To be fair to Ahab, he was at least loyal to Israel and sought to improve its regional situation, even if only because it improved his own position as the nation’s leader. Feckless Leader, by contrast, has Ahab’s moral corruption but not his strength.

    • Jerry — I once taught in a nice little Catholic high school in the Midwest. One year we got a new principal — a man who trusted no one. He had metal detectors installed in all the doors, never left his inner office without locking it, and built a 10-foot fence around his house. He was in the habit of grabbing male students by the wrist, shoving them up against the walls, yanking their arm up behind them.

      He hadn’t been there for more than a few weeks and our student body turned from sweet to surly. We teachers were tense — we learned that the nicer he was to our faces, the more likely he was to be setting some sort of trap for us.

      Then one day, 3 years after he’d arrived, he vanished. He told the superintendent that he was going to a conference and just never came back. Within a couple of weeks of his departure the feeling-tone of the school snapped back into the comfortable, friendly, trusting place it had been before.

      I can only conclude that one person can in fact have a profound effect on large numbers of people, without even realizing it. So no wonder that BHO has managed to do the same because he’s going after it with no holds barred.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The more power a man (or woman, or demon in the Black God’s case) has, the more influence he has for good — or evil (as in Barry Screwtape Obama’s case).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Sounds like that proves the maxim of “One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *