Using the Bible to justify selfishness

Luke 10:25-37 (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Evangelical Christians were among Donald Trump’s staunchest allies during the 2016 campaign, and they remain a group the President can count on as he implements even the most extreme of the positions he proclaimed would make America great again. Chief among these for Evangelicals are: religious freedom allowing for rejection of liberal mandates such as being forced to serve those with whom they disagree theologically (and socially); the ability to have their children pray in school and be exposed to Biblical absolutes; returning to a culture within which access to safe abortions is illegal, and this despite the fact that the abortion rate is now where it was BEFORE Roe v Wade; eliminating the threat of evangelism from what they view as the false religion of Islam and in the process making sure their neighborhoods will be Muslim-free; and a return to a time when – in their opinion – the voice of Christianity was sought, heard, and embraced as relevant by the culture as a whole.

I remain convinced that this group is the most important to reach with the message of the potential for mischief and danger from an autocrat President of the United States. It also happens to be the most difficult to reach, for their perceived authority comes from a Bible that is taught to them as errorless and to be obeyed by those seeking the promised, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” and a guarantee of an afterlife of heavenly bliss. We will not succeed in efforts to convince this group without attacking certain assumptions they’ve been led to believe are absolute according to Holy Scripture. This struggle is private and behind-the-scenes, because it often takes place in forums not considered by those who view the issues as entirely political. These forums are then passed around for the horizontal consumption by others of their ilk.

Today, I want to delve into one of these private discussions, this one via a simple article on Herman Cain’s right wing website. There are a great many “Christian” blogs and websites, and while many bloggers using that label are not of the political right wing, it is the Evangelicals who make the most noise and speak loudest about the brand. Hence, the battle is entirely with those Evangelicals who represent the political opinions of the far right, which is what writer Dan Calabrese has done in this article headlined, “What does the Bible really say about taking in Syrian refugees?” Here are a few pertinent quotes from Mr. Calabrese regarding the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which he views as wrongly exegeted by those arguing it represents God’s will for dealing with refugees:

“As liberals often do, they take directives aimed at individuals in the Bible and try to make them the responsibility of the state.” He makes the case that, because the Samaritan took the injured man to an inn rather than his own home, he was revealing the wisdom of not bringing a potential problem into his own home. Thus, he reasons, it’s relevant to the discussion of Syrian refugees. Of course, this is Mr. Calabrese’s opinion, his interpretation, not the Bible speaking directly to us, and this, of course, is the problem. The Bible says nothing about the Good Samaritan avoiding danger, so that is an assumption. “As liberals often do” is also a convenient, pejorative, and condescending put down designed to frame whatever absurdity follows as a given, when it’s at best a mere guess.  He goes on to add:

“What the left wants to do in the case of the Syrian refugees is use the power of the state to force an entire nation to welcome people into their midst without any effort to ensure that members of ISIS with evil intentions were filtered out. That’s not compassion. That’s national suicide.” How does one respond to the many assumptions here? One, refugees ARE vetted – often vigorously – so there doesn’t exist a zero-effort absolute when it comes to identifying members of ISIS. Two, the statement assumes that the President’s anti-Muslim initiative WILL effectively rule out those with evil intentions. This is utterly absurd in addition to representing a straw man that serves only to distract, for terrorism isn’t a problem of religion. It’s organized crime and needs to be treated accordingly. Finally, the statement assumes that the matter is black and white, that anything other than a unilateral denial of entry is self-inflicted death. It makes for a good soundbite, but it’s simply exaggerated illogic. But he goes on:

“It would make more sense for them to be resettled in majority Muslim countries anyway, and we can do a lot of things to support that process.” This has nothing to do with the Bible but speaks loudly about the writer’s religious bias. I’m sure the refugees would rather stay with their own homes in their own countries, but each has made a decision that such a proposition is untenable. They seek freedom, not further distress. To which “Muslim countries” would the writer have us divert the stream anyway? Has anybody inquired as to their willingness to participate? How does it follow that their faith has anything to do with where they settle anyway? I understand this absurdity, because it comes from Islamophobic thinking, which is really at the core of Mr. Calabrese’s reasoning in the first place.

The point is this is nowhere near the God I serve, and the interpretation of scripture in this manner is not only without merit; it’s entirely self-centered. It’s redlining on a national scale and against everything for which our country stands.

I’m not surprised at all, however, for what we have here is a generation nurtured on the Gospel of Self. It’s bad enough that we’re naturally inclined in that direction, but this is self preservation gone to seed. Not only that, but it also denies the very power that its proponents claim protects them, and it reeks of the very unBiblical “God helps those who help themselves.”

The scope of the battle over the minds of those so inculcated is enormous, but it’s quite likely the one that matters most.

Trumpers voice a bizarre form of Christianity

trump1I have a lot of Christian friends on Facebook, and following their political posts has been infuriating, exasperating, and depressing. These posts are usually accompanied by long streams of argumentative comments, because not all Christians view Donald Trump as the righteous choice. The extent of the vile contempt expressed for Hillary Clinton is shocking, especially coming from the Christian crowd, and the real problem is that this odious hatred will continue on after the election. I’m not sure what’s to be done just yet, but it begins with acknowledging it for what it is – the cursing of a woman these people don’t really know.

It is to that end, that I’ve been saving Facebook comments and pictures over the past week, a week that witnessed the reaction to a 2005 recording of Mr. Trump’s feelings about women, statements so outrageous that you’d think even his supporters would question. Apparently not, for to these (mostly) Christians, there are simply more important issues to consider. They transcend the character of the candidate to the point where media outlets today are referring to the Trump phenomenon as a cult.

trump2 So here are some of those comments. I’ve not made any grammatical edits. You can judge them for yourselves:

    • Trump is a spineless, disgusting slimeball…but his platform is better than hers. Period. I guess I need to post that I’m voting for him and why so on the off chance that some people are being swayed by my commentary they MIGHT take a minute to consider those aspects.
    • Hillary and Bill and Obama most corrupt in history! Lock them up.
    • Hillary is unstable, demonic, Dishonest beyond belief, crooked, self richest and would sell us down the river to the UN without batting an eye – she accepts and admits the US has made poor choices, and would let the UN punish the citizens for the acts of our ELITIST Government. She is a specialist at making behind the door deals that benefit only her.
    • Anyone and I mean anyone voting for Hillary the killer does not in no way loves this country. She is worse than Obama a killer of the American people and then there is Bill the worse in the world. If you vote Hillary you do not have a brain, a real idiot the way I would put it is a real dump ass. People our only way to save this country Is to vote Trump.
    • Bottom line the Clinton’s are grifters. Gritter is someone who cheats you through deception or fraud. Dishonest, insincere, born in the argot of the underworld, swindler. I could go on. It all fits the Clintons. Hell, they’re even cheating on her health issues. There is no point too low for them. Too bad some of their victims can’t talk.

Giving the finger to the press

  • I am voting for the life of my country, therefore, my vote is for the only candidate that will stop the destruction began by the current administration and will continue with Hillary Clinton. Trump’s sex life is nothing to me and I could care less. I wish he were more of a gentleman about it, but it has no connection with saving our country in the areas important to me and my family. I refuse to stoop down to that level and become embroiled in that nasty topic. Anyone else must handle things their own way without criticism from me. I will not be distracted from my original
  • What he does in his bedroom is of no interest to me. What judges is places on the Supreme Court does, along with the closing of our borders. Were you aware that 52 tons of weapons has arrived at Fort Meyers expressly held for the Muslim immigrants entering our country in droves?
  • One other thing; he also holds a position which allows him to become President and, most importantly, he knows the voice of God and will listen to it. Which is more than we can say for any of us making rude comments about him. Those two things make him valuable to us and America. Everything else is of no matter or consequence to us in any real sense as long as the major objectives are met.
  • Bumma is a disgusting human being. He’s so well versed at bullshit!! His father was an anti American! He was a hateful Islamic maggot! Disgusting
  • I listened to the audio. It’s disturbing. But also 11 years ago. I can give you the link of racist hillary call young black men super predators. But that’s ok
  • Bill is not running. But read the accounts by the women bill did rape. About hope Hillary used her power to make them suffer and slut shame them.
  • You may want to use your ears again Grabbed was not the word used. He said grab giving billy instruction on how to do it . Does not make it right So Hillary can be racist , oppress women that her husband violated . And sell weapons to Isis. Sell mining rights to 28% of the usa’s uranium to Russia . Threaten a drone strike against wiki leaks editor. And that’s all ok ?
  • As for the predator so was B J Clinton. A serial rapist. You were all ok with that?

Again, these are people who generally identify as Christians, and the quotes come from only my news feed. I make no claim to personally know everyone of them. What they express is hatred, not the love of God in Christ.

Shouting at the press

That these people are angry is unmistakable, but so is their ignorance about Hillary Clinton and her record. This is due mostly to the sources they use to stay informed. It’s safe to say their sources are all political, which is a big problem we’re going to have to overcome in the wake of Donald Trump. All right wing “media” is political at core, regardless of what they will confess. This is not the case of the historical press, although the press’s reaction to these right wing interlopers has been, it would appear, to become more political. This is something we’re all going to have to fix, for we cannot survive in a culture that’s informed only by political media.

As for Mr. Trump, I’ve followed the man out of curiosity since he first came on the public scene. He has never been anything other than a gold-plated con man to me, and I will always doubt the words of anyone who uses logical fallacies to manipulate others. I don’t think he’s the head figure of a cult, because Mr. Trump didn’t originate any of this; it was all pre-existing, and as a good salesman, he simply interpreted their rage and fed it back to them.

Your vote is yours, but I’m voting for Hillary.

Maybe your problem with Hillary is guilt

hillarylogo I’m voting for Hillary Clinton next month, and I wanted to go on the record with you about my reasoning.

Now I know – and especially due to my background – that I’ll be falsely accused of having fallen away or of becoming a liberal based on this decision. If this is your choice, that’s fine. However, you’ll miss arguments that come from unique knowledge and study, and qualifications that include insight to marketing and forms of propaganda that I helped create. In other words, dismiss if you wish, but grant me the benefit of the doubt and at least read it.

I first heard of Hillary when serving on the Governor’s Commission on the Family in Hawaii in 1989. Our group was tasked with researching programs and concepts around the world that were designed to strengthen families and report our findings to Governor John Waihee. In the Hawaiian culture, “ohana” means family (in an extended sense of the term, including blood-related, adoptive or intentional), according to Wikipedia. Ohana, however, carries meaning that transcends the word itself. “The concept emphasizes that families are bound together and members must cooperate and remember one another. The term is similar in meaning and usage to the New Zealand Māori term whānau, and its cognate in Māori is kōhanga, meaning ‘nest’.”

So this was a big deal in Hawaii, and from the beginning of our work, I heard constant references to the young Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton and especially his wife, Hillary, who had created a group in Arkansas that was making a difference for especially low-income families. It became one of the founding concepts of our Ohana group, and I took a liking to its author, a woman of political privilege who had chosen to defer personal ambition for the sake of pleading the cause of the poor and the afflicted. According to her website, this decision was deeply personal:

Instead of signing on to a prestigious law firm after graduating, Hillary went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund—shaping her burgeoning career around the fundamental need for quality public education for every American child, regardless of their background, location, or unique needs. She worked with teenagers incarcerated in adult prisons in South Carolina and families with children with disabilities in Massachusetts. It sparked a lifelong passion for helping children live up to their potential.

When she was appointed to the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, Hillary crossed the state, investigating public schools, listening to parents and teachers, and working with a team of educators to create policy that would better prepare Arkansas students for a 21st-century economy. And earlier, she co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, which would later make huge strides in standing up for children in the welfare system.

When Bill Clinton became President, I paid attention to Hillary, for most of the knowledgeable people in that Ohana group convinced me that, of the two Clintons, she was the one with the smarts, passion, and connections. Again – and please pay attention here – she had subjugated any personal political ambition to work within the shadows of others to make a difference. I find this quality endearing, appealing, and quite contrary to the messages bombarding the public square today suggesting a lying, murdering, greedy, and self-absorbed “crook.” Whenever I’ve read anything about her over the many years that she’s been in public service, I’ve always filtered it through my knowledge of her early work and my own ground level efforts over time.

The point is I like Hillary Clinton and have for many years. She is quite simply NOT the bitch she is painted to be by the right. She’s hated by the right, not because of what she’s criticized for, but because she’s a major threat to those who are in it for themselves. Read the Democratic Party Platform. Honestly? It reads like the red words of the Bible, not the Gospel of Self preached and practiced by the Christian Right.

Mrs. Clinton is likely the most questioned and investigated candidate for president in American history. Why? Because she pleads the cause of the poor and the afflicted, and this does not sit well with the status quo. Folks, it never has, because the false assumption is that resources are a zero sum game and that liberal policies depend entirely on funding. So they argue that people like Mrs. Clinton want to take from others (them) in order to enact policies that benefit the poor. When that doesn’t work, they choose character assassination and demand investigations over bogus claims of wrongdoing. That hasn’t worked either, because despite the millions wasted in these investigations, she stands convicted of nothing. The only shift available now is to conspiracy theories, which reflect more on the paranoid theorists than Mrs. Clinton.

fblikesAgain, the real issue is that Hillary Clinton pleads the cause of the poor and the afflicted, and this is the Biblical definition of knowing God (see Jeremiah 22:16). Those most critical of her – especially Evangelical Christians – ought to know this and be asking themselves whose side they’re really supporting. Jeremiah wasn’t speaking of the unborn, nor was he referencing anybody’s “rights” – even so-called “religious freedom.” What good is religious freedom, after all, if it’s used only to isolate, separate, judge, create profound wealth, and produce the motivation behind the prayer of the Pharisee, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”

Yes, I’m voting for Mrs. Clinton, and I didn’t once mention Donald Trump, which is an entirely different matter.

The logical fallacies of Benjamin Netanyahu

netanyahu-ethnic-cleansing-palestine-mondoweissAs Donald Trump continues to campaign using logical fallacies as his daily weapons (e.g. To deflect attention away from his admission that President Obama is a U.S. Citizen, he told followers that the whole idea was Hillary’s in the first place – classic), there is a more ruthless practitioner of fallacious reasoning across the sea. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu, and his latest got virtually zero coverage by media in the U.S.

An important part of Israeli hasbara (official propaganda) is a relentless dissemination of misinformation to American supporters. After all, the United States provides $10 million a day in military aid to Israel, so it’s understandable that the Israeli government would feel obligated to provide “evidence” that the money is being well-spent. The problem is that the money can’t be morally justified, and so the Prime Minister must twist the facts to fit a tired, old narrative.

Netanyahu regularly produces English language videos for consumption here in the U.S. These videos bend current events to shape the narrative that poor, defenseless Israel will ALWAYS need the support of friends to prevent another holocaust. Meanwhile, the IDF continues to perpetrate genocidal crimes against Palestinian neighbors in an illegal land grab in the West Bank. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Those crimes involve “extrajudicial executions” (what we call murder) of Palestinians, the terrorizing of legal residents, and the continued bulldozing of Palestinian homes in order to build Israeli settlements and expand the territory it polices. It is the systematic destruction of a people and their culture in order to remove them entirely from the land. There’s a word for this, and it’s called “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.”

And yet, in this latest video to Americans, Netanyahu uses the same term in describing the Palestinian wishes to remove the illegal settlements. The Palestinians, he says, want to cleanse the land of Jews! This is a logical fallacy. It’s very clever, and we buy it almost completely.

Netanyahu was roundly criticized for this video – even in his own country – for it’s an obviously outrageous claim, especially in light of the evidence to the contrary. The State Department responded immediately, but again, this was not covered in the U.S.

So we have seen the Israeli prime minister’s video. We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank. We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful. Settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties. We share the view of every past U.S. administration and the strong consensus of the international community that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.

Look, let’s be real. There will be no two-state solution in the Holy Land. The best we can hope for – perhaps generations from now – is a peaceful solution that includes both Israelis and Palestinians under a single government that doesn’t discriminate against either. South Africa is the model, but that country was able to get past logical fallacies in facing the reality of its situation.

Israel’s current government is simply incapable of such.

The false narrative of right wing media

(Excerpted from my forthcoming book “How Jesus Joined The GOP”)

In the early 1980s – during my days with CBN – we innovated “TV Journalism With a Different Spirit,” a news animal that sang a different song from others in the journalism world, whether television or print. We knew what we were doing, and it was very clever. In the process, we built the philosophical model for Fox News and many others. Here’s how it worked:

The idea that the press represented only a liberal perspective was developed in the days of Richard Nixon, specifically by his vice president, Spiro Agnew. Agnew argued that the President ought to be able to speak directly to the American people without going through what he viewed as a liberal filter, one that would distort Nixon’s views through its blurred lens. Nixon’s was the first conservative administration in the golden age of television, and it struggled with its inability to control the message during an incredibly volatile time in history. Many others took up the claim in the wake of Watergate. After all, only a political opponent would strive to take down a sitting President, surely not a press that advertised itself as objective.

These complaints fell on deaf ears, because the complainers lacked a media stage from which to make their case. As a result, they had to rely on that same blurred lens, so efforts to “speak against liberals” were dead before they started. We had such a stage at CBN, one of the original ten transponders on the first RCA communications satellite, Satcom 1. Moreover, ours was a video show, and we had the production chops to create whatever we wanted along the artificial plane known as political perspective. It didn’t matter that the press didn’t really belong on this plane, only that it was convenient for our purposes, which we claimed to be preparing the world for the return of Jesus Christ.

So we publicly moved “the press” in its entirety to the left on this political plane in order to insert a convenient fence on its right edge. We placed ourselves (and the ilk of Rush Limbaugh, etc.) to the right of that fence, which gave the appearance of the bigger overall culture being represented under the banner of “news.” After all, most people were either liberal or conservative politically, and politics – or influencing politics – was our real goal. I can’t possibly overstate this reality. You don’t change the world by changing the press; you simply must make the case that the press isn’t neutral, and the rest is easy. The press, of course, helped us with this, because it was easy to pick news coverage hooks that represented a more progressive view of culture for us to hone in on. We were free to assign bias even in cases where the press was simply doing its job.

Dog bites man, it’s not news. Man bites dog, it is news. This simple old metaphor points to the false narrative we created, because the very definition of news is tied to that which is different, that which is, well, “new.” And new always means progressive, for basic conservative logic is tied to the status quo and the maintenance of tradition and its accompanying hierarchies. Many if not most journalists are educated, passionate about their trade, and ethical when it comes to the rules of professional observation. Only in the sense that some of this can be applied to “liberalism” is the press liberal. It’s a fake moniker given to them without their consent by people who need it to be that way in order to fit their own self-serving narrative. There is no conspiracy. Journalists don’t regularly gather to discuss how they’re going to manipulate unknowing masses with lies and deceit. That is much more likely to be found with those who claim participation in “right wing media.”

Evangelical Christians almost always leave out the original pioneers in the pro-life movement, the Catholics. This is an important element in understanding right wing media, for the Catholic Church is hardly conservative. In addition to calling out the pro-choicers for what was actually taking place in the wake of Roe v Wade, Catholics also pleaded the cause of those “unwanted” babies after they were born, and also opposed the death penalty. That, my friends, is the very definition of pro-life. Catholics also tended to vote for the left, so their voice in the debate about abortion carried far more weight than that of any other group. But that voice didn’t fit the narrative of the right, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In seizing upon abortion as an Evangelical Christian cause, the political right gained an emotional grassroots appeal to which it wasn’t entitled. The same thing applies to many of the right’s causes, because political power is the real goal.

The mere suggestion that manipulation can result in rolling back laws that are tagged as culturally offensive to some is folly and a chasing of the wind. This includes the idea that if only conservatives could appoint enough Supreme Court justices, they will eventually overturn Roe v Wade. The odds of this ever happening are remarkably small for many reasons, and wishers would do well to consider anyway that the original opinion in Roe v Wade was written by conservative justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee to the court. Nevertheless, right wing media needs to continually dangle this carrot in order to maintain the hyperbole in its claims as members of the press, albeit with a different worldview.

Right wing media is not, nor will it ever be, a part of the press, for its core purpose is the manipulation of culture through distortion, the very thing it assigns to the so-called “liberal” media. Moreover, many contemporary right wing media outlets are nothing more than political operatives with the sole purpose of repeating over and over again their purely political arguments. To this end, nothing is out-of-bounds, for baseless and provable lies are fair game in a sea of ethical emptiness. Again, the irony is that these groups practice out loud the very things they accuse their political opponents of doing in disguise, as if that somehow justifies deliberately “balancing” the public square by any means necessary. Even when bonafide “fact checker” organizations prove beyond a reasonable doubt the falsity of certain claims, these political hacks continue to repeat the allegations, presumably because they feel under no obligation to retract or otherwise accept responsibility for such lies. Moreover, they know that as long as they can keep the drum beating, there are people “out there” who’ve been trained to listen regardless of the evidence.

The press is a political animal only insofar as it covers politics, and even I have to admit there can be mischief in this particular hen house. NYU journalism professor and author Jay Rosen has been studying this for 30 years and refers to the Washington Press Corps in particular as the “national press or political press.” He argues strongly for transparency and accountability and against opacity and demagoguery. He’s also acutely aware of the difference between “journalism” and this “political press.”

If your job is to make the case, win the negotiations, decide what the community should do, or maintain morale, that is one kind of work. If your job is to tell people what’s going on, and equip them to participate without illusions, that is a very different kind of work.

The press is the latter and politics is the former. Right wing media, however, claims to be the latter while functioning as the former, and this is why its narrative is a fraud. Again, there is no such thing as “right wing media.” It is entirely political, and we shouldn’t stand for it. Drudge is not a journalist. Hannity is not a journalist. Limbaugh is not a journalist. A thousand websites with “news” in their titles are not practicing journalism whatsoever. They are like the local advertiser who presents his commercial message during the 6 o’clock news disguised as a news bulletin. There are ethical rules against this, but in desperate times, there are also exceptions.

Finally, nearly every attempt to create a “left wing media” has failed, the most visible being Al Franken’s program on the Air America Network. Billed as an alternative to conservative talk radio, Franken’s show never garnered the ratings of his counterparts on the right and certainly didn’t inspire a generation of progressive radio talk shows. While there are some successful progressive programs today, there doesn’t appear to be a wellspring of an audience for this fare, perhaps because it’s so obviously there only to counter the right.

Right or left, these “media” are political activists and not members of any journalistic effort whatsoever. We’ve got our work cut out for us, if we are to educate the public about how they’ve been duped and manipulated by smart political operatives, those who only have their own best interests in mind. We pioneered this in Virginia Beach, and while our motives may have seemed to be just at the time, the truth is we were just another group of social engineers with the political motivations of power and influence.

Chapter One of my new book

As political events began to take shape last year in the U.S. and specifically with the candidacy of Donald Trump, I began gathering all of the documents from my days as Pat Robertson’s producer in the 1980s. I could sense what was happening and felt a sense of responsibility for at least some of it, for as producer of The 700 Club, I had played a key role in our efforts to influence Republican Party politics. I began writing my story – the story of How Jesus Joined The GOP. The book is about to be published, but the need to get at least some of the information into the public debate right now is great. Hence, I’m publishing Chapter One here today for your perusal.

Chapter One: The Seeds of Modern Discontent

If I must publish the whole book online, I’ll do it, for the people addicted to Donald Trump are ushering in something they really don’t understand. Trump supporters represent a serious and significant threat to freedom, and the sad thing is that most of these people formed the core of our audience target back in the early 80s. The fears they express were planted by us, and while I’m not saying it was insincere, cynical, or corrupt, I am stating that it was a deliberate attempt at social engineering. People need to know this, for we preached what I’m calling “the gospel of self.”

I hope you will take the time to read this, and that you will share it with your friends.