Thursday, October 4, 2012

A Voice of Reason

It was so refreshing to read Doug Phillips' (VisionForum) summary of the presidential debate:

"Report on the Presidential Debate from Doug Phillips: It was a tragic day for America as our nation sat and watched two committed socialists, representing the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, argue between each other over which was the most committed to government interference in the private sector, wealth redistribution, and statist intervention in the economy. Tonight we learned that both candidates believe that social security is a success, that the government is responsible for education, and that the market will only work with heavy government regulation. Historically, presidential debates are shallow in terms of constitutional analysis of issues, but tonight's debate may have set the standard as the most constitutionally illiterate presentation by opposing primary party candidates for president in a national debate in the history of our nation. Tonight, (in case anyone needed reminding) Mitt Romney proved that he could be every bit the neo-Marxist that president Obama has become. What he may have lost in the first part of the debate through his petulant nit-picking, Governor Romney made up in the second part of the debate by unnerving President Obama, who clearly appeared to lose his edge as the evening closed. But the event was more of a clash of personalities then a debate over policy. Both peas were from the same pod, and the difference between the candidates on the issues raised tonight were little more than micro-degrees, with times that honest observers must admit that Obama appeared every so slightly to the right of Romney, and other times, vice versa. In sum: No Bible believing, Constitution-loving American should be proud of what happened tonight. Prediction: Liberals will like Romney much more after tonight's debate. But so will a large body of Christians to whom what Romney has said, done and advocated is irrelevant. The Evangelical political lobotomy is almost complete. His name is not Obama, and any facts pertaining to his radical socialism, statist agenda, pro-abortionism and pro-homosexual advocacy that get in the way of that truth must be ignored or stamped out."

Thank you, Mr. Phillips, for speaking the truth on this. May our country once again be filled with righteous men who do right based on priciple, not popularity.


  1. That is the first thing Doug Phillips has ever said that I have agreed with.

  2. No matter who wins our country deserves who we get because of the sins we commit! Christians sat idly by for years doing nothing letting sin creep into our lives, our churches and this country and the leadership we have in our government is a reflection of this. No matter who wins, America loses and it is our own fault.

  3. I usually wouldn't give two cents for anything Mr. Phillips has to say because he belongs in the garage in a box with the rest of the tools but for once I totally agree with what he has to say. People seem to forget that Romney was the one who signed the mess that is MA's universal healthcare and he signed in gay marriage in that state. Why Christians think he's such a great alternative I'll never know. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing just like Obama and Mormonism is just as much of a cult as Islam.

  4. No one seems to realize that we are witnessing a well crafted play. Four years ago I suggested to many scoffers, that Romney was the candidate they wanted all along. He is the NWO dream candidate. By virtue of being a Mormon Melchizedek priest - he is also a high ranking Mason. Step back and think - how else could the PTB get a bunch of sheeple evangelicals to vote for a Mormon/Mason? And be happy about it? - By first giving them a president like Obama. It could not have happened four years ago.

    We are being maneuvered into the New World Order, and almost no one seems to understand what is going on. Don't underestimate the influence of Billy Graham, Joel Osteen and Rick Warren for our precarious position. Osteen said that "Obama was OK with the Lord and Stuff." !!! Does anyone remember Rick Warren giving the inauguration prayer for Obama, and blasphemously referring to our Blessed Savior as "Issa?". . . The Muslim name for Jesus Christ?

    The church we belonged to fell to the Purpose Driven movement. We were told if we didn't like it, we could leave. We now home church. All I need to see is short hair, and short skirts on the pastor's wives. That's all we have around here. I don't even stay to hear what the pastor has to say, if his wife appears like that. Yes - even the "Independent Fundamental Baptist" ones. It is truly the Laodicean church age. There can be no doubt of that now.

    Bleat, bleat bleat, say the stupified sheep.

    1. Why does short hair on the pastor's wife mean he is a bad pastor? I didn't realize that being a Christian meant you had to dress and think EXACTLY like everybody else.

    2. Renee, The Word of God is very specific about this. If the Pastor and his wife are not obedient to the Word in this matter, it is indicative of their regard for the entire inspired (God Breathed)Word.

      1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

      2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

      3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

      4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

      5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

      6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

      7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

      8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

      9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

      10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

      11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

      12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

      13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

      14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

      15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
      1 Corinthians 11: 1-15

      A wife's long hair is symbolic of her being "covered" by her husband. Much as the "Bride of Christ" is "covered" by the Savior's Blood, and circumcision was a "sign of the Covenant" in the Old Testament. It indicated outwardly what was to take place on the inside man when they belonged to the Lord. They were "severed" from their fleshliness.

      The pastor's wives I have encountered with short hair,(sometimes shorter than their husbands) were not subject to their husbands. It was blatantly apparent. Not only that, but they were vain enough to spend a good portion of their meager income on their hair, which required constant upkeep. Not a good example to the young women at church.

      Your statement - "I didn't realize that being a Christian meant you had to dress and think EXACTLY like everybody else." - if meant to be provocative, is rather the opposite. Far from dressing and thinking like everyone else - mature Christians strive to walk in the Word, not the world.

      "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." Romans 13: 14

      Can a woman who spends hours and hours weekly on her hair, honestly say she is not fulfilling the lusts of her flesh?

    3. Thank you for explaining more clearly about the short hair. It is something that I had wondered about also.

      Are you not supposed to cut your hair at all? or just not make it short? Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.


    4. AK - you are welcome. Only those that had taken the "Nazarite" vow, (which was a demonstrable separation from the world and it's trappings,) were never to cut their hair, such as Sampson. It is described in detail in Numbers 6.

      The Word says nothing about trimming your hair! Only that for women, hair should be long, noticeably long. How long is up to the woman and her husband, and her genetics! My daughters and I trim our hair twice annually, about 4-6 inches at a time. And the rest of the year, we try not to think about our hair too much, other than keeping it clean and groomed. (one long braid or pony tail) The evil one knows that much of a woman's vanity is in her appearance. As a man's is with power. How happy he must be with all the money and time women spend on their hair. Just hair coloring products - billions of dollars. . .I've never seen a woman who did not look good with the natural hair and eye color that God gave her.

    5. Thank you for the taking the time to respond. It answered the questions that I had.

      Have a great day!


  5. I am surprised, to be honest. A good surprised though. I am happy they put this out there.

    Off topic a bit: Wasn't Vision Forum big advocates of Rick Santorum? Or am I wrong on that? He was a dud too or big joke, but for some reason it is in my mind that they were for him? Anyone know? Just curious?

  6. Sage- very well said, I agree! People are blind to what is going on! Very good at looking at the pastors wife to see what kind of church it is. Short hair and the border line short skirts is no good! We had to candidate for a new pastor recently and we got lots of resumes. All IFB and over half were out right away because the wife had short hair, border line modest cloths, and the preaching was lame, nothing to it, no yelling,no preaching on sin ect. Thank God we found one with the right standards and preaching! IT took us over 6 months, they are hard to come by! - Jane

  7. One thing that has always perplexed me: Why are some Christians opposed to policies that would make health care available to all people? Do they believe it is their duty to finance the health bills of the poor, or just that the poor don't deserve to be treated? Also do those who speak about "socialism" also believe their should be no firedepartments, no public schools, no public libraries, no police departments?"

    Just trying to understand.

    1. We're not opposed. We just believe it's the choice of free individuals to help the poor. Not the government. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it's the job of the govt to provide for the poor. The governments job is to punish evildoers. God only commands believers to take care of the poor.

    2. That seems reasonable in theory but I wonder a) are all the church-going folks paying medical bills of the millions of uninsured folks and b) do you agree that it is clear that it is not working and that christians are not helping the poor to the extent that help is needed? Children are dying because of lack of access to affordable healthcare and Christian giving has not been enough. So, I wonder, are you comfortable just promoting a theory that is clearly failing in real life, or do you care about practical solutions for real people?

    3. It's not a theory. By the way, the reason helathcare cost are so high is because the hopsitals overcharge. Hospitals are a business. 100,000 dollars for heart surgery is robbery and the reason the hospitals charge such large sums is because they know they have the backing of either the government (medi-care, madi-caid) or insurance coverage.

      If people went back to just paying cash like it used to be, hospital costs would go dramatically down and we wouldn't be having the problem of people not being able to afford medical care. charities would also be able to help alot more people. The government is the cause of all this mess. By the way, our nation is bankrupt partly because of the large welfare state. so it's your "theory" that's clearly failing in real life.

  8. Hi Jessica, I have seen a few of your comments on here, and just saw your new picture. Can you do another guest post soon please!!! Or start your blog again, I know so many of us miss you! -Jane L.

  9. Doug Phillips is a purist. He cannot see beyond his perfectly crafted candidate (who does not exist in this election season). His encouraging believers abstain this November will put Obama back in office for another 4 years. Consider the ramifications of that possibility. The blog author and most of her readers are homeschoolers. Which candiate is more likely to limit or even take away your right to homeschool?? I can tell you, there is nothing the left would like better than to join the ranks of other socialized nations (Germany, Sweden, etc) and take away our choice to educate our children they way we see fit. So if you abstain this November, you best be saving your pennies for private school or be prepared to go "underground." As far as one canditate being a member of a cult, Phillips himself is nothing short of a cult leader himself. Folks, lets stop "drinking the Koolaid" of Christian leaders and start following Christ Himself. Everytime we follow a person other than the Person of Christ, we go down the wrong path.

    A concerned homeschooling mommy of 8.

    1. Agreeing with you mommy of 8.

  10. It's amazing too see how the power of the Lord is working in the lives of other Christians. Doug Phillips is a tool of mercy(if that's the correct way to explain it? English is my third language). Very though-provoking post still!


Your KINDLY WORDED, constructive comments are welcome, whether or not they express a differing opinion. All others will be deleted without second thought.