Tag Archives: Politics

Following God includes loyalty — Esther 3

Following God includes loyalty — Esther 3:2, 5-6
By Pastor Lee Hemen
April 21, 2013 AM

Sandra struggled with two seemingly irreconcilable forces in her life. She believed God had called her to be a missionary but she could not believe He would send her to such a dangerous place. Like many Christians Sandra has falsely assumed God’s primary function is to protect, preserve, and prosper His people. They focus on Scriptures that affirm God’s love and care for His own. These believers assume God would not lead them to serve Him where they would be uncomfortable, much less, where there is potential danger. However, God’s objective is to carry out His purposes through His people. Those purposes may require His people to serve Him at great personal risk. The Lord expects His people to exercise faith as they serve Him in the risky situations into which He leads them. Perhaps we forget that following God includes loyalty even when there is risk involved.

The plot of the Book of Esther thickens in chapter 3 with the introduction of the villain. A man named Haman accepted a promotion by King Xerxes to a position of prestige and power. The office to which he was elevated is not stated, but several details about Haman are noted. His father’s name was Hammedatha. He was an Agagaite, which identifies him as a descendant of Agag, the king of the Amalekites during the era of Israel’s early monarchy. Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, teaches us that following God includes loyalty. Let’s discover what occurs…

READ: Esther 3:1-6

One cannot sort-of-kind-of follow God and expect God’s blessings. King Saul failed to learn this lesson and his disobedience affected not only himself but future generations. The Amalekites were a Canaanite tribe who consistently opposed Israel from the exodus out of Egypt to the reign of David. God had ordered Saul to eradicate the Amalekites in a holy war. However, Saul spared Agag until the prophet Samuel voiced the Lord’s displeasure and then executed the Amalekite king. Saul’s failure to completely obey God allowed the Amalekites to survive and to continue to harm Israel. In these verses, we discover that in following God…

I. God alone is worthy of worship and ultimate loyalty! (Vv. 1-3)
1. The writer of Esther portrays King Xerxes as a man easily manipulated by others. The king had ordered his subjects to bow down as recognition of Haman’s status. The Hebrew verb means to fall on one’s knees and bow down. The important aspect was not the posture but the attitude it reflected. The word translated pay homage often is used to denote worship of deity. No doubt Haman’s vanity had influenced Xerxes to order this gesture. The narrative does not state why Mordecai refused to bow. His behavior throughout the story demonstrates his personal loyalty to the Persian king. So his refusal was not a sign of treachery. Nor can it be attributed to some Jewish law against bowing to other humans. The Scripture offers numerous examples of Jews’ bowing to other people: “Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites”, so he could bury his wife Sarah.  (Genesis 23:7 NIV) David honored King Saul after he could have easily killed him, “David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.” (1 Samuel 24:8 NIV) Those who sought audiences with the King of Israel, bowed before him in respect (2 Samuel 14:4). And Bathsheba bowed before David in order to garner his support for Solomon to be king (1 Kings 1:16). However, Mordecai had both religious and political reasons for steadfastly not bowing to Haman. Jewish tradition held that no self-respecting Jew would ever show reverence to an Amalekite. So Mordecai may have seen his refusal as conforming to God’s command to not honor false idols, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God!” (Exodus 20:5 NIV) Mordecai would have understood that the Persians saw such tribute as an act that bordered on acknowledging the honored individual was a god. In that case, bowing would have been idolatry. I would conclude Mordecai took the risk of offending Haman because he recognized God alone is worthy of worship and ultimate loyalty!

EXAMPLE: What risks have you taken lately for your faith, what risks are you willing to take? Many say they “love” Jesus and we all desire that He love us, but what has our love or His love motivated us to risk for His kingdom purposes. Do your co-workers, classmates, friends, neighbors and family members know you will not bow to the world’s ungodliness? Frank got up from the lunch table and walked out when one of fellow co-workers began telling a crude joke. The jokester snickered, “What a prude Frank is. He thinks he is better than us!” Art looked at him, stood up, and remarked, “No, perhaps he doesn’t appreciate your ungodly crude jokes, and in fact, neither do I.” Art then left the table. Later, as Art was working, the young man who had been telling the joke sought him out and apologized for his poor choice in jokes. He related that his wife did not appreciate his humor either and wondered why. Out of this conversation, this young man and his wife soon were attending Art’s church. Art had shared with him that as a Christian, we show our worship and loyalty to him even by the words we use. Just as Mordecai took the risk of offending Haman because he recognized God alone is worthy of worship and ultimate loyalty, we can as well!

Vowing revenge but scorning to lay hands on a single victim, Haman meditated on the extirpation of the whole Jewish race. He knew they were sworn enemies of his countrymen; and by artfully representing them as a people who were aliens in manners and habits, and enemies to the rest of his subjects, he procured the king’s sanction of the intended massacre. All because “Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor.” Mordecai teaches us that…

II. Identifying one’s loyalty to God can result in hardship!

1. Mordecai’s loyalty to God in not bowing to Haman enraged the Persian. His anger revealed his true character. He was obsessed with his power and prestige and consequently craved constant human praise. His pride left no room for accepting less than unconditional adoration. Therefore, Haman resolved to kill Mordecai for not admiring him as much as he admired himself! The death of just one man would not satisfy Haman’s vanity. So great were his rage and his pride that he resolved in destroying every Jew in the Persian Empire. He believed only this result would be appropriate considering the so-called offense against him. The failed attempt to rid Persia of Jews is the primary plot of the Book of Esther. Identifying one’s loyalty to God can result in hardship. The hardship may affect the individual, God’s people, or both. In the case of Mordecai, it put him and all other Jews in danger. God’s people today sometimes confront hostility when they refuse to give others what God alone deserves. They are to remain steadfast and not allow opposition to lead them to compromise. On the other hand, God’s people must not blame an entire group for the actions of one member as some folks do when they decide to leave a church fellowship over their own personal pride being wounded. When Mordecai failed to show Haman the respect he desired, the Persian determined to eliminate all the Jews from the empire. When Haman cast lots to identify the proper time for his mass murder, it fell in line with God’s purposes. The Amalekites, not the Jews, would be annihilated. Afterwards the Festival of Purim was begun in celebration of the Jews’ deliverance by God from Haman’s evil plans. Haman had persuaded King Xerxes that the Jews threatened the Persian Empire’s national security. To these false accusations, Haman added a bribe and was able to accomplish his aims He obtained a royal decree setting aside a time for slaughtering the Jewish people. Haman’s scheme might have succeeded except for God’s providence. Mordecai’s cousin and adopted daughter was the Queen of Persia. God had placed Esther in a situation where she could make a difference if she trusted Him. When faced with a choice of either remaining complacent or standing for his beliefs, Mordecai learned that identifying one’s loyalty to God can result in hardship!

EXAMPLE: Isn’t it interesting that Jesus taught, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that, your brother has something against you; leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:21-24 NIV) Yet, far too often Christians act like the hated Haman and get easily offended when they are not properly recognized, bowed down to, or respected in the way they think they should be. What a contrast is Mordecai to Haman! Haman wanted and sought after human recognition, Mordecai sought only to honor God. Mordecai learned that identifying one’s loyalty to God can result in hardship!

Conclusion:
God alone is worthy of worship and ultimate loyalty! Identifying one’s loyalty to God can result in hardship!

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Pastor Lee Hemen has been the outspoken pastor of the same church for 27 years in Vancouver, WA. He writes regularly on spirituality and conservative causes and maintains several web blogs. This article is copyrighted © 2013 by Lee Hemen and is the sole property of Lee Hemen, and may not be used unless you quote the entire article and have my permission.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Following God includes loyalty — Esther 3

Filed under Sermon Notes

Where Have All Our Freedoms Gone?

Where Have All Our Freedoms Gone?
words by Lee Hemen
Sung to “Where Have All the flowers gone” by Pete Seeger

Where have all the swine flu shots gone? No one can find one.
Where have all the swine flu shots gone? Obama doesn’t know for sure.
Where have all the swine flu shots gone? Illegals, deadbeats, have used every one.
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Where did all the TARP money go? ACORN spent much of it.
Where did all the TRAP money go? No one knows for sure.
Where did all the TARP money go? Obama cronies got every dime.
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Where have all the Democrats gone? Sold their votes for Obamacare.
Where have all the Democrats gone? Only Pelosi and Reid know for sure.
Where have all the Democrats gone? Unions own them everyone.
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Where has all our democracy gone? Democrats sold us out.
Where has all our democracy gone? One world government now for sure.
Where has all our democracy gone? Slavery now for everyone!
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Where has all our freedom gone? National debt expanding.
Where has all our freedom gone? No one knows for sure.
Where had all our freedom gone? Tax serfdom for everyone!
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Pastor Lee Hemen has been the outspoken pastor of the same church for 25 years in Vancouver, WA. He writes regularly on spirituality and conservative causes and maintains several web blogs. This article is copyrighted © 2009 by Lee Hemen and is the sole property of Lee Hemen, and may not be used unless you quote the entire article and have my permission. You now have my permission…

Comments Off on Where Have All Our Freedoms Gone?

Filed under Politics

Does President Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Does President Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
by Lee Hemen
October 12, 2009

I wonder when anyone will ask the obvious yet unanswered question that if there were only twelve days for Obama to be nominated as President for the Nobel Peace Prize, who nominated him? According to OregonLive.com we discover that “Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.” In fact, the key is truly found in such statements that were made by the likes of Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party, who joined the committee this year, who related that she hoped the selection would be viewed as “support and a commitment for Obama.” Socialist peaceniks want to influence Obama to do things their way.

What many people do not realize is that the Nobel Peace Prize in reality means nothing and the reason is because it has become so politicized as to make it ineffective to make any kind of difference in the world. It is kind of like the Pope who tries in vain to tell world dictators to “straighten up or else.” It means nothing. It is a prize given out by a slanted group of socialists to other socialists who think and act the way they do, kind of like the Oscars and Hollywood.

The prize was created by a guilt-ridden Norwegian, Nobel, who created TNT. And, unlike all the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by accredited Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. A leftist Parliament that picks a committee with a decidedly leftist slant, therefore, the decision to honor Obama was unanimous. Gee go figure.

Here is a list of just a few of those “lightweight” contenders that were passed up for Obama according to Mary Katherine Ham on The Weekly Standard blog:

Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.

Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.

Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.

Wow! What a pathetic bunch of hacks! Surely the Anointed One did something during his twelve days in office to deserve the prize? Well according to his own White House official schedule here is what Obama did:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (How’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church. (Claims to be a “Christian.”)

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner’s swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. (Again.) Threw a Super Bowl party.

Yep, sounds like he truly did a lot of stuff for world peace… and how many soldiers have died in Afghanistan since President Peace Maker has taken office? Why over 350 and 43 of those came when he deemed himself to be too busy to speak with his general on the ground for over two (70 days) of those months!  (See: http://conservativeamerican.org/military/soldiers-who-have-died-since-1202009/)

When the announcement was given to give the Anointed One the prize you could hear the utter shock in the room. People gasped because they could not believe the committee would be so blatantly stupid and partisan. But why expect anything else from this group of leftists? And this brings me back to my earlier question: Who nominated Obama in the first place? Sure, anyone can be nominated, even me! And, just about anyone can nominate you, however, that does not mean you will get to the “final round.” So, what do you think? Does President Obama deserve his award? And, who nominated him? Personally I think it was someone form his own inner network and I think it further exposes him to what he truly is, a socialist who wants to change the world into his image as all socialists do. If it was someone close to Obama, the taint of that in of itself stinks as much as the rest of Obama’s social change does. It has the same kind of smell as him not releasing his actual birth certificate or any of his college day writings or transcripts.

Pastor Lee Hemen has been the outspoken pastor of the same church for 25 years in Vancouver, WA. He writes regularly on spirituality and conservative causes and maintains several web blogs. This article is copyrighted © 2009 by Lee Hemen and is the sole property of Lee Hemen, and may not be used unless you quote the entire article and have my permission.

Comments Off on Does President Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Filed under Politics

Welcome Back, Carter… Ummm… Obama

Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Welcome Back, Carter
by Ann Coulter

Well, I’m glad that’s over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims’ hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama’s speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims’ historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn’t colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven’t the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, “Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.” No, he said, “the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life.”

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don’t have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, “I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.” In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women “choose” to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America’s invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a “war of convenience,” while Afghanistan was a “war of necessity.” Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan — nor any country — attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 — and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that’s the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses — really chooses, not like Saudi women “choosing” to wear hijabs — to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn’t say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler — who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so — was a “necessity” in a way that fighting Saddam wasn’t. (Obama on Hitler: “Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale.” Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we’ll see how many women — outside of an American college campus — “choose” to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren’t afraid of us; they’re afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran’s quest for nuclear “power,” while attacking — brace yourself — America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA’s taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by “nationalizing” the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been “elected” by the Iranian parliament — but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah’s choice to assume the office. This “coup,” as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals’ favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA’s greatest accomplishments isn’t just crazy, it’s Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that “some countries have weapons that others do not” and proclaimed that “any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Wait — how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can’t the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I’m sure Iran’s compliance will be policed as well as North Korea’s was. Clinton struck a much-heralded “peace deal” with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn’t build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn’t dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They’re not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world’s oil and gas reserves. That’s not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama’s “I’m OK, You’re OK” speech would be hilarious, if it weren’t so terrifying.

Comments Off on Welcome Back, Carter… Ummm… Obama

Filed under Politics

Bigoted and Hatemonger Christophobes Burn Church!

Bigoted and Hatemonger Christophobes Burn Church!
By Lee Hemen
December 14, 2008

Bigoted and hatemonger Christophobes burn Sarah Palin’s church and do you hear any a condemnation from the liberal media or liberals? Does anyone seriously think that the news of Obama’s church home for over 20 years, Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, would have gotten the same slap in the face the mainstream media has placed Sarah Palin’s church in Alaska if it was burned by arson? We would have had to endure monotonous rantings about how hateful and horrendous conservatives were for encouraging the destruction. There would have been calls for an investigation by the Feds, Congressman after Congressman would have come out before the cameras to dourly look mournfully into the camera lens and utter their dismay. Story after story would have been done to tout how Nazi-like tactics were used by conservatives that encouraged the destruction and just how horrible it was and how many other black churches were destroyed by such strong arm tactics. But when Christophobic liberals burn a mostly white church is it a hate crime? Is it considered racist? Is it seen as unconscionable? Bigoted against Christians? Or against Palin herself? The liberal press yawns and secretly thinks, “They deserve what they get.”

This is the way of all liberals. If you disagree with them, you are a hateful homophobic monster with Nazi tendencies, and if you are a Christian, you deserve what you get. Thus the flagrant double standard of all liberalism and the war that is now being waged against all Christians. If you do not believe me, you are asleep at the wheel and need a good dose of reality. Liberalism hates anything that is decent, moral, patriotic or normal. Liberalism’s ugly head of discrimination has reared itself for full view as liberal investigators spread money around trying to find anything against Sarah Palin and her family. They tried to spread ungodly rumor that Palin’s daughter’s baby secretly was hers. When that did not work the vile and bile got ratcheted up a notch and it was a the result of incest. Palin was then branded as a vengeful cheerleader ex-beauty queen out to get a poor defenseless law enforcement officer who was only doing his public duty. Never mind he was an egomaniac who used his power to abuse his family and spouse.

The putrid stench of liberalism and its cohorts in the mainstream press will continue to vomit out its derangement. Not satisfied with unsuccessfully souring every living soul against President Bush, it will spew its bile to try and ruin anyone it sees as a threat. Meaning anyone that is truly decent. This brings me to my final argument concerning the media: If Bush had friends, ministers, or associates that smelled with even a hint of the stink of corruption that Obama has, they would be having a field day. Saturday Night Live would be doing comedic sketch after sketch on Bush’s corrupt buddies. His terrorist associations, his real estate cronies, goof-ball Nazi-style ministers, and his association with Chicago gangsta-style political buddies he personally endorsed. We had to suffer literally weeks and weeks of how Bush’s National Guard service wasn’t real and he was just a drunk after all, we now hear nothing concerning Obama’s not releasing his college transcripts, his real birth certificate, nor his radical associations and corrupt friends of Rezco and Blagojevich. Do you seriously think that Republicans would get the same pass as Obama is getting right now? A good example of this is the corruption taking place in Minnesota’s Senatorial race. Hear anything from the mainstream press about the underhanded Communistic tactics of Democrats there? Not a peep.

The burning of Palin’s church shows exactly what liberals are made of and who they truly are. Not one has issued a public statement condemning the fire. No one from the mainstream press to Obama himself. No one from the Democratic Party. This is typical of liberalism and Democrats in general and why I am glad I left that political party years ago. Hypocrite racist Christophobes all.
—-
This article is copyrighted © 2008 by Lee Hemen and if you reprint it, reproduce it, or want to use it in any way, you must do so in its entirety or get the written permission of its author.

Comments Off on Bigoted and Hatemonger Christophobes Burn Church!

Filed under Politics, Religion

Obama: What Did He Know, And When Did He Know It?

Obama: What Did He Know, And When Did He Know It?
By Lee Hemen
December 12, 2008

What did he know and when did he know it? This should be the question anyone with brains should be asking Barack Obama. Anyone with any common sense understands that someone who declared himself as a “community organizer” within the Chicago neighborhoods understands that these organizers are up to their armpits in Chicago-style neighborhood Blagojevich politics.

An examination of the FBI complaint against Blagojevich and the days immediately following Obama’s historic election victory suggests the governor was highly interested in Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett as a potential Senate appointee, albeit with a steep price tag. She is highly regarded by Obama and Jarrett was a former finance chief for Obama’s earlier campaigns and an incoming senior White House adviser.

Obama’s own cryptic statements makes it sound as if he knew more than he is willing to relate and he probably did. He was high on Blagojevich at one time, supporting him for his run for governor, then, Obama’s relationship began to sour. Why? Did he know what the Democrat Governor Blagojevich was up to all along because he is intimately familiar with Chicago politics? For anyone to say otherwise sounds idiotic. Why in the world would Obama say, “But what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal making around my Senate seat, that I’m absolutely certain of.” Oh? Would it not be prudent for the President elect to talk with the governor of the State where his Senate seat resides? By the way, has anyone noticed this but me that when Obama has to speak “off the cuff” and he is not prepared by his staff, he sounds like the burping snowmen on YouTube? He is someone searching for an answer and can only make “ah” and “um” noises.

During a Nov. 5 call, Blagojevich said the Senate appointment was a thing of value, something not given away “for nothing.” Obama understands this intimately.

Two days later, Blagojevich allegedly suggested he’d be willing to “trade” the Senate seat to Jarrett in exchange for the Health and Human Services secretary’s job. He repeated that desire during a separate, three-way call involved Blagojevich, Chief of Staff John Harris and someone identified only as “Advisor B,” a Washington-based consultant. However, David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, said Obama had intended from the start to have Jarrett in the White House, and that Jarrett withdrew from Senate contention once Obama made her part of the White House team.

Obama knows full well how strong arm down and dirty political tactics work. He used them to gain his State Senate seat and again to gain his US Senate seat. Obama used voter records to disqualify his opponents. He used the same kind of thuggery during his campaigning for President as well with his support of ACORN. If one wants to remember, Obama went to Chicago in the first place to gain his “props” and to learn from the street what it took to get into thug-style politics. These are his own admissions from his own biographies.

Blagojevich is a thug. Many of the people like Reverend Wright, Ayers, and others Obama so deftly involved himself with and then later threw off the train are these kinds of folks as well. They are part and parcel of the street machine Obama familiarized himself with. So far, the mainstream media has been willing accomplices in ignoring any culpability by Obama. How long will this last? Will they finally have to be “Clintonized” again? The question remains and should be asked over and over: “What did he know and when did he know it?” For the media not to ask this is for them to be part of a cover up and tacitly involved in Chicago-style Blagojevich politics.
—-
This article is copyrighted © 2008 by Lee Hemen and if you reprint it, reproduce it, or want to use it in any way, you must do so in its entirety or get the written permission of its author.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

A Martyr for the Lord – Today’s Thoughts…

A Martyr for the Lord – Today’s Thoughts…
By Pastor Lee Hemen
November 12, 2008

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. (Titus 3:1-2)

During an administration that one does not truly believe in, it is sometimes difficult as Christians to be what God would have us be. But we are called to be his people no matter who is President. Paul was telling Titus that it was his job as their spiritual leader to “remind” them “to be subject to the rulers and authorities” over them. The idea here is to suggest that the followers of Christ were to be examples even to those who were their local leaders. So, does that let the rest of us off the hook as far as President is concerned? No. We are first and foremost to be obedient to Christ who is our Chief Shepherd no matter who is our Commander and Chief here in America. The idea here of “obedience” is being subject to, and we are all subject to the laws of the land whether we like them or not. However, we are never to acquiesce our faith to obedience to the government. In fact, this is where we get our word “martyr” from. It literally means “witness,” and many early Christians were “martus,” witnesses unto death and therefore word became synonymous with Christians dying for their faith.

While few of us may be unwilling to die for our faith, we are called “to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.” This does not mean we can never disagree, stand up for our own faith, or be the witnesses we are supposed to be for the Lord. However, our public disenchantment with the government is to also reflect the Lord. We are to exemplify him in all we do, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17)

This means we can criticize and disagree with the ungodliness that we see reflected within the government, especially by those in leadership who claim to be followers of Christ but prove otherwise by their leadership and actions. Yet we are to do it as a Christian, reflecting our true leader, the Lord and not a mere human being that we have elected. In fact, to give anyone in earthly leadership the same adulation that is supposed to be reserved for God alone is blaspheme and ungodly in the extreme.

So, dear child of the Lord, today if you are unhappy or even if you are excited about what occurred this past election cycle, you are called to Christ first and foremost. Never forget that. So as this Administration begins to lead the people of this land, we as believers are to still reflect the Lord in all we do showing everyone whom we truly follow.
—-
This article is copyrighted © 2008 by Lee Hemen and if you reprint it, reproduce it, or want to use it in any way, you must do so in its entirety or get the written permission of its author.

Comments Off on A Martyr for the Lord – Today’s Thoughts…

Filed under Today's Thoughts