"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Fearfully & Wonderfully Made

By Shane Kastler

When King David wrote Psalm 139, he marveled at the sovereignty of God over creation. Though he had no access to modern day ultrasound technology; he declared, “For You formed my inward parts;You wove me in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13) In other words, what we might call gestation, David properly recognized as creation. When you stop and think about it, the creation and development of a child is pretty amazing as the child literally grows from nothing to a full-sized baby in a matter of nine months. Hands and fingers grow. Internal organs develop. And a heart forms and begins to beat. Astounding!

David was right to recognize child development for what it truly is; the work of God. We should realize that to purposely thwart the growing baby trough acts like abortion is to interfere with the work of God. This should be taken into consideration when one considers such a politically charged issue as this. Not only does abortion take the life of an innocent person. It seeks to “play God” by determining who is allowed to live and die. And in the case of two innocent people, no one has the right to execute the other one.

The Psalm goes on to say, “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.” (v. 14) But what does it mean to be “fearfully and wonderfully made”? It means that when we consider God's amazing process of human creation we should be awestruck. We should respect God for His handiwork. We should “fear” Him with a holy reverence. David declared that “wonderful are your works.” Indeed, David was right.

Have you ever considered the fact that you were created by God? And that God created you for a purpose? Have you ever considered the fact that you and everyone else sins against God by not giving Him the glory He deserves? And have you ever wanted forgiveness and salvation from Him?

The Bible tells us that salvation comes by turning from our sin in repentance and submitting to Jesus Christ as Lord, believing in Him. The Son of God came so that we might have life. But only the Lord can grant us this life. Just as physical birth is amazing, so too is spiritual birth. Though spiritually dead in our sins, we can come to life by the Holy Spirit's work. God created you. And through Christ, God can save you. Trust in Him today.

Pro-Life Trump Still Offends Hyper-Sensitive Christians

By Shane Kastler

From a policy standpoint, Donald Trump has been described as the most pro-life President in history. If he does nothing else to support the cause of life, his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will have been well worth his election. Trump spoke openly about his opposition to abortion, even during the campaign, when he told of how his formerly liberal views had changed years ago after a friend's ultrasound. Some say he changed his views to gain conservative votes, yet this doesn't seem to be Trump's style at all. For the most part, he is more than willing to offend both liberals and conservatives by stating his views unabashedly. One might think that his strong pro-life stance would, at the very least, earn a nod from evangelical Christian leaders. Yet many have railed against Trump from day one, ignoring his policy positions while constantly besmirching him for his coarse language and rough mannerisms. It's almost as though, many Christians are more concerned about their personal feelings than they are a baby's heartbeat. This speaks to the hyper-sensitive country that 21^st century America has largely become, and the fact that we are all too often led by effeminate male leaders and feministic female ones, who loathe Trump because he is everything that they are not.

Political office holders are notorious for speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Many of the prim and proper charlatans on Capitol Hill can schmooze their constituencies and the press, with flowery and flattering language. Even while they are pushing corrupt and even murderous legislation through the halls of congress. But the average American is only cognizant of the outward appearances. As long as the politician is polite, then who cares if he or she is corrupt? And in many cases, the corruption goes unreported anyway, because of a compliant media that loathes Trump just as much as the establishment politicians do.

A small group of elitists tell most Americans what to think. And most Americans blindly comply to what their self-proclaimed masters tell them to think. Sadly, this even happens within religious circles where denominational leaders, who are cozy with establishment politicians, take their marching orders from Washington. Then pass them on to pastors, who are either too naive to think for themselves, or too cowardly to stand up to higher-ups in the denomination. The pastors then, pass on the marching orders to the congregations, who either blindly follow the blind, or risk being seen as a boat-rocker for pointing out what should be blatantly obvious: While Trump's mannerisms might be rough, his actual policies have been very pro-life, and even pro-Christian. He's stood up for religious liberty. He's spoken out against countries that kill Christians, and he's defended the lives of the unborn. Yet this is often ignored by Christians. Why? Because his language hurts their feelings. To this I would say, “Get over yourselves people!” A baby's life is more important than your delicate sensibilities.

This is not to say that I always approve of Trump's words or even his actions. But it is to say that he is often portrayed much worse than he actually is and most people take the establishment's bait on Trump. A perfect example would be the hubbub that arose over his supposed use of a derogatory term to describe certain third world countries. First of all, his point seemed obvious, that some countries are in massive disarray. They have corrupt governments, sky-high crime rates, and non-existent economic stability. In a PRIVATE meeting, you or I might call these countries “destitute” or “dysfunctional” or maybe even “dumps” or “rat holes.” Trump used a different, yet similar word and the media, politicians, and other so-called leaders went ballistic. Of course he wasn't insulting every person from those countries, but rather the ruling powers of the countries themselves. Only the most hyper-sensitive and hyper-critical would have taken it any other way. And of course, most people know Trump's comments were correct. We send millions of dollars in aid to these countries. Why? Not because of how pristine and stable they are! These countries are a mess and everyone knows they are. Should he have used different words? Yes. But it should also be noted that he was in a private meeting with other governmental “leaders” – one of which, the sleazy Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, ran to the press as quick as he could, to report what Trump allegedly said. Anyone who has ever been in any place of leadership knows that private meetings are private for a reason. And the need to speak candidly in private should be respected by all those in attendance. It is hard to hammer out policy differences and state opinions clearly, when some of the attendees behave like children running to gossip about words used in the meeting itself. The greater outcry should be over Durbin's antics rather than Trump's words. But I digress.

Though Trump has many warts, Christians should rejoice that pro-life policies are emanating from the White House. Yet some pine for the days of Barack Obama, the polite and polished abortionist. Or worse, they bemoan the fact that Hillary, the vicious and vile queen of corruption was shockingly defeated in the last election. Sadly, many Americans prefer their overlords to be polished liars (Obama), country club elitists (Bush), or chummy good ole' boys (Bill Clinton). Blunt truth will not be tolerated. Rather than longing for evil, Christians should be glad that unborn lives are respected in America again. Christians should rediscover the lost art of discernment and realize that they are dealing with a President who is not a Christian, but who regularly defends them. And Christian leaders should encourage their people to “pray for those in authority, so that we may live quiet and peaceful lives” (1 Tim. 2:2) and be glad that life is respected again at the White House.

Trump is not the first president to bluntly speak his mind. Harry Truman was famous for it as well, but that was a much different America. At least from a sensitivity standpoint. Back then, Americans knew the world was an ugly place. They knew that sometimes leaders had to use strong words and make hard decisions. And, while they may have disagree with the decisions made, they were far less likely to wear their feelings on their sleeves. Today's Americans need to toughen up, and this includes American Christians. The world is not a Sunday school class, and Trump is not your pastor. So don't expect him to be. He has a tough job and every sector of the population has people lined up to oppose him. He uses tough words, sometimes too tough. He has many faults, but in some ways he has also been a blessing to the nation. God delivered us from Obama and spared us from Hillary. He didn't give us a perfect president, indeed there were no perfect options. But he gave us a defender of life. Christians should unite in celebration of this truth and pray for the flawed, yet courageous man that God has appointed to lead this nation for such a time as this.

Why Thabiti Anyabwile Is Wrong about Trump & Immigration

By Shane Kastler

The Great Commission does not tell all the nations of the world to come to America to hear the gospel. The Great Commission tells the church to GO TO all the nations and take the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20). The current immigration crisis in America has blurred the eyes of many American Christians who seem to want the Federal government to do the hard work of missions for them. Rather than wrestling with whether or not they should GO and TELL; many American Christians simply want the government to enact an open borders policy so other nations can COME and HEAR. This is spiritual laziness, disguised as Biblical piety and missionary zeal. Thabiti Anyabwile is one clear example of this type of unbiblical and wrong-headed thinking; and how many Christian leaders will misinterpret the Bible to achieve their political purposes.

In a recent interview for “The Gospel Coalition” Thabiti bemoaned how selfish American Christians were for supporting a restriction of the national border. He smugly commented that “Christians need to go back to their Bibles” to be informed on issues like this. Of course, the obvious question would be, “What exactly does the Bible say about American immigration policy?” And the answer is nothing. Thabiti took the question, “How should Christians respond to refugees?” And answered the question, “How should the United States respond to immigration?” These are two entirely different questions because the United States is not synonymous with Christianity and all immigrants are not refugees.

For those unfamiliar with Thabiti, he serves as a pastor of Anacostia Baptist Church in Washington D.C. - having preciously served as pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands and as a staff member at Mark Dever's Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington. He made a name for himself in evangelical circles because of his association with Dever, and later having ties to John Piper. He was born as “Ron Burns”, but changed his name when he converted to Islam. He later converted to Christianity, but kept his Muslim name. He has a compelling testimony and many conservative Christians respect him as a fresh tonic to the phony reverends like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who give black Christians a bad name. While Thabiti may not be in their ballpark, he is much closer than most of his fans realize. He has spoken glowingly of Bernie Sanders and the Black Lives Matter movement, while criticizing police and elevating “black” causes at the expense of Christian unity. Thabiti is the worst kind of dangerous because he mixes racial politics with conservative Christianity to sound orthodox while leading the undiscerning astray. I don't know his motives. Maybe he means well, but I don't trust him.

Thabiti, and many other Christian leaders like John Piper and Russell Moore continue to confuse the United States government with the Church and draw praise from many confused Christians who KNOW that Christians should be gracious to everyone, and ASSUME Thabiti and others are right when they criticize American immigration policy. The problem here, is that it is the church's job to be gracious and evangelize whoever they come in contact with. It is the Federal government's job to protect us and our liberty as we do this. And immigration standards fall well within the government's role in this area. The Bible says the “governing authorities” are to “wield the sword” and keep the peace. They are to punish evil and protect the innocent. (see Romans 13) But they are not to step in and do the work of missions for an increasingly lazy (and liberal) church. Many Christian leaders are nothing more than pawns for whatever political group they belong to. Thabiti complains about this reality, even though he himself seems to be just as guilty of it. In citing Old Covenant Israel as an example of those who were called to be gracious to “sojourners among you” he states, “The American church has been cozy with power for a long time; and it doesn't remember slavery in Egypt.” The problem with this statement is that American Christians never were slaves in Egypt. They were slaves to sin. And to take the typological picture of Old Covenant Israel and pagan Egypt; and then try to see the fulfillment in America and it's immigration policy is to distort scripture, mix and match covenants, and force a physical fulfillment on a spiritual reality. We are not Old Covenant Israel and we were never slaves in Egypt. The true church is the “New” Israel and were freed from our bondage to sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with America's policy on immigration. Should the church be gracious to “the sojourner among you?” Of course. But this doesn't mean the Federal government should disregard all security measures and promote an open borders policy. Not even Old Covenant Israel did that. They had walled cities, with armies, and guards, and laws which had to be obeyed.

Thabiti's words sound very pious, but they seem to be more rooted in his personal hatred of Donald Trump than in anything the Bible actually teaches. For months, Thabiti has railed against Trump with every fiber of his being. He's accused him of being a racist, as he openly endorsed Hillary Clinton. In so doing, Thabiti tipped his hand as being more concerned with his personal preferences than with protecting life itself. If Thabiti had supported a third party candidate, or no one at all....more power to him. But Thabiti, openly announced his intention to vote for the infanticidal, feminist Clinton. And that is shameful. And in so doing he lost all credibility on cultural issues.  And strangely enough, he uttered not a word against Barack Obama's immigration policy which also included temporary bans and deportation.  Of course, he still has a large platform because he has “The Gospel Coalition” seal of approval. This means that many conservative, and even theologically “reformed” Christians will swallow whatever rhetoric he puts forth and assume he is trustworthy. Even if he has a clear ax to grind and is twisting scripture to defend his political positions. Unfortunately, The Gospel Coalition seems to be morphing more and more into a Christianized version of the Huffington Post; and Thabiti is becoming the new Arianna Huffington.

In The Gospel Coalition clip, Thabiti goes on to make the ludicrous and breath-taking comparison of Paul in Athens in Acts 17 as an example to defend his immigration position. He cites that God has determined the “boundaries and habitations of people that they may be brought to the gospel.” Thabiti apparently sees this as a justification for open borders. But doesn't the text itself say that citizens of other countries “boundaries and habitations” have been determined by God? And was Paul making any reference at all to immigration, or even more absurd, to AMERICAN immigration? Of course not. Has the sovereign God who determined a Syrian live in Syria, also decreed that they can't hear the gospel unless they come to America? Or did God tell Christians of all nationalities to GO and TELL, rather than expect them to COME and HEAR?

Does this mean Christians who support secure borders are being “un-Christian” and hateful, as Thabiti suggests? Not at all. In fact, Christians can and should support helping refugees and others in need. But it shouldn't be through government policy, it should be through private charity in both practice and in financial support. The knee-jerk reaction of most Americans is to look to government in general to solve all their problems. And to use the United States government in particular to solve all the world's problems. But this is not America's job as a country. And it is not the government's role as the “governing authorities.” If you feel led to support Syrian refugees for example, then YOU should give from your own pocket to support them rather than trying to force the government to take from everyone's pocket to support them. If you feel a burning desire to share gospel with Syrians then you should give to missions causes in that region, or consider going there as a missionary yourself rather than trying to force the entire country to welcome all (even potential terrorists) to enter through open borders. America is not the church. Immigration is not missions. And national defense is not “hateful ideology” as Thabiti suggests.

Thabiti uses a lot of liberal buzzwords that will probably go unnoticed by many Christians who have been hypnotized by such words. He speaks of “injustice, empathy, sojourners, and the voiceless” to criticize Christians who expect the government to do it's God-ordained role of keeping the peace through immigration policy. And to promote his own “anti-all things Trump” position of open borders, etc. For a man to have the audacity to browbeat Christians for not defending the “voiceless” when he himself openly supported Hillary Clinton is both staggering and nauseating. In this clip, Thabiti comes across as pious, pompous, and condescending. He waxes eloquent about his own perceived Biblical knowledge, while distorting the scriptures to achieve his own political ends. And then accuses anyone who opposes him of doing the same things he does. He has taken a page from the playbook of the Democrats and duped many conservative Christians in the process. While he may be right on some theological issues, I encourage Christians to just avoid him. He's too blinded by his hatred of Trump to speak rationally on matters of culture.

 

Trump Against the World

By Shane Kastler

I suspect this will be my last article prior to the election on November 8.  So I’ll try to make it short, sweet, and to the point (although admittedly I’m not good at that).  Athanasius was a well-known defender of Christian truth who, almost single-handedly defended the doctrine of the Trinity at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.  On his tombstone was written: “Athanasius Contra Mundum” which is Latin for “Athanasius against the world.”  In some ways, this is how I see Donald Trump in this election.  Democrats hate him.  The media hates him.  Establishment Republicans hate him.  If this many people have united against you, then you MUST be doing something RIGHT!

I’m not saying Trump is worthy to be compared to Athanasius.  Trump is not a Christian leader; and right wing attempts to “Christianize” him are wrong in my opinion.  But with that said, he does have a considerable amount of righteous Christian influence and he has openly committed himself to defending Christian liberty and appointing judges who will defend the cause of life.  This, in and of itself, should garner him much support from Christians.  Yet, many oppose him.  Why?  In my opinion it is because many evangelical Christian leaders are clearly controlled by the Republican establishment.  If a more “worthy” candidate, with the exact same views as Trump, had won --  he would have been roundly endorsed by the Christian Pharisees in charge.  But since an out spoken and opinionated “outsider” with a checkered past won; the Christians followed their Washington orders and repudiated him.  In so, doing they will likely usher in the election of Hillary Clinton.  Who is arguably the most ardent and proud, pro-death, pro-abortion, anti-liberty, anti-Christian candidate to ever run for the office.  I would congratulate Christian leaders such as Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and John Piper for their help in electing Hillary; if it wasn’t so painful to do so.  All their rhetoric about fighting for the “unborn” melts away in their constant attacks upon the only major candidate who has spoken in ardent defense of the unborn.  Make no mistake, Trump has said without reservation that he would support life.  Yet, these pawns have opposed him time and again.  They may appear pious to their legion of followers, but Christian history will show them to be have been absent when the cause of life was in need of unreserved defense.  This is their prerogative as Americans and as Christians.  But using the considerable influence that God has blessed them with to constantly speak out against the only major pro-life candidate is unconscionable, in my opinion.

Trump has been called a racist for attempting to secure the border.  The recent murder of 10-year-old Kayla Gomez-Orozco by an illegal alien is the latest in a long line of violent crimes committed by convicts who had no business in America to begin with.  Trump has pointed this out from day one; and has been misquoted and maligned for doing so.  He has repeatedly said that “SOME of the immigrants pouring into our country are murderers and rapists, while others are good people.”  Yet, this qualified statement has been misquoted so many times by the corrupt press (and sadly repeated by many Christian leaders) that most fall for the ruse that he said, “All immigrants are murderers and rapists.”  He never said that; but the sound bite usually wins the day.  Shame on the Christian leaders who have taken part in advancing this lie.

Trump is accused of being racist for his questioning of Barack Obama’s birthplace.  While some might question the wisdom of this move, politically speaking; it is a question that many have entertained.  To question whether or not a president who has a Kenyan father and was raised in Indonesia is a natural born American isn’t racist.  Forcing a black person to sit at the back of a bus because of his skin color is racist.  Questioning a Kenyans place of birth is mere common sense.  This again, has been an unfair charge against Trump.  Levied in many cases by Christian leaders who have proven themselves to be nothing more than political pawns in the hands of establishment elites.

Finally, Trump has been blasted by some for not being pristine enough for the office of president.  To say this is to betray an obvious historical ignorance of the innocence of former presidents.  For 250 years the oval office has been occupied by any number of perverts, dictators, and elite snobs.  Yet, Christian leaders seem to assume Trump is the first “warted-man” to seek the office.  Ronald Reagan was a divorced Hollywood actor, turned politician; who was a liberal, pro-CHOICE Democrat for most of his career.  Yet Christian leaders gladly forgave him and supported him in 1980 when he ran and won against Jimmy Carter.  Mohler worked tirelessly for Reagan’s election, yet speaks out vigorously against Trump.

Mitt Romney, likewise was a die-hard, left wing, pro-CHOICE governor from a New England state; who enjoyed near universal adoration from Christian leaders.  John Piper openly endorsed him; while he has constantly castigated Trump in 2016.  Why is this so?  I believe that Trump’s biggest fault is his open proclamation of his strong opinions rather than an openly pious benevolence that will win over Christian conservatives.  In other words, Trump’s biggest fault is that he isn’t a big enough hypocrite to placate most Christians.  If he were more of hypocrite and not so openly opinionated, then the evangelical intelligentsia would support him.  But since he states what he truly believes, and doesn’t kiss the backside of the self-proclaimed Christian leadership he is panned as a “degenerate.”  Are his conservative convictions a mere ruse to gain votes?  That would seem unlikely since he has run off many voters by stating his honest opinion on a whole host of issues.  For all of Trump’s faults, he doesn’t seem to be a natural politician.  And this is why he is ridiculed by the Christian politicians who oppose him.  They are political hacks.  He is an honest bullhorn.  And this, they hate.

The facts are clearly before us.  God has ordained that Donald Trump win the Republican nomination and that Hillary Clinton win the Democrat nomination.  This is beyond argument.  One of these two will inhabit the oval office.  One of them has openly committed himself to governing according to Christian principles and defending the cause of life.  The other one has openly bragged of her disdain for the unborn and has committed herself to defending the murder of babies at any and all costs.  One has openly proclaimed a desire to defend our borders and protect the citizenry from criminal gangs.  Another has proudly declared her support of open borders and spit in the face of Americans who long for both security and freedom.  Trump has vowed to support religious liberty.  Clinton has called him a racist for doing so and will attack Christians with a pro-death, pro-hate speech, pro-Muslim White House.  What will you choose America?  Shall it be a modicum of freedom under Trump?  Or a feminine dictatorship under Clinton?  Tomorrow you decide.  Weigh your options and choose accordingly.  There won’t be a “door number three.”  Pick your poison and live with the consequences.  Or bury your head in the sand and get Hillary as your Queen.  It’s up to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

Why Trump Is No Hitler, But Hillary Might Be

By Shane Kastler

Comparing people to Adolph Hitler has become so common that it sometimes loses it's effect. Any political leader who faces opposition will almost certainly be smeared with comparisons to Hitler. There is one sense in which all political leaders share some traits with Hitler. And there is another sense in which Hitler resides in rarefied air as a vicious dictator who exterminated people. Few world leaders have devolved to Hitler's level, therefore it is unwise to compare most leaders to such a villain.

A common attack against Donald Trump is that he “stirs up crowds with hateful rhetoric and fear mongering” just like Hitler! But if “stirring up crowds” means you're just like Hitler, then isn't EVERY POLITICIAN GUILTY OF THAT? Doesn't every politician stir up crowds? In fact, isn't this one of the primary ways they get elected? Of course it is! When you live in a nation that allows citizens to vote for its leaders then every politician knows that the only way to win is to persuade people to your side. And one of the best ways to do that is to demonize your opponent and their policies. Barack Obama has stirred up crowds and demonized people for years. Hillary Clinton does the same thing. So does Donald Trump. So does Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. All politicians do this. This doesn't make them Hitler, it makes them human. In fact, it's not just politicians who try to persuade people. We ALL try to persuade people to our way of thinking. And we often do this by pointing out the flaws of our opponents. Again, this doesn't make you Hitler, it makes you human.

Trump has likewise been accused of Hitler-esque behavior for speaking out against “radical Islamic terrorism.” Both Democrats and Republicans alike have repeated the lie that “Trump wants to ban all Muslims” so many times that it is almost worthless to try and refute it. Trump has called for a temporary ban on immigration until a better vetting system can be put in place. This is a far cry from “banning all Muslims.” In fact, with the amount of worldwide violent attacks currently skyrocketing it would seem quite foolish to NOT question the current immigration process. Common sense would dictate that we slow down and investigate the process. But common sense doesn't win elections, verbal attacks do. So Trump's opponents have labeled him a racist for wanting to merely re-examine our current immigration policy.

Donald Trump is no saint. This much is evident. But what is sadly not evident to many Americans is that most (if not all) of our political leaders are equally “un-saintly.” In fact, it is here that I see Trump as less of a threat than others. Trump's warts are plain to see. He doesn't hide behind a veneer of pious niceties. He's brash and outspoken. He is at times, profane and insulting. He mocks his opponents and he has engaged in personal attacks that have clearly crossed the line. For this he should not be commended; but for speaking his mind openly he should be. Most politicians hide their true motives and thoughts behind the polished glow of a phony decency that they don't actually possess. Their depravity is only exposed when someone pulls back the curtain of their facade and shows the world their true colors. Hillary Clinton's email scandal is one example. So is the recent Wikileaks scandal that showed the Democratic leaders plotting against Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the DNC, was forced to resign in disgrace over the truth of her secret evils. Hillary should have been indicted for her crimes, but wasn't. Bill Clinton portrays a public image of being a “good ole' boy” who cares about people. While behind closed doors he is a proven pervert who has sexually harassed and raped his way though life. Just think of the vicious irony of Hillary getting elected as the first woman President, and Bill becoming the first “First Man” in our nation's history. He is a stereotypical abuser of power and of women. Our younger voters are probably too young to remember Bill being forced to admit that he had sex with an intern in the oval office bathroom while he was President. One would think that Democrats in general, and feminists in particular would do all in their power to prevent the Clintons from regaining power. But no. They fear Trump more. So they call him Hitler. Which leads to my next and final point. That Hillary and the Democrats actually share far more traits with Adolph Hitler than Trump does. And in fact, the Democrats share one particular trait with Hitler that is completely grotesque.

Perhaps Hitler's most devious legacy was his attempted extermination of entire people groups. He oversaw the vile deaths of multitudes of Jews, not to mention the scores of Christians he also murdered. Anyone whom he deemed an enemy of the Third Reich stood in mortal danger to the crazed maniac. But let us be clear about what Hitler did and didn't do. Hitler did not merely suggest changes to immigration policy. Hitler starved people to death and incinerated them in ovens. Trump has never come close to advocating such brutality. Hillary Clinton does. Hillary's constant, steady, and unending devotion to the cause of abortion is well known. And let us not forget what abortion really is. Human beings are murdered because they are an inconvenience to the masses. Or they are an inconvenience to the mother. Babies are snuffed out in what should be the safest place on earth for them, their mother's womb. Their bodies are picked apart; and their bodies parts are sold for profit. When this evil was recently exposed Hillary, Barack, and the rest of their party did nothing to stop it. To the contrary they defended the barbarism and eventually the people who exposed Planned Parenthood's evils (David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt) were themselves charged with criminal conduct for the undercover work. This extermination of people groups is the closest thing American society has to compare with the darkness of Hitler. And it is Hillary, not Trump, who is leading the murderous charge.

To be sure, Trump's history on abortion is less than perfect. He claims to be pro-life. He claims that while he used to be pro-choice he changed his mind as the result of a witnessing a friend's pregnancy. While we can all wish he had a spotless history of standing up for life, the fact is that I would much prefer a convert to one who continues to espouse the butchery of babies. In fact, I indeed wish that every pro-abortion advocate on earth would do what Trump says he has done. I wish they would change their mind, when faced with the facts, and become pro-life. And honestly, I'm embarrassed by pro-lifers who have ridiculed Trump for “flip-flopping” on the abortion issue. Why would we not wish for all pro-choicers to flip-flop in support of babies lives? I know the argument that some make. They fear that Trump's pro-life conversion is disingenuous. Perhaps it is, but with Trump there seems to be at least a chance of a pro-life administration. With Hillary we are guaranteed to see an administration of death. An administration of infanticide. And just like Hitler, we will see it all couched in benevolent terms. Hitler referred to the “master race” and promoted the death of those who stood in the way. Hillary speaks of a “woman's right to choose” and promotes the death of children and the destruction of political enemies who stand in the way. On the most important issue that exists, the issue of life and death, it is Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump, who most closely aligns with Hitler.

Be careful who you compare to Hitler. Let us not forget that Hitler was a Nazi, which was an abbreviated nickname for “National Socialist.” And when you look beyond abortion to the issues of government control promoted through socialism, it is Hillary and the Democrats who fight for the government over and against the people. It is Hillary and the Democrats who wish to disarm the populace in order to easier control them. It is Hillary and the Democrats who stir up crowds through demonization, lies, and rhetoric. It is Hillary and not Trump, who more closely aligns with the actions and policies of Hitler's Germany.

So, who will you vote for in November? I have no problem with those who say they can't vote for either candidate. Voting is a nice benefit of being an American, but voting is not a requirement. If you don't wish to vote, then don't vote. If you wish to vote for a third party, then by all means do so. But don't be deceived into thinking a third party will actually win. There is no alternative party in America today that has the power to take the White House. The fact that should be accepted by all is that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. There is no “door number three.” Both candidates are abrasive and hated by some. Both candidates are also supported and adored by others. Both candidates are flawed, as all candidates are. But only one of these two candidates displays disturbing similarities to Hitler. And that candidate is Hillary Clinton. Trump may be able to stir up the crowd, but it's Hillary who would gladly kill the baby.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

Church & State Interview with Brent Prentice on Abortion & Adoption

On the March 31, 2016 edition of "Church & State" on KELB radio, Shane Kastler interviewed Pastor Brent Prentice of Eagle Heights Baptist Church in Stillwater, OK. On the topics of abortion and adoption.  Brent shared some of his experiences in going through the adoption process and he spoke of ways in which churches could be better involved in promoting a culture of life.

To listen or download the audio, click here.

People in Pieces: Thoughts on Planned Parenthood & Dead Babies

By Shane Kastler

The recent ghoulish videos of Planned Parenthood leaders chatting nonchalantly about the sell of dismembered baby bodies has rightly caused many to re-coil in disgust. The cold and calloused nature by which human lives are bantered about, not to mention the greed over how lucrative the barbaric practice is, questions the depth of how low people can stoop. Those who support the legal extermination of human beings like to decorate the practice with pious sounding words like “choice” or “freedom” or “woman's rights.” Yet such people apparently give zero thought to the “choice” or “freedom” or “rights” of the baby him/herself.

My wife and I know something about what dead babies look like.  We've lost 5 over the years.  Four of which were still born, plus one miscarriage.  We've held their lifeless bodies.  We've marveled at their perfect fingers and toes.  We've handed them over to the nurse to await the funeral home's arrival.  Hard stuff.  God sustained us.  And we've spoken of it very little.  But to see how the monsters at Planned Parenthood treat babies causes ones like us to speak even louder than usual.

Make no mistake, Planned Parenthood has been exposed for what they are. But we've already known for years what they are. What takes place in an abortion is no secret. A living baby, residing in what should be the safest environment possible (the mother's womb) is viciously murdered and sucked out of it's formerly safe haven. All with the mother's approval and the abortionist's guarantees that this is a perfectly legitimate medical practice. And, at least with Planned Parenthood, what is left after the gruesome feat is accomplished is available to the highest bidder in a sickening bow to the almighty dollar.

All the while, many of the leaders in Washington turn a blind eye to the mass murder, or worse, they support it. Recently when the White House press secretary was asked if the new revelations on Planned Parenthood meant the government should consider de-funding the organization, the secretary tersely replied, “No! Next question!” Clinging to a tax plan is one thing. Clinging to infanticide is quite another. Yet this is what Barack Obama has done repeatedly. Numerous times as an Illinois state senator he vigorously opposed bills that would protect a baby born alive after a botched abortion. Even most democrats at the time supported such common sense legislation. Obama refused to protect, not only the unborn, but even the maimed new born. He is far too busy fawning over gay marriage and lecturing the world on his twisted sense of morality. He can't be bothered about what is being done to innocent children's body parts, because he's too busy gushing about what Bruce Jenner purposely did to his own body parts. Bruce is given an award for courage. The babies are just left to rot. Oh, and to be sold to the highest bidder. While the President does nothing. And this is the leader of the free world? Such cold-heartedness would have been hard to fathom in Germany's Third Reich, much less the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Let me be blunt (Or rather more blunt). It's time for America to close the door on abortion. It's time for Democrat, Republican, and Independents alike to stand up and unite and say “enough is enough.” Playing politics with other people's money is bad enough. But playing politics with other people's body parts is downright sick. My hope is that someday soon abortion will be an ugly scene in our national past. Just as we now look back on slavery and rejoice that it is no more; perhaps someday we will do the same with abortion. People in chains is a tragic thought to consider. But people in pieces is even worse. For the sake of our nation and our families (especially our children) let's close the door on abortion. Let's do all in our power to encourage the political whores who represent us in Washington to actually listen to moral decency for once and do the right thing rather than submit to the loudest megaphones with the deepest pockets. Let's protect the most vulnerable among us and stop duping their mother's into thinking they have the right to take a life that isn't theirs for the taking.

The time is now. The cause is just. The iron is hot and it's time to strike. Let's stop supporting abortion in general and Planned Parenthood in particular. Let's close the door on abortion and start making steps toward decency in America once again.

(NOTE: The picture above is of me holding the dead hand of our still born daughter McKenna, who was delivered on 1/3/2012. She was the 5th and last baby we lost, in addition to 3 still born boys (Jeremiah, Samuel, & William) and 1 miscarriage.  They all were human beings with hands, feet, and faces; just no heartbeat. And I rest in the assurance that their body parts weren't sold because I bought them all caskets, plots, headstones, and buried them).

Life & Death In A Bottle: A True Story of Abortion's Emotional Scars

By Shane Kastler

Joyce Everett and her husband are self-proclaimed “beachcombers.”  As a hobby they love to walk on the beach and see what interesting things they can find.  Recently, as they walked, they came across a bottle with a paper inside it.  Over the course of history, many have written “messages in a bottle” then cast the bottle into the sea.  Where might it end up?  How far might it go?  And what message might be found inside?  The message that Joyce found in the bottle was simple, yet profound as it told the story of a young woman dealing with the grief of a dead child.  But sadly, the child did not die by accident.  The child died by abortion.

The bottle contained two ultrasound photos.  The first one, dated May 30, showed the clear and distinct image of a small baby within the uterus.  The second photo, dated June 6 once again showed the image of a uterus....this time empty.  You might ask, 'what became of this baby?”  Was it a tragic miscarriage, or perhaps a stillborn infant?  The horrifying answer can be found in the top left corner of the ultrasound image that tells where the ultrasound was performed.  The words “Planned Parenthood” hauntingly whisper from the image; and therein lies the fate of this poor and unsuspecting child.

President Barack Obama recently spoke to leaders of Planned Parenthood by uttering this ghastly phrase:  “God bless you Planned Parenthood.”  The President should be ashamed of himself for supporting, defending, and even praising an organization that oversees the execution of the most vulnerable members of our society.  Since 1973, over 50 million abortions have taken place in America.  An estimated  20 million of those dead babies have been African-American.  One has to wonder what type of rationale the President entertains when he praises the extermination of millions of his own race; and of his fellow Americans.  One also has to wonder how any African-Americans could see this ghoulish President as their friend or supporter.  His actions prove, beyond refutation that he cares not about African-Americans, nor any Americans.  He cares not about protecting the life of the innocent; rather he cares about protecting the interests of those who gave him power.  And women of America be warned; he cares not one iota for you.  Abortion, you see, does more than snuff out the life of a baby; it also horrendously affects the emotional and physical well-being of the mother who chose to end that baby's life.

There is more to the story regarding the message in the bottle.  One image was a hopeful image of life.  The other image was a haunting image of death.  But there was a third image to be seen; though this one was written rather than photographed.  On the back side of the second ultrasound image, with the baby missing, was written these words:  “We will always love you” and underneath that..........was the hand drawn image of a heart with two sets of initials written inside it. 

Somewhere in America today a would-be mother is broken-hearted and guilt-ridden with the overwhelming reality that her baby is dead; and that she “chose” to end his or her life.  The President might smile, pat this woman on the back, and commend her for her “right to choose.”  But those with a heart would prefer to place a caring arm around this woman, offer a prayer for God's comfort, and weep with her over this tragedy. 

What led her to do it?  Was it pressure from a boyfriend or husband?  Was it pressure from parents or family?  Did she receive dastardly counsel from a Planned Parenthood "advisor" who convinced her that “now is not the time”?  Did she remember the words of Obama  from the 2008 campaign trail when he declared that women “should not be punished with a baby”?  The government might tell a woman that she has a “right” to choose.  Her family might encourage this and a “counselor” might advise this.  But a woman’s heart tells her otherwise.  Regardless of whatever vile advice she might receive, deep within her she has instincts that tell her to guard and protect her young.

The travesty of abortion is a stain upon the soul of America.  Women are being duped and babies are being killed.  Many in the government not only defend this practice, but they cheerfully support it.  I have nothing to say to these government officials except for this:  “Shame on you!”  Shame on you Barack Obama for caring more about your political career than defenseless children!  Shame on you Barack Obama for prancing the political road to the White House over the dead bodies of millions of babies!  Shame on you Barack Obama for craving power more than you care for the confused women who might undergo abortion because you deem Planned Parenthood to be a “blessing from God.”

Abortion kills.  But there are other options out there.  Indeed there is “A Better Choice.”  Here in Lake Charles, Louisiana women can find help at the ABC Pregnancy Resource Center.  Located at 518 W. 18^th St --- A.B.C. (which stands for 'a better choice') will give women their options.  They will offer women an ultrasound and a listening ear.  At A.B.C. the women will be told of the importance of life, the value of making right decisions, and most importantly they will be told of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  For those who have experienced abortion, there is forgiveness to be found in Christ.  And indeed it is forgiveness that you need.  This is where the road to recovery begins; and make no mistake, "recovery" is also in order.  The emotional scars of abortion do not go away easily.  The pain and sorrow of realizing you have taken the life of your child are devastating.  But take heart women, there is forgiveness; and thankfully there is “a better choice.”

Joyce Everett told me firsthand about finding this message of Life and Death in a bottle.  Nathan Curtis and I were interviewing her on our radio program “Church and State” on KELB.  And how was it that she came to be on our program?  Mrs. Everett is a volunteer at the ABC Pregnancy Resource Center.  OF all the people in the world who might have found that bottle; God ordained that it be found by Mrs. Everett.  Today I thank God for the work of ABC.  I thank God for Joyce Everett, Neta Mire, Carolyn Jordan, Glenda Jones, and the others who serve there.   And I also pray that God would send someone like this into the life of the woman who tossed that bottle into the ocean.  She is hurting and she needs help.  She probably went to Planned Parenthood seeking help, but sadly she did not find it.  Her pain and sorrow has increased and in a personal ceremony of mourning she displayed her love and tossed the picture of her sweet little one into the sea.  I wish she hadn't gone to the deceivers of Planned Parenthood.  I wish she would have made her way to a place like ABC.  I wish, that she might have known, that there was indeed.......A Better Choice.

Why Libertarians Should Oppose Abortion

By Shane Kastler

At the core of libertarianism is the belief that the government should leave people alone and let them live their lives.  While most accept a certain amount of government intrusion under the guise of security; many have come to question how far this intrusion should go.  While not everything I do with my body or put into my body is good for me.  Do I not have the right as a free citizen to do with my body as I please?  Is this not between me and my conscience?  Or more to the point, between me and my God?  Or should government have a role in this process?  Should they dictate, legislate, or moralize what I do with my body?

Of course the libertarian answer to this would be that “it’s my body and the government needs to keep its hands off.”  As long as I am not bothering, threatening, or harming another; I should be able to do as I please with my body.  A strong case can be made that this is a logical conclusion.  That this is a libertarian conclusion.  That this is what America’s founders had in mind.  And if this is true for you and I.  If this is true for both men and women.  Then should it not also be true.....for babies?

Many libertarians have a “pro-choice” view of abortion.  Stemming from the notion that a woman’s body is hers to do with as she pleases.  While this may be true, another tenet of libertarianism is that she can do as she pleases as long as she doesn’t harm another.  But abortion, very much causes the harm of another.  Indeed it causes the death of another.  Libertarians nationwide will take a giant leap towards consistency when they embrace not only the liberty of the woman, but also the liberty of the unborn child.  If a woman chose to end the life of her 3 year old daughter because the child was unwanted, both libertarians and non-libertarians alike would be aghast.  All right minded individuals would unite in opposition to such barbarism.  After all, you have no right to take another’s life in such fashion.  Yet if that 3 year old happens to be 3 years and one day younger, it is legal to murder her in the United States.  This concept goes against the grain of decency and indeed of libertarianism.

The late Murray Rothbard wrote: “Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard168.html, accessed on May 7, 2013) 

What more of a “violent invasion” could be imagined than the abortionist’s instruments of death invading the womb and destroying the life of a baby?  Elaborating on Rothbard’s principle, Laurence M. Vance writes:  “Because a child in the womb is helpless, not initiating violence, not committing aggression, and not there of its own accord, I believe that, to be consistent, libertarians should not only be opposed to abortion, but in favor of making it a criminal act just like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, assault, and robbery would be in any libertarian society based on the non-aggression principle.” (http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance297.html, accessed on May 7, 2013)

When Ron Paul came on the political scene, many were intrigued by his libertarian slant.  He is perhaps most well-known for his monetary policy; but he holds a fairly consistent viewpoint that the government needs to leave private citizens alone.  That the federal government’s job is not to protect us; but to protect “our liberties.”  Knowing his libertarian views, some are surprised to learn of his staunch pro-life record.  As an obstetrician who has delivered over four thousand babies; he has witnessed first-hand what many choose to ignore.  That the baby in the womb is a person.  A living and growing human being that is just as worthy of the right to live as his or her parents are.  For libertarians to be truly consistent, the fight for protection of our rights needs to include children, even those living within the mother’s womb.

The ghastly practices of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, and the ensuing trial, have perhaps awakened many of those who were neutral on abortion to the realities of infanticide.  Gosnell, it seems, concluded that if it was legal and morally acceptable to snuff out the life of the baby in the womb, then it must also be acceptable to snuff out the baby moments after leaving the womb.  His logic is reprehensible, but it is consistent with the philosophy of abortion.  Either the baby in the womb is a human or it is not.  If it is determined to be a human, then it is either deserving of protection or it is not.  And if it is determined that the rights of the mother to end the life for whatever reason trumps the rights of the unsuspecting child to live; then we are faced with a staggering moral problem and a frightening slippery slope.

The moral problem should be obvious.  How do we justify the taking of an innocent life?  Certainly abortion as a matter of parental convenience should be rejected.  Just because the parents do not want the child doesn’t give them the right to murder the child.  When society reaches a point of legally accepting such practices as tolerable; and even normal, then that society has drifted into a hard-hearted quagmire of alarming proportions.

Some would argue that the health or life of the mother should be a consideration for abortion.  But once again, moral judgments must then be made as to which life is more valuable.  How do we determine that, for example, a thirty year old human is more worthy of life than a 6 month old (post-conception) human?  A libertarian might argue that this is a decision between the mother and her doctor.  Or the mother and the father and the doctor.  But one very important piece of the puzzle is missing.  Where is the child’s voice?  Where is the child’s vote?  Sadly, in America today, such a child has no voice and thus no rights under the law.  Not only is the child forced to forfeit any say in the matter.  This child is forced to forfeit his very life.   Nothing about this is “libertarian” and certainly nothing about it is “Christian.”

The philosophical dilemma that arises from abortion also takes us down a frightening slippery slope of death and coercion.  If it is deemed acceptable practice for mother, father, and/or doctor to decide to end the life of a child; then it opens the door for other people or groups of people to make determinations on who is allowed to live and who is decreed to die.  Clearly it can be seen where a defense of euthanasia could spring forth from such a concept. 

Furthermore, when so called “death panels” enter into health-care conversations, the topic is immediately discarded as the delusional ramblings of the paranoid.  But the philosophical foundation for death panels is the same as for abortion.  In a 1999 speech before congress, Ron Paul stated:  “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.” (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ :accessed on 5/7/2013)

In all likelihood the founders of America would have been horrified at the notion that one day it would be legal to execute a baby in the mother’s womb.  Certainly if the founders had access to the ultrasound technology we have today they would be appalled that such precious life could be legally killed, in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" no less.  What gives one person, or group of persons, the right to take another innocent life?  What grounds can be established for such a practice?  How is this consistent with the tenets of America or of libertarianism?  It simply cannot be defended philosophically or morally.

From a Christian perspective, abortion is an issue that most Christians agree on.  Without doubt it is an issue that Bible-believing Christians should agree on.  With murder as a capital offense in the Old Testament and the Levitical command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) before us we see that abortion could not be justified, even under the heavy-handed Mosaic Law.  But New Testament Christians don’t live under Mosaic Law.  We live in the age of grace (see Romans 6:14) with Jesus Christ as our ultimate authority and law-giver.  Not surprisingly, the law against murder that existed in the Old Testament still applies in the New Testament.  Jesus goes well beyond simply calling his followers to avoid murdering their enemies, actually calling us to “love your enemies” and to “pray for those who persecute” us (Matthew 5:44).  If we are called to show love and grace to our enemies, how much more our own children?  How do we justify abortion based upon the teachings of Scripture?  How do we justify abortion based upon the tenets of liberty?  How do we justify abortion as a bedrock of libertarianism?  Indeed we do not, because indeed we cannot.  For libertarianism to be consistent with the idea of liberty; and certainly for it to be consistent with Christian teaching, abortion must be rejected and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must apply to the most innocent and helpless of our society.  What good does it do for us to defend our liberties, all the while endorsing the notion that we have the legal right to destroy the liberty and the life of another free and innocent person?

Obama's Hypocrisy: Gun Control, Abortion, & A Blatantly Evil President

President Barack Hussein Obama announced this week what his “top priorities” would be for his next term, which (as painful as it is to say) just started this week with his inauguration.  In announcing that two of his top priorities will be gun control and gay marriage, the President is no longer subtly playing poker with his intentions; but rather he is brazenly showing his cards and declaring his intent to force liberal and dangerous policies on the nation.  No doubt feeling a sense of absolute power, to go with the already present arrogance he possesses, Obama seems to believe he has free reign to do as he pleases.  The Democrats in congress will comply like the lap dogs that they are.  And sadly, many of the Republicans will do the same.  While playing up their so-called opposition to Obama in public, they will privately rush to vote for and confirm whatever he pushes so they can boast of being “bi-partisan.”  Not all Republicans will grovel like this (see: Rand Paul and Tom Coburn) but many will.

Obama has capitalized off of the recent shootings to push for his “comprehensive gun control” policies.  In an utterly shameful act of political exploitation, he had the audacity to bring school children from Connecticut to be present with him when he announced his plan to curb gun violence.  The hypocrisy of his act should be obvious to all, but is sadly lost on many.  This president who “boo-hoos” in public about doing everything we can to protect our children is by far the most radically anti-child President we’ve ever had.  This President, who claims a desire to protect children, also supports the daily practice of plunging a needle into a pregnant mother’s womb and sucking the brains out of her baby.  Graphic? Yes. True? Yes. This is abortion.  Or as Obama would call it (with a big grin on his face) “a woman’s right to choose.”  The sad fact is that children are far more endangered by their own mother’s right to choose and the abortionist's needle than they are by an isolated lunatic with a gun.

The tragic shootings of Newtown, Connecticut were heart breaking to behold.  The Liberal knee-jerk reaction to such a tragedy is always to say “we need to get rid of guns.”  The Common-Sense reaction is to say, “if only we had an honest man on the scene with a gun.”  The answer to the gun violence is not to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.  The answer is to remove “gun-free zones” from our nation which only serve to hog-tie the honest and empower the evil.  If someone wishes to kill “en mass” a sign that says “gun-free zone” will do nothing to stop them.  A bullet to the head of the perpetrator, after he fires but one shot, will end the massacre before it starts.  Common sense, though, rarely wins the day when the President presents his foolish policies.

This week, Vice-President Joe Biden was asked about people wanting assault weapons for protection in case of a major catastrophe.  He responded that these people should simply buy a shot gun.  With all due respect, Mr. Vice-President, I will buy whatever gun I darn well please.  Because the 2^nd amendment gives me the right to do so.  Strangely enough, most people think the 2^nd amendment was written to protect hunting rights.  The idiocy of this can be seen in the fact that the founding fathers assumed hunting would be done by virtually everyone in the 1770s.  They didn’t have Wal-Mart Supercenters back then.  So if you were going to eat and thus live, you would have to hunt or fish for your food in many cases.  Most Americans in those days farmed and grew (or killed) their own food.  Certainly the 2^nd amendment would apply to hunting, but the intent was far more than that.

Some say, rightly, that the 2^nd amendment addressed local militias.  Every town or community was allowed (and even expected) to have a militia at the ready for defense of their home.  But the kicker is this.  Many of the founding fathers wanted these militias to protect from foreign invaders, as well as domestic ones.  In other words, the founding fathers intended for citizens to have the right to protect themselves from criminals, foreign invaders…….and their own government if it became too out of control and intrusive in their lives.  Benjamin Franklin famously said: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”  Are we still a nation that desires liberty?  The founders had just escaped British tyranny and they did not desire a new American tyranny to replace it. They would have fought what we now experience.  An out of control Federal government dictating what we can and cannot do.  The Liberals of today think they are doing gun owners a favor if they say Billy Bob is allowed to have .22 for his occasional squirrel hunting, but Billy Bob is not allowed to have an assault rifle for his own protection.  While the 2^nd amendment certainly includes the former, it was written with the philosophy and intent of the latter.

In closing, the problem with America is not guns, the problem is Godlessness. Evil exists and has always existed.  And removing guns from the hands of the honest, will not protect us from the hands of the depraved.  Murderers will kill.  Outlaw guns and they will simply find them on the black market.  With the end result being gangs with guns and honest citizens as helpless prey waiting to be fleeced.  All while the government endorses and encourages the fiasco.  These are dark, dark days for America indeed. Violence against citizens (even children) has always existed.  We hate to see it, but it has always been there.  But a power grab like we’re witnessing from the current President goes far beyond anything most of us have ever seen.  He wants your guns.  He wants you to accept perversion as “marriage.”  He wants to destroy the family and kill the children (if the mother so CHOOSES).  Don’t let his crocodile tears fool you.  If he really cared he would do something about abortion and leave the guns alone.  But he doesn’t really care.  Not about you.  Not about your children.  Not about anything, except expanding his own power.  These are dark days in America.  Hopefully the darkness will inspire some, by God’s grace, to seek the Light.  Obama cannot save.  He is too evil.  Jesus can save and will save all who repent and trust in Him.  God, not government, is our only true hope.  So let us speak out against the wickedness we see in this fallen world below.  But let us also remember that this world is not our home.  One day soon, we will be there.  Where pain, sin, sorrow, evil, sadness, and a tyrannical government will not be able to touch us anymore.