Christian Coalition

Politics and sports have something in common: generally, there is no such thing as a tie. 

In politics, there are winners and losers at the polls. In Congress, lawmakers pass bills or defeat them. 

There’s no middle ground in Congress. Except for one arcane area -- over which party “controls” the United States Senate. 

Political analysts see a close election on the horizon. This raises the possibility of a tie. A 50-50 Senate. There have been ties in the Senate before, one as recently as 13 years ago. But unlike professional sports, there isn’t a standard procedure to work out a Senate tie. 

To break a tie in baseball, the teams just keeps playing. Inning after inning. The NHL had ties until it introduced a shootout in 2005. Ties are rare in the NFL, although one happened a few weeks ago. 

Yet there’s no such thing as an official “tiebreaker” policy in the U.S. Senate. There have been three other Congresses where the vote breakdown in the Senate has been even. First in 1881. Then in 1953-54. Finally, in 2001. It’s generally believed that the party which holds the presidency, and thus the vice presidency -- who also serves as president of the Senate – automatically secures the majority in an otherwise deadlocked body. But it’s not that simple. 

In the 47th Congress in 1881, the Senate featured 37 Republicans, 37 Democrats and two independents. Sen. David Davis, I-Ill., announced he would side with the Democrats. That put the focus on Sen. William Mahone, I-Va. Republicans heavily courted Mahone. After all, they believed they could secure the Senate majority if Mahone conferenced with the GOP. With the election of Republican President James Garfield, Vice President Chester Arthur would cast tie-breaking votes in favor of the GOP. 

Mahone kept close counsel leading up to the Senate’s organizing vote. But then he sided with Republicans. In gratitude, the Garfield administration sent a basket of flowers to be displayed prominently on the senator’s desk. 

But things didn’t remain in GOP hands for long. 

In May, 1881, both Republican senators from New York resigned in protest over an appointment issue with the White House. They were confident the New York legislature would re-elect them. In those days, voters didn’t directly elect senators. State legislatures did the selection then. The New York senators were wrong and they weren’t reappointed. The resignations of the GOP New York senators dramatically propelled Democrats to a two-seat majority. 

This called for horse-trading. Democrats allowed Republicans to keep control of committees. But Democrats maintained Senate administrative posts. 

This all changed by fall. Garfield was assassinated and Arthur ascended to the presidency. There was no vice president. So the Senate made Davis its president pro tempore, the Senate’s top officer. Davis suggested that despite the Democrats’ advantage the body should technically remain in GOP hands since Republicans held the White House and the House of Representatives. 

You ain’t seen nothing yet until you’ve tracked the back-and-forth over which party held the majority in the 83rd Congress of 1953-54. 

Republicans grabbed control of the Senate after the 1952 midterm elections. But the Republican majority wasn’t much. There were 48 GOPers, 47 Democrats and one independent, Sen. Wayne Morse, I-Ore. Over the course of two years, nine senators died. 

Basketball announcers often talk about “there have been 15 lead changes in the game” as the teams toggle back and forth, up and down the court. 

The Senate of the 83rd Congress was a little bit like one of those end-to-end basketball games. 

Look at it this way. The makeup of the Senate started favoring the Republicans. Then went to even. Then tilted to the Democrats. Then went to even. Back to Democrats. Then to even. Then to the Republicans. Back to even. Then Republican. Then Democratic. Then even. Finally, back to the Democrats. That’s 12 “lead changes” in a single Congress. 

But not really. The numbers may have flipped. But operational control really didn’t. Republicans maintained “majority party” status for the duration of the 83rd Congress, starting with Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft, R-Ohio – who later died – and finishing with Senate Majority Leader William Knowland, R-Calif. 

Lyndon Johnson was the Democratic leader at the time. An astute operator in his own right, one would think LBJ would immediately move to secure power once Democrats had the majority numbers. But according to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in his book "Like No Other Time", Johnson “didn’t want to turn the Senate upside down if doing so might come back to haunt him.” 

At the start of 1954, Knowland lamented the hand he was given to play as majority leader, despite Republicans lagging behind Democrats in Senate seats. 

“I have the responsibilities of being the majority leader in this body without having a majority,” complained Knowland. 

Johnson met Knowland with a sharp rejoinder. 

“If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it’s a minority leader with a majority,” snapped Johnson. 

A similarly divided Senate arrived in 2001. Republicans had the majority before and presumed they would keep control in the new Congress despite the 50-50 makeup. That didn’t sit well with Daschle and other Democrats. Through weeks of negotiations, Daschle forged a power-sharing agreement with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., Democrats demanded and received equal status on committees. And after the Florida election recount, it was clear that Vice President Dick Cheney would be available to break ties. The other part of the deal maintained Lott as majority leader -- but gave some power to Daschle. As the minority leader, Daschle could call up legislation to the floor the same as Lott. 

Most significantly, built into the pact was the promise that if the balance changed in the Senate, they would void the organizing agreement. 

Daschle later described that proviso as “prophetic.” 

More than a year later, moderate Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., defected from the Republican Party and became an independent. In so doing, he agreed to caucus with the Democrats. Jeffords' abandonment of the Republican Party incensed Lott. But the Mississippi Republican would no longer serve as majority leader. Daschle would matriculate to majority leader. 

In baseball, there is mythical rule which someone concocted that declares “ties go to the runner.” There’s no such thing written anywhere. Either the runner is safe or out. The umpire has to make the call. And if the Senate is tied after the midterm election, senators will have to sort it all out. Determine safe or out. Majority or minority. 

And without the benefit of instant replay.

Houston's mayor has finally withdrawn her subpoenas which demanded pastors surrender their private communications.

Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, had targeted five pastors as part of a lawsuit over a pro-gay ordinance. The religious leaders said the subpoenas violated their First Amendment rights.

Parker says her demands were not meant to infringe on anyone's religious freedoms.

"It was never our intention to interfere with any members of the clergy and their congregants in terms of sermons, in terms of preaching what they believe is the word of the God that they serve," Parker said.

But the targeted pastors still don't believe Parker has had a change of heart.

"If the mayor thought the subpoenas were wrong, she would have pulled them immediately, not waited until she was forced by national outrage to narrow them," Steve Riggle, pastor of Grace Community Church, said.

Parker ignited a national firestorm after she first demanded the pastors turn over their sermons.

Under the mounting scrutiny, she revised the subpoenas to remove the word "sermons" but still demanded broad reporting of the pastors' private communications and writings.

Christians around the country responded in protest by flooding her office with Bibles and sermons sent by mail.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, even traveled to Houston two weeks ago to blast Parker for her actions.

"The city of Houston has no power, no legal authority to silence the Church," he said.

And a diverse group of pastors from around the country traveled to Houston this week to protest what they call bullying by Mayor Parker.

Now Parker has dropped the subpoenas altogether.

Still, opponents of Houston's ordinance creating special rights for gays and trangenders say justice has not been done. That's because Parker blocked a petition with 50,000 signatures that would have given voters a say about the pro-gay ordinance.

"Mayor, if you really believe in trying -- not just to head fake, and not just put lipstick on a pig -- but in actually finally doing the right thing, then pull down the defense, acknowledge the validity of our petition," Andy Taylor, an attorney for the pastors, said.

Meanwhile, legal scholars say the actual subpoenas and petition are only one aspect of a much bigger problem in America. They point out that Parker's agenda highlights a disturbing trend of violating constitutional rights.

"She represents a small but thriving portion of our society that thinks government may and should intrude on religious liberty to force upon citizens political dogma that infringes on constitutional rights," Richard Kelsey, an assistant dean at George Mason University's School of Law, said.

Legal experts argue this case highlights that liberals like Parker don't actually believe it's wrong to target the Church or other opponents of homosexual activism, but instead they're just upset that it's not socially acceptable yet.

"An unrepentant Mayor Parker surrendered today, though begrudgingly," Kelsey said. "She did not admit the frailty of her legal positon, but instead recognized that attacks on constitutional rights by the government are still politically unpopular."

The mayor of Houston announced Wednesday that the city will withdraw subpoenas of sermons from five pastors who publicly opposed an ordinance banning discrimination against gay and transgender residents, The Houston Chronicle reports.

"I didn't do this to satisfy them," Mayor Annise Parker said in reference to critics of the subpoenas. "I did it because it was not serving Houston."

Houston's City Council passed in May the equal rights ordinance, which consolidates city bans on discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion and other categories and increases protections for gay and transgender residents.

The controversy has touched a nerve among religious conservatives around the country, many of them already anxious about the rapid spread of gay rights and what it might mean for faith groups that object. Religious groups, including some that support civil rights protections for gays, have protested the subpoenas as a violation of religious freedom.

Parker, who is gay, and other supporters said the measure is about offering protections at the local level against all forms of discrimination in housing, employment and services provided by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

"It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged," Parker said. "We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts."

Religious institutions are exempt, but city attorneys recently subpoenaed the pastors, seeking all speeches, presentations or sermons related to the repeal petition.

Christian activists had sued after city officials ruled they didn't collect enough signatures to get the question on the ballot. The city secretary initially counted enough signatures, but then city attorney David Feldman ruled that more than half of the pages of the petition were invalid.

In just a little more than a week, all of the ballots will be cast and counted in the 2014 midterm elections. While most prognosticators believe the Republicans will have little trouble keeping control of the House of Representatives, a number of polls show the battle for control of the U.S. Senate is still very closely contested.

Here is a preview of the struggle for Congress during President Barack Obama's final two years in office:

U.S. House of Representatives

Republicans control the House 233-199 with three vacancies -- one Republican in Virginia and two Democrat in North Carolina and New Jersey.  All 435 seats are at stake in 2014. Terms for those elected will run from January 3, 2015 to January 3, 2017.

U.S. Senate

Democrats control the Senate 53-45, plus two independents vote with Democrats. Republicans need six seats to take control.

Thirty-six seats are at stake on Nov. 4.  Thirty-three are up in the normal election cycle.  Three are special elections -- Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina -- created by death and retirement.

The terms for those elected will run from January 3, 2015 to January 3, 2021.

Here is the breakdown of the races, beginning with those most likely to change hands from Democrat to Republican.

South Dakota -- Rick Weiland (D) vs. Larry Pressler (I) vs. Mike Rounds (R) 
Rounds, the current governor, was heavily favored to flip the seat vacated by retiring Democrat Tim Johnson.  But Democrats pumped money into the candidacy of former GOP Sen. Larry Pressler, running as an independent.  Rounds is still likely to win.

Montana -- Amanda Curtis (D) vs. Steve Daines (R)
Democrat John Walsh was appointed to fill the seat vacated by retired Max Baucus, but he quit the race in August due to fallout from a plagiarism scandal and was replaced by 34-year-old newcomer Curtis.  The GOP should take the seat away with Daines, a 5th generation Montanan.

West Virginia -- Natalie Tennant (D) vs. Shelley Moore Capito (R)
Capito is way ahead in the race to replace retiring Democrat Jay Rockefeller in one of the most anti-Obama states in the nation.  The daughter of popular former Gov. Arch Moore, Capito could become a star in the battle to open U.S. energy resources, especially coal.

If Republicans win those three seats, they are only three seats away from capturing the Senate, provided they don't lose any states of their own. 


That leads to Kansas and Georgia.

Kansas -- Greg Orman (I) vs. Pat Roberts (R)
Veteran Sen. Roberts may be the most endangered Republican after a strong conservative primary challenge.  After the Democrat in the race dropped out, Roberts now faces an independent who won't say whether he'd vote for Harry Reid as majority leader.  That could hurt Orman in heavily Republican Kansas.  Several polls show Roberts leading after reinforcements Bob Dole, Jeb Bush, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, showed up on his behalf. But he still trails in some polls and is in an uncomfortable position for an incumbent.

Georgia -- Michelle Nunn (D) vs. David Perdue (R)
Democrats hoped the daughter of legendary Georgia senator Sam Nunn could replace retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss.  She hit businessman Perdue hard on the issue of jobs outsourcing, and she's kept the race at a virtual dead heat.  If no one gets over 50 percent the two face off again in January, and Georgia voters may have to decide if they'll be the ones to re-elect Harry Reid as majority leader.

The next tier of states where the GOP could take away seats:

Alaska -- Mark Begich (D) vs. Dan Sullivan (R)
Incumbent Begich is battling uphill in Republican territory. The race remains close, but Sullivan, with a moderate label, is hard to tag. Begich is hanging tough despite his vote for Obamacare and his heavy pro-Obama voting record.  He's had some success distancing himself from Obama, calling the president "not relevant."  When many Alaskans discover their health premiums are canceled in the final days, it could hurt Begich, but maybe not.

Arkansas -- Mark Pryor (D) vs. Tom Cotton (R)
Cotton, an Iraq veteran, has a small lead over Pryor, who voted for Obamacare in a state that is turning more red every election.  Still, the race is very close, and if the most recent polls are accurate, it may not be the runaway for Cotton that it looked to be a month ago.

Louisiana -- Mary Landrieu (D) vs. Bill Cassidy (R) vs. Rob Maness (R)
In another southern state where Obama isn't popular, Landrieu proudly says she'd vote for Obamacare again.  Louisiana has a "jungle primary" in which many candidates compete on Election Day.  The top two have a December runoff if no one gets more than 50 percent.  That's where Landrieu could be in real trouble, meaning Senate control could be up in the air until December -- or later, depending on Georgia.  Note: Sarah Palin and a number of conservatives are supporting military veteran conservative Rob Maness.

Iowa -- Bruce Braley (D) vs. Joni Ernst (R)
Joni Ernst, another Iraq veteran, climbed to fame with a brilliant primary ad citing her experience castrating hogs on a farm as evidence she knows where to cut pork in Washington.  She's hanging in there for the seat in blue Iowa vacated by long-time incumbent Tom Harkin.  The race looks like a dead heat at this time, with Ernst holding a tiny lead.

Colorado -- Mark Udall (D) vs. Cory Gardner (R)
Polls show a tight race in a once-red state gone blue.  Democrats tried to make hay with Gardner's proposal to sell female contraceptives over the counter, but the race is coming down to other issues and Udall is unable to get more than 45 percent approval.  Gardner has run perhaps the best campaign of any Republican challenging an incumbent and maintains a narrow lead in the final week.

North Carolina -- Kay Hagan (D) vs. Thom Tillis (R)
Incumbent Hagan is bucking the anti-Obama sentiment in the Tar Heel State, but she has only a slight lead and could go under in a Republican wave.  A Democratic ad blitz savaged Tillis, but he's getting help from a parade of Republican luminaries.  It may not be enough, as Tillis angered conservatives by pushing for state toll roads and basically refusing to listen to their concerns.  Hagan constantly ties state House Speaker Tillis to the unpopular GOP-controlled legislature.  She has a huge money advantage.

Democrats in three blue states and two purple ones are expected to hold on, but if a "wave election" against the leadership of the president and Harry Reid were to materialize, these five states could be in play.

New Hampshire -- Jeanne Shaheen (D) vs. Scott Brown (R)
The transplanted former Massachusetts Sen. Brown is pounding away at his differences with Shaheen on illegal immigration and Obama's foreign policy.  Polls show a very narrow Shaheen lead -- with Brown actually leading in one poll -- in the only New England state left, except Maine, with even a slightly Republican tint.

Michigan -- Gary Peters (D) vs. Terri Lynn Land (R)  
Some pundits had given up on Land in a race to replace retiring Sen. Carl Levin, but she's within single digits in many polls.

Minnesota -- Al Franken (D) vs. Mike McFadden (R)
Republicans don't think it's very funny that the former comedian Franken is the favorite to win re-election.  McFadden, down by double digits, vows to scrap Obamacare and decries Franken's 97 percent pro-Obama vote record.  Analysts argue about which polls are accurate -- the ones giving Franken a double-digit lead or the ones giving him a single-digit lead.

New Jersey -- Cory Booker (D) vs. Jeffrey Bell (R)
Veteran conservative Bell has run unsuccessfully in previous Senate races, and incumbent Booker remains the favorite.  Still, with little money and a conservative agenda, Bell is organizing street rallies against Harry Reid, and a recent New York Times poll showed him closing from 13 points to 7.

Virginia -- Mark Warner (D) vs. Ed Gillespie (R)
Incumbent Warner defined Gillespie early as a big money lobbyist and portrays himself as a folksy bipartisan Democrat.  Gillespie is hitting back on Warner's Obamacare stance and his 97 percent support of the president in Senate votes.  Gillespie is down 9 points in one poll.  He may close the gap with his alternative to Obamacare and a scandal in the Virginia Senate that could touch both Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Warner, but he remains a longshot.


One more race where the GOP could lose seats if enough went wrong:

Kentucky -- Allison Lundergan Grimes (D) vs. Mitch McConnell (R)
Early polls had Democrats nearly ecstatic that they could knock off Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who may soon become the majority leader.  As the race heads into the final week, McConnell seems to have righted the ship somewhat.  Grimes's recent refusal to tell a reporter how she voted for president in 2008 and 2012 won't help in a state where Obama's approval is tanking.  McConnell is still not quite out of the woods, though, with some polls showing gap within the margin of error.

At a Democratic rally Friday in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to attack “trickle-down economics,” resulted in a spectacularly odd statement, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”

She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.

Clinton’s comment will likely be used frequently to attack her as another big-government Democrat. She is seen by many as already running for president in 2016.

A U.S. federal judge ruled Tuesday to uphold a Puerto Rico law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 

District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez became the first Democrat appointed to the federal court to rule in favor of a traditional marriage law since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor decision last year.

The judge maintained that the Windsor decision did not establish the right to same-sex marriage and essentially reinforced the concept that marriage is a state issue rather than a federal one.

Puerto Rico's civil code refuses recognition of "(a)ny marriage between persons of the same sex or transsexuals contracted in other jurisdictions."

Judge Perez-Giminez cited a portion of the high court's Windsor decision.

"The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the 'protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities," he said.

JERUSALEM, Israel -- For some observers, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks tying the rise of ISIS with the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations follows a pattern he's adhered to all along.

The secretary of state made the remarks to Muslim guests at a State Department dinner celebrating the Eid al-Adha holiday. According to Kerry, Israel's refusal to accept the Palestinian Authority's demands fuels the Islamic State's efforts to recruit more people to its movement.

"As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions, there wasn't a leader I met with in the region who didn't raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt," Kerry said.

Israeli Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett responded to Kerry's remarks by saying "there will always be someone who blames the Jews."

"Turns out that even when a British Muslim beheads a British Christian there will always be someone who blames the Jews," Bennett said, adding that remarks like Kerry's fuel global terrorism.

It's not the first time Kerry's accused Israel of being the problem. Last April, he said Israel's refusal to accept the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders put it at risk of becoming an "apartheid state."

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.” 

Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to 180 days in jail.

Now all of that was a moot point because, until last week, gay marriage was not legal in Idaho.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex marriages to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. Two days later, the folks at the Hitching Post received a telephone call.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined, putting it in violation of the law.

City officials did not respond to my requests for an interview, nor did they respond to requests from local news outlets.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Tedesco said.

“The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended.”

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance.

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail,” Tedesco told me.

It’s hard to believe this could happen in the United States. But as the lawsuit states, the Knapps are in a “constant state of fear that they may have to go to jail, pay substantial fines, or both, resulting in them losing the business that God has called them to operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.”

The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me it’s “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans,” Perkins said.

Why should evangelical Christian ministers be forced to perform and celebrate any marriage that conflicts with their beliefs?

“This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions – where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs,” Perkins told me.

As I write in my new book, “God Less America,” we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack. 

The incidents in Houston and now in Coeur d’Alene are the just the latest examples of a disturbing trend in the culture war – direct attacks on clergy.

“Government officials are making clear they will use their government power to punish those who oppose the advances of homosexual activists,” Perkins said.

I’m afraid Mr. Perkins is absolutely right.

No one should be discriminated against but have you noticed that any time a city passes a “nondiscrimination” ordinance, it’s the Christians who wind up being discriminated against?

Henry A. Kissinger, 91, former Secretary of State and Asst to President Nixon for National Security Affairs, has long pushed a thinly veiled plan for a New World Order.  It is finally in print in the Wall Street Journal – a one world government idea. 

It sounds reasonable – after all the world is in a mess – broke and 75% of the people are hungry or near starving and many in the Middle East are living under the constant threat of Islamic terror suffering beheadings and torture simply because they are not of the Islamic faith.  Why wouldn’t you want a world system that a dynamic leader could control?  One problem!  Read the Bible!  It is the end time’s greatest deception.

Online you will find a proposed map of the one world order broken into ten sections and the map is labeled “10 Kingdoms.”  Does that sound familiar?  Read of the ten horns of the Beast that comes forth in the end times – translated as ten countries (Revelations 13: 1-10) & (Revelations 17:12).

You may have heard of it as a one world order, new world order, one world governance – the latest label is globalization – it is all one and the same. It would remove current borders from countries and reset them at the pleasure of those chosen to make such decisions. Gone would be the governments currently in place and they would be replaced with a one world dictator with his cronies overseeing each of the ten new “kingdoms.” 

They would have power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments. Government constitutions and leaders would disappear.  This authority would regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that replaces all others; a world development fund that would make funds available to free and communist nations alike; an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World.

How many times we Americans have heard the expressions from Obama – “spread the wealth” – “level the playing field.” Sounds like we would have very little control of our money or how we would live.

Hillary Clinton in her review of Kissinger’s book, “World Order,” indicated that she had worked closely with Kissinger when she was secretary of state and that he often sent her reports of his activities.  She also said, “I was proud to help the president (Obama) begin reimagining and reinforcing the global order.” As we all know she is almost certainly going to run for president in 2016.

Kissinger, a German born Jew, who reportedly is guided by psychics, is not the only one pushing for globalization but he appears to be the leader.  There are many, many more who have been working secretly behind the scenes for many years.  Most of these people are very well known and very wealthy.  They would benefit greatly from the changes.

When will all this “change” take place? It could be coming soon or years from now and depends largely on how much or how little the people of the world voice their concerns and opinions or if we just swallow it like a pill to cure what ails us.  It also depends on how the free people of the world cast their votes in upcoming elections.  This “change” falls into line with Bible prophecy but we must beware.  This “change” is not for the good of the people. Can we alter the course?  Yes, through prayer and action.  The worldwide Christian community must wake up.  We know what the Bible says and it’s time we start living fervently and faithfully to that which we say we believe.  God’s Word tells us we should stand with Israel and the Jewish people yet so many who call themselves Christians are doing just the opposite.  While you still can, read The Book.  In it God tells us He will bless those who bless Israel.    


With mid-term elections roughly two weeks away, Democrats are choosing not to have President Barack Obama campaign for them.
The news comes as the president's job approval ratings are hitting a record low.

In fact, the Ebola crisis and other domestic and international issues are taking a toll on both the president and his party.
Americans believe Obama is leading the country in the wrong direction. A new ABC News-Washington Post poll finds his job approval rating at 40 percent - the lowest of his presidency.

Seventy-seven percent of Americans say they're worried about the economy.

The president's ratings are also at a career low in his handling of immigration, international affairs and terrorism.