I was working out in my gym training legs. I noted that the hack squat machine was in use, so I went over to the squat rack. I did five good, hard sets. During that time, the guy on the hack squat machine had done maybe ONE set because he was so occupied with his cell phone and his texting. Right next to a sign that reads, “Cell phone use is prohibited while using equipment.”
Well, I wanted to use that hack squat machine, but the rude dude was still wasting his time on it. So I went to the seated calf machine and did six good, hard sets of calves.
You guessed it: when I was done with that piece of equipment, the rude dude was still wasting his – and worse yet MY – time on the hack squat machine.
So I went over to the leg press machine right next to the hack squat machine. And I was mostly done with the five sets on that before Mr. Cell Phone finally left.
Because I was right next to the hack squat machine, I was able to readily note two other facts: he didn’t re-rack his weight – in spite of the fact that he was literally “exercising” directly under a giant banner with two foot high letters that read, “Re-Rack Your Weight”; and he didn’t wipe down the machine after using it in spite of the sign right next to the banner that read, “Wipe down your equipment after use.”
Basically, there was no possible way this guy could have been more rude or more discourteous.
Well, here’s the rub: this guy, Mr. Cell Phone, is, rather amazingly, a “pastor.” His church is virtually right next door to the gym.
I thought about confronting him for his unbelievable rudeness, but he’s a black guy. And you know how THAT tends to go now that Obama has healed the racial divide.
The Bible tells Christians to confront brothers who are acting shamefully. But tragically, in these slimes that are the times, it’s seriously risky to dare to treat certain people like “brothers.” And I didn’t want to be the source of a rift – no matter how right I would have been – that very likely would have degenerated into a charge of “racism.”
All I can tell you is that man publicly shamed the name of Jesus Christ. And it doesn’t really matter what color this “reverend’s” skin is when he acts like that man acted. At least, not to me.
I wear a Cross or a Star of David every time I work out – and frankly virtually every time I appear in public. There have been more than a few times that I’ve thought about saying or doing something and changed my mind because of the symbols I was wearing around my neck.
So I don’t even BRING my phone into the gym; I ALWAYS re-rack my weight every time I use a piece of equipment; and I wipe down the equipment I’m using TWICE – once before I use it (because there are a lot of rude people like Reverend Cell Phone) and once again after I’m finished.
I try to publicly live up to that cross – even though I have to confess that I’m not thinking very nice thoughts about the incredibly rude and ungracious people all around me.
When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I very quickly quit smoking. Why? Because I thought of the image of myself trying to tell somebody about how Jesus Christ changed my life with a stinking cigarette hanging out of my tobacco-stained teeth, and it was enough of a visceral disconnect that I knew what I had to do.
More recently, I’ve lost over seventy pounds over the last 11 months. And one of the driving forces to my success was the fact that I am named “Michael” and it was time to start LOOKING like the archangel I was named after. Because in this postmodern, secular humanist culture that Hollywood liberalism has bequeathed us with, how you look very often determines more than anything else how people perceive you. And I recognized that it was time for me in these last days before the Antichrist that it was long-past time for me to shape up in every way I could.
But all that said, it’s time for me to have my own mea culpa: I have too often resorted to name-calling in my articles and in my responses (to hateful comments). And I was wrong to do that.
Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written has likely come upon terminology such as “turds” and “cockroaches” in my descriptions of the left. I’ve been called much, MUCH worse myself – usually before my own use of such terms – but that doesn’t justify my behavior.
I’ve also been guilty of calling liberals “idiots” or “stupid.” And while it is true that many liberals ARE ignorant and frankly stupid people, it is also quite true that some of the most brilliant minds routinely believe the most stupid things, such that George Orwell pointed out that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool. And thus it is not always easy to tell whether you are talking to a “stupid idiot” or a “brilliant idiot.”
I won’t call liberals “stupid” anymore because they may be very intelligent people who are merely a) evil and b) deluded. Which is to say they might be very brilliant moral idiots – but not “stupid.”
Saul Alinsky – in his “Rules for Radicals” (which was dedicated to Satan and which Obama once taught in his days as a community organizer) has one rule in particular that liberals have loved to apply to me:
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
I’ve had many liberals follow up on my response to hateful comments by liberals such as this one - “You are such a moron. I cannot waste anymore of my time talking to someone who is lost in an alternate universe. I only hope that you get hit by a truck or die a horrible death. You are an enemy of America scumbag. THATS A FACT” – by attacking me as a terrible Christian in my response.
I’ve noted to these liberals who follow the crash and then pile on:
It’s kind of strange. I wrote an article never ONCE hoping anybody got hit by a truck or died a horrible death. I never degenerated into that level of viciousness. And nobody else did either. Because that level of pure hate doesn’t happen UNTIL THE LIBERALS SHOW UP.
Here’s the liberal game plan for those who haven’t learned it. Liberal A comes along and just viciously personally attacks the conservative. Often they show up in rabid packs and just dump hate on the Republican. And then, when the conservative responds with anger of his own, well, that’s when liberals like YOU show up. The sanctimonious, self-righteous ones who pointedly ignore the hate that their own side just dished out and instead personally denounce the “hate” of the conservative. That hateful, divisive conservative shouldn’t have responded angrily to all that liberal hate. It’s wrong. It’s evil, even. And that sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal often proceeds to then attack the Republican’s Christianity. Which is of course an even MORE hateful attack than the liberal haters that got the conservative to respond with anger, of course, but what does that matter?
And if you were to keep reading Saul Alinsky’s book where he gives his rule to “make opponents live up to their own book of rules”, you find that this leftist who called upon his fellow liberals to demonize others as evil really couldn’t have cared LESS about morality applied to himself or his liberal movement:
The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only to angels, not men. — P.26
One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. — P.26
The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a straight utilitarian basis — will it work? Moral questions may enter when one chooses among equally effective alternate means. — P.32
The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. — P.35
The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37
Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against them. — P.43
All effective actions require the passport of morality. — P.44
And just to ensure that any true morality NOT be pursued by the left, Alinsky wrote:
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a fight with a windmill. — P.76
So, the bottom line is that liberals acknowledge that they HAVE no “book of rules,” no true morality, and that “morality” for them is “a means to an end” to be invented and reinvented as it suits them in order to attack their enemies. “Morality” and the Word of God become nothing more than a tool for hypocrites to attack those who actually TRY to follow morality and the Word of God.
That’s just a fact.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter. Because, as Saul Alinsky points out, unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, yes, unlike Democrats, we DO have a “book of rules” that should be our guide to live by. Unlike the Lucifer-Loving Left, we actually BELIEVE in morality and strive to be moral, decent people.
As I reflected upon the absolutely despicable example of “Reverend Cell Phone,” I had to face up to my own “issues.” And yes, I tend to get very angry with hypocrites and slanderers who constantly hurt others with vile policies that they then want to exempt themselves from. And just as one of MANY examples are the Democrat politicians and their staffs, the labor unions, the IRS workers, who – after fighting to impose ObamaCare on everyone else – now fight even harder to exempt themselves from what they just inflicted on everybody else. I knew that this demonic piece of horror would hurt people. And, yes, I am beyond LIVID that the very people who imposed this demon-possessed evil on everyone else would say, “Good enough to force on thee, but not good enough for me.”
I am angry at the people who are working so hard to do so much evil, who want to bring the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast upon the rest of us.
And in my anger, I sinned. And I fell prey to the trap of the rules for radicals devoted to Satan.
I’m going to try from now on not to do that. I’m going to try very hard to – unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, unlike Democrats – to actually LIVE UP TO THE BOOK OF RULES.
The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, yet do not sin.” We’re not told NOT to be angry. We’re told that JESUS was angry (Mark 3:5). And anger can be positive when it is harnessed and controlled in righteousness. Anger is a “stimulant” that can get you off your rear end DOING something rather than standing idly by gaping while terrible things are happening all around you. But you can’t allow anger to master you even while hypocrites are actively trying to bait you into it.
I’m going to quit my name calling, even when I’m called so many names.
But I’m going to replace name-calling with HONEST and ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of the people who are doing so much evil in these last days before the beast comes.
To wit, I’m no longer going to label Democrats and liberals as “turds” or “cockroaches.” Because, very technically speaking, these people are neither insects nor are they composed entirely of fecal matter. Rather, I’m going to call them what they truly technically ARE: government worshiping baby killing marriage-and-family murdering sodomy-lovers. Because that is simply a fact.
I’m going to stop resorting to name-calling and start using the actual TRUTH to fight for the truth.
When you call somebody a name like a “turd” or a “cockroach,” you are no longer operating on factual grounds. A liberal can respond, “I am not a turd. I am not a cockroach. You’re a liar and you’re hateful.” But when you simply call these people what they truly ARE – and that is WORSE and more shameful than ANY name you can call them – well, they can call you “hateful” all day long, but that is only because they are people who find “truth” as “hateful.” But given the facts that they ARE for government that replaces God; that they ARE for the continued holocaust of babies that has murdered more than 55 million children so far; that they ARE for a radical redefinition of marriage and family that has progressively eroded and undermined both marriage and the family; and that they ARE for homosexual sodomy along with numerous other perversions that are specifically condemned as “ABOMINATIONS” by the Word of God that Saul Alinsky wants us to follow, well, they can hardly call me a liar.
There’s a tactical aspect to this decision as well. I’ll get one liberal who uses all kinds of terrible names on me and just dumps hate on me – literally wishing my death. And I respond with my own anger. Then comes the next liberal who is just shocked and appalled that any human being on earth could be so “hateful” as a conservative – conveniently (of course hypocritically) overlooking the liberals who wrote far uglier things. And of course, given that this second attack from the liberals doesn’t employ such labels as “turd” or “cockroach,” they assign themselves the moral high ground when they call me “hateful.”
So on the one hand I am a) going to start trying to follow what the Bible teaches on hate and anger and b) just not give liberals an easy way to attack me literally about my religion (mind you, it would be a TERRIBLE thing according to secular humanist political correctness for me to attack someone of a different religion qua religion). It’s never wrong when they do it; it’s always wrong when I do what they do. But that doesn’t matter, because what matters is that I WILL TRY TO LIVE UP TO MY BOOK OF RULES. The fact that liberals don’t HAVE a “book of rules” and the fact that they are hypocrites is immaterial.
Jesus famously guaranteed to His disciples that the world would hate them because they hated Jesus first (Matthew 10:22 cf. John 15:18). And why does the world hate Jesus so? Because (as Del Tackett so brilliantly pointed out in the Truth Project), Jesus came to testify to the Truth. And that everyone – and only those – who would be on the side of truth would listen to Jesus (John 18:37). And what is the truth about these people who hate us? Their deeds are evil (John 3:19) and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).
Liberals can slander me any way they want to. I don’t follow them. They can label me as a “hater” because I declare the truth about them and they hate the truth. And they hate the truth because they are children of the devil and enemies of everything that is right (Acts 13:10).
I’m going to declare the truth and ONLY declare the truth, and let the truth be my defense. Which is why in hindsight I realized I should have got in that bogus pastor’s face and pointed out how incredibly rude he’d just been and what a lousy example of a Christian – let ALONE a “pastor” – he was and called upon him to either live like a Christian or at least to stop calling himself one.