Evangelical

Voting For Trump Makes One An Inauthentic Evangelical

Published by Papa Giorgio

I am merely going to post the conversation I am having (and may add to) on Facebook — and how TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is creating “identity Faith” much like we understand “identity politics.” Before reading this back-n-forth, one should read this article about a skeptical Democrat that went to Trump Rally

…Now, Trump is always going to present the best case he can. And yes, he lies. This is provable. But the strength of this rally wasn’t about the facts and figures. It was a group of people who felt like they had someone in their corner, who would fight for them. Some people say, “Well, obviously they’re having a great time. They’re in a cult.” I don’t think that’s true. The reality is that many people I spoke to do disagree with Trump on things. They don’t always like his attitude. They wish he wouldn’t tweet so much. People who are in cults don’t question their leaders. The people I spoke with did, but the pros in their eyes far outweighed the cons. They don’t love him because they think he’s perfect. They love him despite his flaws, because they believe he has their back….

(GEN MEDIUM)

Glenn Beck narrates the entire article:

“Enjoy” (I censored names and profile pics for privacy):

My Response to some of the above:

(I respond to WILEY) The only solution is not to vote. Ever. Even Joy Behar – speaking of HER OWN candidates said:

  • “Every single one who’s running probably has—this is a racist country, right? Every single one of them has something in their background that doesn’t look good for race.”

And the media montage from MSM is all the same. When identity politics guides Christianity (by posting Washington Post stories about what it takes to be an authentic Evangelical/Christian… or WaPo speaking to what it takes to be an authentic black, like I am sure Charles Evers – brother of Medgar Evers – is being told as I type… and if Charles Evers claims to be a Christian… fo-get-a-bout-it [*New York Italian “twang”).

The media has painted every Republican as a racist since Goldwater. Saying Reagan get his precepts from Mein Kampf. Saying Bush the elder kills blacks with his rhetoric. Bush Jr. left black people to die on rooftops… Etc (SEE MY YOUTUBE UPLOAD).  “Trump,” as the media paints him is ?????? ???????.

And I don’t care about a politician saying he has the greatest crowd size. I do care when a person is called an anti-Semite when he is not. I do care when someone is called a racist and he is not. I do care when someone is said he mocked a handicap man’s disability when he didn’t. That he is an agent of Russia when he clearly is not. These are lies Christians should really care about. The rape of man’s character by people who are in the D.C. bubble (WaPo, NYT, CNN, NPR, etc ) — all guilty of the above. I see the fraudulent “lie count” for what it is… SMOKE AND MIRRORS – and I am ashamed to say, other believers in Christ do not. I have yet to find something done by the media’s “Trump” that would get a very conservative, very Evangelical voter like myself to have Christ stand next to me when I vote again for the REAL Trump.

And speaking to any non-Christian (Susan Bagwell) about the depravity of his worldview without Christ never begins or ends (or centers) with Trump and how I or he/she votes. I have had the pleasure to be the tool of the Holy Spirit speaking to a Satanist whom I led through the Sinner’s Prayer. A young kid sitting on a bunk in Wayside North who had booklets from a now defunct Christian Identity “church.” This kid was STEEPED in racist theology. You see, this was my last time in jail, serving 23-days for a decade old warrant (I am a three-time felon) [… the last time in jail for me before this 2004 pay-off of a 1994 warrant was 1991.] Because I studied (in-depth) 4-racist cults by this time, I* was able to steer this kid through enough Scripture and reason that he threw away his booklets. When I left that facility I handed him my Bible with a reading plan.

I have other stories as well. But not once did the Holy Spirit chasing down these souls — did voting patterns come up. Not once. The conviction by God of how much they are sinners and need salvation is a miracle – and for you to paint it as corrupted by Trump is deplorable ?

* While I was present at times when the Holy Spirit moved on a person, and I had the knowledge to speak to the worldview/beliefs the person expressed – my insatiable passion for Apologetics and knowledge of the occult and cults as well as the world religions is, I am convinced, God using my passion for His Will. (God can only use the knowledge or passion/experiences you have… testing them always: 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1 – side note on this… this also speaks to worldviews and cultural milieu)

I was able to speak to a Satanist about a topic HE brought up (that Satanist often get painted as sacrificing animals when they believe that the “life is in the blood,” his own words). That led me to showing how Christ’s blood IS LIFE. Or the young racist kid in North. He spoke about the lost tribes of Israel, which led me to talk about the Hebrew word for Adam, Moses marriage, Paul’s tribal affiliation, Acts speaking of One Blood, etc. While I think at times how great I am… God will put on me a humbleness that He drove me to these things because He passionately was chasing after that single lamb down the cliff in the ravine. I wax long about God chasing me… but now realize He really wanted my wife and boys… I was merely USED by Him FOR HIS GLORY, not my own. And to put Trump in the middle of this exchange is something that only identity politics can drive. Not Christianity.

Does Trump “Own” Evangelicals? Rush Limbaugh Attacked Falsely

Published by Papa Giorgio

A Facebook friend posted a link to the following story from PATHEOS saying Limbaugh said Trump “owned” Evangelicals… (more below audio):

A Patheos article was just published saying Rush Limbaugh said “Trump owns Evangelicals,” then it made reference to Christ owning us by Calvary, etc. Here is an excerpt (“A Fresh Warning for Evangelical Trump Supporters”):

…On Friday, one of Trump’s media sycophants and enablers, Rush Limbaugh, made a statement on air that was both alarming, and in a sense, prophetic.

To paraphrase, Limbaugh stated that Donald Trump “owns” American evangelicals.

Yes, he did use the word “owns.”

For those of us who are evangelical and recognize our freedoms come from God, paid for by the shed blood of Christ, the idea of being “owned” by any worldly politician is rather repugnant….

The full context is this (the fuller is in the audio):

  • “Because the Republicans Party cannot win anything without their votes. There are at bare minimum 24,000-million Evangelical votes in America, and maybe more… and guess who owns them? And long before today, Donald Trump.”

Rush Limbaugh was merely saying the Pro-Life movement (Evangelicals) took over the Party platform and transformed the GOP. The Republicans since Reagan have essentially owned the GOP, and the Republicans can trust/depend [own] their votes. And this wasn’t repugnant under Dubya, Reagan, etc… only “the bad orange man.”

This attack on Rush reminds me of Chuck Todd asking “why you do not trust the CIA” to a Republican who merely said he did not trust John Brennan.  As if Brennan encapsulates the totality of the CIA. Or Democrats repeating ad nauseum that Republicans and Trump do not believe Russia attacked the 2016 election [when it was Republicans who first warned Obama of this upcoming event in 2014] because they say Ukraine attacked our 2016 election. As if both cannot be true (FOOTNOTE 565).

People with bias do not take a break and think things through. The above political positions are reminiscent of Many have built a straw-man argument out of the teaching of literal interpretation, alleging that we have to take everything in the Bible literally, e.g., “the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12).  The Bible as well as politicians and talking heads, contains, and use definite types of figurative language, including metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and anthropomorphism.  But all of these are easily detectable and separable from the literal text itself.  Unless you have a bias.

I also made the point of a very recent tragic event to drive home the point:

…you miss the point of my OG article. I have a very committed Christian friend (5-pointer to the max). He said, “RIP Koby. You were the greatest.” Susan Wright’s linked article could apply “just as forcefully” to him and the many other people praising Koby. // “We true Christians know who the greatest is…. The Alpha and Omega…. The Greatest bought us on Calvary with His she’d blood…” — etc., etc.

Everything you have posted from her (that I have seen at least), runs along similar veins. She just emotes here dislike of Trump.

As others here do as well. ?

Albert Mohler On Christianity Today’s Editorial (A Third Way)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via TOWNHALL:

In the run-up to Christmas, you may have seen coverage of an editorial in Christianity Today by the magazine’s outgoing Editor-in-Chief Mark Galli, calling for the impeachment of President Trump.

The editorial set off a whirlwind.

Galli called the president’s actions with regard to Ukraine, “profoundly immoral.”

“None of the president’s positives,” Galli said, “can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.”

Many looking at this have said that what is evident is a split between an evangelical elite against President Trump and populist evangelicals for the president.

I’d argue that there’s a third category—that is American evangelicals who understand fully the moral issues at stake, but who also understand the political context and have made a decision to support President Trump, not out of mere political expediency and certainly not out of naivete, but out of their own analysis of what is at stake.

That analysis, rather than CT’s editorial, is likely to have real impact.

Stephen Strang and Dennis Prager Discuss Donald J. Trump

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an interview from July 2, 2019 (an Ultimate Issues Hour), and is merely an excerpt surrounding getting what you see with Trump. Stephen Strang had Dennis on his show as well (YOUTUBE). A lot of what Strang does can be found HERE — A recent article that caused me to upload this is this article:

From the linked article:

I didn’t vote for someone who promised to live a Christian lifestyle.

I voted for someone who promised to defend my right to live that way. Why, then, when we support President Donald Trump, do we feel the need to give a disclaimer that we don’t necessarily agree with all his tweets, but we admire his policies and what he has accomplished?

Maybe because we don’t see the bigger principles at work.

Ralph Reed, a respected political activist who was the first executive director of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, was in Jerusalem when the U.S. Embassy was moved there from Tel Aviv. While attending the events celebrating the opening of the embassy, he heard Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., make the point that Jews believe only flawed men make great leaders.

The rabbis teach, in fact, that you should never put someone in leadership who doesn’t have a flaw in life.

“If someone is self-righteous and convinced of their own goodness, they won’t feel the need to redeem their past by bearing good fruit and doing great deeds. But if they have experienced real failure or a major setback in their lives, they are more likely to approach leadership or service redemptively,” Reed told me.

He said that this explains why Trump is such a great leader who is so committed to keeping his promises. Despite his past mistakes and failures — or perhaps because of them — he wants to do the right thing…..

SOME “SHORTS”

Hugh Hewitt’s WaPo Column on Christianity Today

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt sets up, and then reads his column from the Washington Post about the Christianity Today article. I have previously posted on this issue (RPT: “Christianity Today Hates Religious Freedom“). Which includes a previous upload by Hugh HERE:

After more than a quarter-century of occasionally attempting to help direct traffic at the intersection of faith and politics – on radio, on PBS and in books – I am bewildered by Christianity Today editor Mark Galli’s column on Thursday, which has attracted so much love from the secular left. In condemning President Donald Trump from the pages of the magazine Billy Graham founded, Galli has blindsided more than half of the evangelical Christians in the United States.

The entire enterprise – the magazine plus online platform – will suffer even as Galli heads out to retirement in January. But Trump will not.

What is remarkable is the selfishness of Galli’s act and, whether he has the applause of his editors, chief executive or financial backers, his legacy at the magazine will be to have done exactly what precedes every schism in every congregation, this time within the “CT” readership, whatever its number: Take an absolutist stand on a radically divisive issue. But Galli is no Martin Luther.

“Christianity Today is a nonprofit, global media ministry centered on Beautiful Orthodoxy – strengthening the church by richly communicating the breadth of the true, good, and beautiful gospel,” proclaims the magazine’s mission statement. “Reaching over five million people monthly with various digital and print resources, the ministry equips Christians to renew their minds, serve the church, and create culture to the glory of God.”

Perhaps this is what it did before. It has now become just another content provider on politics, and of the left-wing sort. The real cost here is borne by readers who will simply shrug off appeals to resubscribe or give the platform a try. Americans are drenched in political conflict, and hundreds, even thousands, of outlets offer political commentary. Why in the world would anyone seek an absolutist political opinion from a website about evangelical faith? The answer is obvious: Most people won’t, and they will steer clear of another politicized platform. Has Galli’s column changed a single mind in America, except about the magazine he was supposed to steward?

I don’t know Galli. But Christianity Today has suffered the same long, slow decline that has crippled “mainstream denominations,” and perhaps the idea of putting on a show-stopping exit was just too tempting to pass up. But Galli should have done just that. That he knew this is given away in his perfunctory introductory apologia: “The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic,” Galli begins. “It requires comment.”

But, of course, it isn’t such an event. It isn’t even clear now that the articles of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate, though if they are, the outcome is predetermined. Indeed, it seems likely to me that Trump will be re-elected, and it is laughable to say that there is a clear, one-sided “Christian” appraisal of the case for or against the president. In a democratic republic, the people decide, and they will end up giving the presidency back to Trump or to his opponent for reasons wholly unrelated to Christianity Today’s view on the question. Christians by the millions will be on both sides of that election. They did not need, or ask for, this intervention in their deliberation.

“The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible,” Galli continued, just before he implicitly condemned every Christian who supports Trump. There are tens of millions who already condemn Trump, and tens of millions who don’t. But whether Trump is good or bad for the republic isn’t a theological question. It is a political one.

By injecting Christianity into that debate, Galli inevitably suggests (especially to the left, for whom it is convenient) that people of the Christian faith are, in fact, obliged to condemn Trump and support his impeachment. This is risible. It is irresponsible. It also proved irresistible.

The only interesting question about this: Why did Galli feel compelled to sacrifice the best interests of the platform he was supposed to nurture? I don’t know the answer, but I can calculate the cost. It is immense. The only redeeming aspect of this is the condemnation now flowing down from previous supporters of the once-traditional fortress of evangelicalism. Perhaps that will save other congregations of believers, whether virtual or still organized around pews or causes, from the same intemperate outbursts from their leadership.

Luther and Calvin Responsible for “Christian Terrorists”?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Keep in mind as you read… that there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment on the left. This attack is switching towards even the Reformational view of “saved by grace.” No… I am not kidding:

In the wake of the November 27th shootings at Planned Parenthood, media interest has centered around what the New York Times calls gunman Robert Dear’s “idiosyncratic” religious beliefs. In a 1993 affidavit, Dear’s ex-wife Barbara Micheau described him as someone who “claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions…He says that as long as he believes, he will be saved.”

Dear’s vision of grace—salvation through faith alone, independent of moral or immoral action—may well seem distasteful to many Times readers. But is it “idiosyncratic?” Hardly. In fact, the notion that salvation can—and must—be obtained purely by the grace of God and faith in God’s mercy, rather than by anything an individual does (or does not) do, is among the issues at the heart of the division between the Protestant and Catholic Christian traditions. Dear’s actions may seem reprehensible to Christians and non-Christians alike, but his understanding of salvation is very much in keeping with the American evangelical tradition.

[….]

Is there something quintessentially American about this view of sin and grace? Timothy Smith certainly thinks so. It contributed to a wider sense among Christian theologians that a focus on grace—rather than acts—was essential for Christianity’s survival within this new America. As he writes:

“Like the founding fathers of the nation, [early American theologians] were keenly aware of the threat that in a free society the masses of ordinary persons, including the great company of church people, would make their political and economic and social choices in response to greed or the love of power, pleasure, and public esteem. … Grace alone, they believed, could purify the inner springs of character and so make possible the creation of a righteous society; and that grace came in the sanctifying fullness of the Holy Spirit.”

While Dear’s actions may be horrific and aberrant, to dismiss his theology as purely “idiosyncratic” is to overlook a vast body of grace-centered religious language in the American tradition: a tradition that has come to shape the contours of American evangelicalism today.

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., thought of himself as a Christian, according to his ex-wife.

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Barbara Micheau said in a divorce court document, according to the Times.

[This is key]

  • “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases.”

(See CNSNews)

I have been in the Evangelical faith for a better part of my life — [dramatic pause] — and I know of no pastor that subscribes to a faith that one can do whatever one pleases and you remain in the faith. Dumb!

The press is portraying the Reformation and it’s understanding of “by grace alone/by faith alone” as a root cancer in people having a religious “stamp of approval” ~ by God no less ~ to commit acts of terrorism… as will be explained in more-depth further below when a major newspaper equates a Messianic Jew to ISIS loving Muslims. This new narrative plays into the hands of the PC crowd and the newer “white priveledge” aspect of the Founding Fathers and WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).

TS Elliot WASP

Here, the Red Letters Dialogues delves into the narrative that is now attacking “fundamentalists” in a decent half-hour podcast talking about how the Evangelical Christian is under attack… by the media AND the Pope!

Likewise, at the end of Macho Sauces’s video [below]… Zo makes this point as well, that “somehow us right-wingers with our guns and our Bibles are the real threat”

  • (Video Description) Liberals want you to forget that the real threat is Islamic terrorists… If you remember that, then they’ll have a tougher time passing gun control!

Commenting deeper on this narrative Alfonzo hinted at (the left “blaming” Christians for violence), here are two article I found informative. First, if you want to see how far down the rabbit trail the left goes, read no further than NewsBusters expose:

….Ever since the deadly shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., last Wednesday, several members of the media have tried to spread the blame from the “radicalized” Muslim couple who shot and killed more than a dozen people to other individuals who are “just as bigoted” as the murderers.

One of those people in the media is columnist Linda Stasi of the New York Daily News, who wrote in a Dec. 6 article asserting that the interaction between “two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees” led to the deaths of “13 innocent people” who were killed in an act of “unspeakable carnage.”

The post’s title read: “San Bernardino Killers Were ISIS-Loving Monsters — But One of Their Victims Was Just as Bigoted.”

The column drew a fiery reaction from Soopermexican of the Right Wing Scoop website, who called Stasi a “foul, disgusting liberal” and branded her column “quite alarming.”

Nevertheless, Stasi stated:

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

“What they didn’t realize,” she stated, “is that except for their different religions, they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.”

One man, “the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride,” Stasi wrote while refusing to add to their fame by “using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.”

[….]

The other man, the victim — Nicholas Thalasinos — was “a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her,” Stasi noted.

“The killer, however, became half of an ‘Islamic Bonnie and Clyde’” who “deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them,” she charged. “And more.”

“But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man,” Stasi stated.

She continued:

Make no mistake: As disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that.

But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway.

Referring to Stasi, Soopermexican claimed that “this is just unbelievably foul of her. And it really makes you wonder what she thinks should be done to conservatives who think like he did, if she’s equating him to an evil, murderous ISIS-sympathizing terrorist that the police rightfully shot down in the street like a dog.”

“Now in no way am I saying her free speech should be shut down,” the Right Scoop poster continued. “I want people to see how stupid and wretched liberals are. BUT her point of view should be relegated to the fever swamps of the fringe Internet like Twitter or Tumblr, not legitimized in the pages of a professional publication.”

…read the rest…

Mind you… there are some crazy views on this shooting (and other shootings), but as I see it, the above referenced piece by Linda Stasi of the Daily News is *JUST AS CRAZY* (*Booming Bass-Filled Echo Affect*).

Here is the narrative — in your face! Take note of the pro-life families included in a video about “terrorism”

LIKEWISE, the Left and the Media have gotten their panties in the bunch over what they deem as “Christian Terrorism” in the Robert Lewis Dear. In an EXCELLENT Charisma magazine article, Matt Barber — after going through the percentage of Islamist’s in the Muslim faith and comparing that to the world population — he continues on into the “moral equivalency” of the piece:

…it’s no surprise that there have been nearly 27,500 terrorist attacks worldwide committed by faithful Muslims since 9/11.

There have been zero committed by faithful Christians.

Here’s why.

Muslims, true Muslims, follow the teachings of their dead “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Islamic Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. Christians, true Christians, follow the very-much-alive Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, whose teachings are found in the God-breathed Holy Bible.

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught His followers, who are called Christians, to “do to others what you would have them do to you” (see Luke 6:31); that, “You shall not murder” (see Matthew 19:18); and that we are to “love [our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us]” (see Matthew 5:44). It goes without saying that those who do not follow these teachings are not following Christ.

Indeed, while many may claim to be “Christian,” the word only applies to those who are justified in Christ, spiritually reborn and regenerated through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. The true Christian walks in Christ’s steps through faith and obedience.

Terrorism is in direct disobedience to Christ.

Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely, “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.

Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54]).

Which brings us to last week’s mass shooting near an abortion slaughterhouse in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Even as the secular left was gleefully screaming, “Christian terrorism!” Garrett Swasey, a pro-life, Christian pastor and police officer, was laying down his life for those inside the very Planned Parenthood he abhorred.

It’s what Christians do.

Still, again, and so our liberal, anti-Christian friends fully understand, Officer Garrett Swasey was a pro-life Christian. Robert Dear, the evil, reclusive, deranged pothead who killed him, is not. Dear murdered three innocent people. He is, by definition, not “pro-life.” Neither is he Christian. He is, much like Planned Parenthood, “pro-death.”

To be sure, pro-life Christians like Officer Swasey agree: Murdering babies is wrong. And murdering the murderers who murder babies is also wrong. Shooting innocent people is evil. Just like dismembering babies and selling their body parts is evil.

No, Robert Dear is no “Christian terrorist.” He may be a terrorist, but he’s not a Christian terrorist. He can’t be. He doesn’t follow Christ. If anything, Robert Dear’s actions are more like those of Planned Parenthood, orthodox Islam and Syed Farook.

Yes, there have been terrorists who call themselves Christian.

But there has never been a Christian terrorist.

The Godfather of Politics notes how the media would portray the well known atheist, Dan Barker, if he were to commit an “act of terrorism:

…Let’s suppose that Mr. Barker decides to commit a terrorist act. How might the headline read?:

“Christian Preacher and Musician Burns Down Gideon Bible Factory.”

Given Mr. Barker’s logic, this would be an appropriate description. But, of course, it wouldn’t be true.

It’s not what a person is on paper that counts; it’s what they actually practice and identify with in their terrorist acts that matter.

Consider Eric Rudolf, the “Olympic Park Bomber,” … Rudolf wrote the following in an undated letter that was published in the July 6, 2005 issue of USA Today:

Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I’m in here I must be a ‘sinner’ in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible.”

[emphasis added]

We are ALL sinners, and need God’s Divine Grace → to rule our faith. If that makes me a terrorist… then so be it.

I Am An Extremist Now

Published by Papa Giorgio

Evangelical Christians are now on the “extremist” list, along with Jews and fellow Christians, Catholics. Of course this means “conservative” religious members of these groups… you know, the one’s that get the ire of the IRS; not the radical leftist churches like the one Obama attended for twenty years: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/hot-tub-conversations/

Earlier this year the Obama Administration warned (http://tinyurl.com/cvfp8xs) military personnel that Christian Evangelicals were a number one threat to America (http://tinyurl.com/ceu7h43). The Obama Administration included Christians in their list (http://tinyurl.com/co7jmjg) of religious extremists.

The above slide came from a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief titled “Extremism and Extremist Organizations.” The Obama Administration included Evangelical Christians with Al-Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan.

Now this…

The Obama Administration “strongly objects” (http://tinyurl.com/l6vkhv2) to a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have protected the religious rights of soldiers – including evangelical Christian service members who are facing growing hostility towards their religion.

(Via Gateway Pundit: http://tinyurl.com/qh45rgy)