Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The Plain Truth: Populist Majority Emerges!

The Plain Truth: Populist Majority Emerges!: To see that the landscape of American politics is shifting, all you need to do is glance at the polls. Donald Trump is curre...

Populist Majority Emerges!

Populist Party: Polls Show a Shifting Electorate
To see that the landscape of American politics is shifting, all you need to do is glance at the polls.
Donald Trump is currently leading for the Republican nomination, and Bernie Sanders is doing well in the polls for the Democrat nomination. But even if neither wins, it’s clear that the times are changing.
Each candidate is far from his respective party’s mainstream, and their policy proposals are very different. Yet they have something in common that makes this race unique compared to years past: populism.
After 15 years of lackluster government and economic sluggishness, voters not only have contempt for the Washington establishment, but they also have a clear set of policies they’d rather see enacted.
It may be time for politics to realign…

Common Ground

While Trump and Sanders reflect the views of their respective parties, their proposals differ wildly.
Sanders wants to raise taxes and spend more on social programs. Trump has a fairly conventional Republican tax program with corporate tax cuts and reductions in the top tax brackets.
But in other respects, they have a lot in common:
  • Trump and Sanders reject the wishes of the “donor class” cheap labor-lobby for high immigration, recognizing the effects of low-skill immigration on workers at the bottom of the scale.
  • They reject globalization and free trade, believing that other nations “cheat” to deprive S. workers of well-paying jobs and that tariffs can protect U.S. living standards.
  • Neither is truly in favor of small government. Instead, they want government to do what ordinary people need. They also want to “protect” Social Security and Medicare, even though both programs are in deep trouble.
  • Both reject a foreign policy of S. “leadership,” and believe resources should be concentrated on domestic needs. Although Trump wouldn’t mind a few macho demonstrations of U.S. military might.
This is the foundation of the new populism – the belief that, for far too long, government has been run in the interests of the rich and the well-connected.
In the short term, the new populism has two chances to get elected to the presidency: a Trump victory or a Sanders victory.
At this point, populism’s success is by no means guaranteed – the election wager site Betfair has the total probability of Trump or Sanders winning the presidency at just 26%. Trump has a 42% chance at the Republican nomination, but Betfair believes him to be well under 50-50 in November if that happens.
Even if a populist doesn’t win in 2016, the chances of a political realignment or an additional party are high.
An establishment Republican or Hillary Clinton as president would deepen the popular disgust for the political system and create turmoil in both parties.
The political system today is unimaginably different than it was in 1852-56, the last time a new party emerged as a major contender for a national office. But with media stars like Trump, Sarah Palin, and various Hollywood leftists who are able to gain media exposure, a new populist party could certainly spring up before 2020 and have a chance at competing in that year’s presidential election.
If the new party were primarily Trumpist, it would doom and replace the Republicans. If it were primarily Sandersist, it would doom and replace the Democrats.
Either way, the new party would need to broaden its approach to gain support from both Tea Party and Black Lives Matter fans to be truly successful.

Economic Implications

The big problem for such a Populist Party is that many of its policies simply wouldn’t work.
First of all, there’s a reason people go to graduate school to obtain fancy qualifications in economics, public policy, and international relations. Those disciplines require deep knowledge and understanding that aren’t available to the average Joe, or to the semi-educated populist who he finds politically attractive.
For example, the actuarial deficits in Social Security and Medicare mean that something needs to be done or they’ll run out of money. Either benefits need to be reduced (ideally, by raising retirement ages) or taxes need to be raised – sharply.
There’s no third way, and populists who demand one are fooling their voters (and possibly themselves).
Again, raising, say, a 45% tariff against imports from Third World countries wouldn’t raise Americans’ standard of living. It would only put many Americans working in export industries out of a job (as emerging markets’ purchasing power would be reduced), as well as make the global economy much less efficient, impoverishing everyone.
Economist David Ricardo might have been a snooty stockbroker who would’ve been instantly disliked by the average Joe, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
On foreign policy, dismantling international arrangements and allowing the Middle East and other trouble spots to fester, while indulging in macho displays of American power, would be truly isolationist in the sense of leaving America without allies.
David Cameron has already stated that Britain would be “united against” Donald Trump if he visited. Having a leader and policies that are universally disliked certainly wouldn’t improve U.S. strength and prosperity.
Populism is tempting, and the establishments in both parties have made a sorry mess of the last 15 years. While populism’s success may have become inevitable, we shouldn’t necessarily welcome it.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

The Plain Truth: Requiem For the American Dream

The Plain Truth: Requiem For the American Dream

The Plain Truth: Obama Banking on the Christian’s Numbness!

The Plain Truth: Obama Banking on the Christian’s Numbness!: If you read Obama’s script delivered at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C., and if you forget that he is the messenger, it r...

Obama Banking on the Christian’s Numbness!

If you read Obama’s script delivered at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C., and if you forget that he is the messenger, it really is a moving message. His scriptwriter did a masterful piece of work. Honestly, it is very moving; it goes to the heart of the Christian community in America. Read it for yourself:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/03/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast
  By the way, this national prayer breakfast is an ecumenical gathering that does not reflect or honor the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17 two thousand years ago. In spite of this, Obama repeatedly preached an end to “division” asked to find “common ground” and “civility.”
Here are some of the many instances where he made references to the value of the Christian faith:
 “I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior.”
 “Tom Coburn, for example, is here.  He is not only a dear friend but also a brother in Christ. We came into the Senate at the same time.  Even though we are on opposite sides of a whole bunch of issues, part of what has bound us together is a shared faith, a recognition that we pray to and serve the same God.”
 “My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years.  All the more so, when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God.”
 “Christian tradition teaches that one day the world will be turned right side up and everything will return as it should be.”
“It’s faith that reminds me that despite being just one very imperfect man, I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can, for as long as I can, and that somehow God will buttress these efforts.”

  “And the last recurring theme, one that binds all prayers together, is that I might walk closer with God and make that walk my first and most important task.”
 “And it’s in these moments, when we feel most intensely our mortality and our own flaws and the sins of the world, that we most desperately seek to touch the face of God.”

 
”When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people.  And when I go to bed at night I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.”
 Should we blindly accept Obama’s brand of Christianity as being biblical? Let Jesus answer this question, “the tree is known by its fruit” (Matthew 12: 33). It is impossible for any one of us to fake the fruit of God’s character and His will. We may be experts in knowing the Bible from cover to cover, and quote it as it is convenient, but it is the fruit of our thoughts and actions that reveal our true self. Anyone can testify that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and claim to be born again; of course that doesn’t mean a thing before God. It is obedience to God’s commandments that reveal his will for our lives and this world. It is the only way we can truly reveal the Lordship of Christ in us. Let us be careful with Jesus’ warning, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
 Obama, while Senator, before a different crowd has stated that America is no longer a Christian nation. He may have a point there. However, he openly mocked and ridiculed the book of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and the Sermon of the Mount (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXcvbnzNIjg). While speaking to another crowd he openly admitted that if one of his daughters would get pregnant out-of-wedlock, he would not punish her with a baby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo). No sooner was he in office, he immediately signed approval for federal funding, now well over $300 million a year, to continue the murdering of children through the Planned Parenthood factories of death.
  We must remember, Obama never wastes an opportunity to sell himself. Now that he is in re-election campaign mode full force, we must pay attention to his demagogue. We must be careful of his brand of Christianity and also the philosophy that he learned so well from Saul Alinsky and other Marxist mentors, including the teachings he received for 20 years of Black Liberation Theology from his pastor Jeremiah Wright. That worldview is the dominant factor in Obama’s life.
 Obama, once again is seeking the vote of the Christian community which is the largest voting bloc in the nation. Even though a lot of evangelicals do not care to vote due to the wrong indoctrination they have been under believing that God could care less about politics. That type of teaching is wrong; they have no understanding of the Scriptures, the power of God and how the birth of this nation came about.
 Obama thinks he has a good chance to once again sell himself to a large group of Christians who are easily deceived and will vote for him again. He’s banking on the Christian’s numbness.
  Make no mistake; Obama knows how to speak the language of each group in order to appeal to them as long as they help him accomplish his ongoing fundamental transformation of America. He knows he must tone down his hard leftist agenda in the next two years for the sake of the reelection. The strategy is to appear to be more centrist. His sights are set on reelection, so he can put the rest of the nails in America’s coffin of exceptionalism. He wants four more years where he doesn’t have to worry about another election and carry on with his agenda.
 I believe in God’s mercy and grace. I also believe that if God could save me, Obama can truly meet Jesus face to face just like the apostle Paul on his journey to Damascus. If he wants, he can have a transformational experience, a change of life and produce the fruit of God’s righteousness. Let us also pray for all the Christians, who are in the same situation as Obama and his family, to willingly submit to the Lordship of Christ. That is the only hope for America and the world.

Monday, May 9, 2016

The Plain Truth: Obama: King of the World?

The Plain Truth: Obama: King of the World?: Barack Obama doesn't just want to fundamentally transform America. His sights are on the world.  Many stories  are breaking that he as...

Obama: King of the World?

Barack Obama doesn't just want to fundamentally transform America. His sights are on the world. Many stories are breaking that he aspires to become the General-Secretary of the United Nations. Such talk is no longer Internet rumor.
 
We hear a lot about global government today, and we do not know if this will be represented by the United Nations. Since we are late in the eschatological game, we probably don't have time for another body to rise up and control this world government.
Those who defend the notion of a world government claim that it would be a benign federation of nations structurally similar to our federal government. It is touted as the solution to all of society's ills. We can wipe away war, poverty, and all injustice. There would absolutely be no want. They suggest this would perpetuate global peace and prosperity.The truth is, it would be an Orwellian nightmare.

The Beast
In Revelation 13, John sees the "beast," also called the Antichrist, rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns. This corresponds with Daniel 7. Some kind of world system will be inaugurated by the beast. Many theologians conclude that this will be a one-world government.
It is hard to imagine how such a diverse system of government would willingly subjugate themselves to a single ruler. How would Communism, capitalism, democracy, and Islam all get along? The Antichrist would have the power to make this happen or dissolve all of these systems and blend them into one.  He will have Satanic power to do this.  
When does this world ruler ascend to his throne? Many conclude it will be when the disasters and plagues described in mid-Revelation are playing out in a devastating way. Others feel it makes more sense that he will seize control right after the chaos of the Rapture. 
The current U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon's term is set to end on December 31, 2016. Barack Obama is available on January 21, 2017.
Enter Bibi Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, working with moderate Arab nations, is on record as saying, "Isn't eight years of having Obama in office enough? Eight years in which he ignored Israel. And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardship in the international arena."
Will He Be "King of the World"?

Some are suggesting that if Obama pursues this agenda and gets it he will consider himself "king of the world". Investors Business Daily warned over a year and a  half ago that President Obama wasn't about to spend his post-presidency time building houses like Jimmy Carter. There were signs that he would seek to become head of the U.N. 
An Israeli newspaper recently ran a cartoon with this "king of the world" theme.
 
A covenant will be made with Israel (Daniel 9) and a world body during the Tribulation. The Antichrist will make a covenant, then break that covenant, with Israel, during the Tribulation. 
The U.S. Under U.N. Authority?

Would Obama place the U.S. under U.N. authority? As a presidential candidate in 2007 he wrote, "The security and well being of every American depends on the security and well being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity."
 
For the mostly undemocratic powers represented in the U.N., having a former U.S. President who serves their interests, for all intents and purposes "King of the World," would be a dream come true.  Never has the head of a major world power served in this role. Rules and traditions would likely have to be broken.
 
Addicted to the Roar

Canada's National Post asks, "What post-presidency career would Obama consider worthy of his future attention and efforts? Few jobs of Olympian prestige are available, and his self-admittedly vast self-esteem might diminish the list still further. We agree with a number of other observers that Obama has his sights set on the office of United Nations Secretary-General."
 
Barack Obama will wave a reluctant good-bye. He is addicted to the roar. He will never forsake the spotlight he loves so much.
 
Pinning the Tail on the Antichrist

We are not privileged to know if any U.N. role will be played out by the Antichrist. Those who continually play the "pin the tail on the Antichrist" game are only guessing. 
Only God knows who these end-time king-pins will be. His partner is called the False Prophet. Are they alive and well? Likely so. 
We don't know if this transition at the U.N. will happen in 2017. If it does, Barack Obama will become the most dangerous man in the world.  And possibly, the most powerful. 

The timing of this is diabolical as the world awaits a savior to solve its many problems.

Friday, May 6, 2016

The Plain Truth: Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?

The Plain Truth: Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?: During CNBC's GOP debate, Sen. Marco Rubio attacked the media, suggesting it had covered up the fact that the Benghazi hearings ha...

Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?

During CNBC's GOP debate, Sen. Marco Rubio attacked the media, suggesting it had covered up the fact that the Benghazi hearings had unmasked Hillary Clinton as a "liar." (CNBC)
“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015
These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.
Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”
New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.
In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.
The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”
The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).
(Morell’s testimony contradicts Rubio’s claim on CNN on Oct. 29, the morning after the debate, that “there was never a shred of evidence presented to anyone that this was spontaneous. And the CIA understood that.” On CBS, Rubio also claimed that it was “not accurate” that the CIA changed its assessment, which is also wrong.)
Ironically, the CIA’s initial Sept. 12 executive update stated that “this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest.” But because the report had no intelligence to support it, that language was dropped as analysts developed a theory about a protest, the House panel report said.
In all, CIA analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, both from the media and inside the intelligence community. The Washington Post even had a front-page story on Sept. 12 about a protest preceding the attack, quoting among others, the Libyan deputy interior minister.
Amazingly, the CIA analysts did not gain access to eyewitness accounts until Sept. 22, when the FBI first published an intelligence report on its interviews.
The intelligence community “only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012,” the House report said.
A similar conclusion was reached by the Senate Intelligence Committee (of which Rubio is a member) in its report on Benghazi: “Intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements.”
In an article published in Politico in 2015, Morell wrote:
“We believe that in Benghazi—over six hundred miles away—extremists heard about the successful assault on our embassy in Egypt and decided to make some trouble of their own, although we still do not know their motivations with certainty. Most likely they were inspired by the prospect of doing in Benghazi what their ‘brothers’ had done in Cairo. . . . Still others might have been motivated by the video—although I should note that our analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks. Abu Khattala, a terrorist leader and possibly one of the ring leaders of the attacks, said that he was in fact motivated by the video.”
Hillary Clinton’s statements
10:08 p.m., Sept. 11, press statement:
“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
11:12 p.m., Sept. 11, e-mail to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton:
“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group. . . . Very hard day and I fear more of the same.”
Sept. 12, e-mail recounting phone conversation with Egyptian foreign minister:
“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Sept. 13, public remarks with Moroccan foreign minister on Sept. 13, in which the attack in Benghazi is also briefly mentioned:
“I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.   America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”
Sept. 14, remarks at transfer of remains ceremony:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
Looking at Clinton’s public statements, it is clear she was very careful to keep the attacks separate from the video; the two incidents do not appear in the same sentence (unlike the controversial televised remarks by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice).
For instance, in her Sept. 14 remarks, Clinton devotes one sentence to the “heavy assault” in Benghazi and then another sentence about the “rage and violence” over the “awful Internet video.” She does not say they are connected, although listeners may have gotten that impression.
Speaking before the Benghazi committee, Clinton explained that her private remarks reflected the fragmentary information that was available at the time. “We were not making up the intelligence,” she said. “We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then to share it.”
She added: “When I was speaking to the Egyptian prime minister or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar al-Sharia that they took credit for it. It wasn’t until about 24 or more hours later, that they retracted taking credit for it.”
Clinton also said she was reacting to the continuing turmoil in the region over the video, which resulted in 40 protests around the globe. “I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us, as they did in Tunis, is they did in Khartoum,” she said.
(Update: John Nolte of Breitbart faulted The Fact Checker for not including a reference to Clinton’s conversation with Libyan president and a State Department notice that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit, both of which took place before the issuance of the 10:08 statement. We are not sure what this adds to the picture. Ansar al-Sharia within 24 hours withdrew its claim of credit. Meanwhile, State could not ignore the fact that the video had generated an attack of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.)
(Mark Hemingway of the Weekly Standard offered another critique of this fact check.)
However, Rubio also said that Clinton spoke about the video to the families of the victims. Several family members have asserted this is true.
Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, told Fox News: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, ‘We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son,'” Woods said, reading the account from his journal.
Kate Quigley, sister of Glen Doherty, told CNN:
“I met her when we were at Andrews Air Force base. She spoke to my family about how sad we should feel for the Libyan people because they are uneducated, and that breeds fear, which breeds violence, and leads to a protest. . . . When I think back now to that day and what she knew, you know,  it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”
It’s hard to reconcile these statements by the relatives with the careful phrasing Clinton used in public. (Update: Please read our follow-up column in which we interviewed more family members about what they heard from Clinton.)
The Rubio campaign did not respond to a query. Josh Schwerin, a Clinton spokesman, said, “Rubio’s statement that she ever said the video was the cause is false.”

The Pinocchio Test

Focusing just on the public statements made by Clinton — as opposed to the rest of the administration — one find little support for Rubio’s claim that Clinton told the American people that the attacks were because of a video. She certainly spoke about the video, but always in the context of the protests that were occurring across the Middle East.
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Clinton had a responsibility to be precise and careful in her public statements. One could imagine she would be less guarded in private, referring to claims by an al-Qaeda group even before an official CIA assessment. Rubio is wrong when he says the CIA assessment did not change, given that a Senate report he signed documented that the CIA assessment changed several times and was not set in stone until more than 10 days after the attacks.
Yet family members say that Clinton, when meeting with them in private, emphasized the role of the video when they met her at the transfer of remains ceremony. This was on Sept. 14, after Ansar al-Sharia retracted taking credit for the attack and before the officials at CIA headquarters had analyzed the report from the Tripoli mission chief that there was no protest at the diplomatic compound.
Can Rubio really attribute this to a “lie” rather than the fog of war? A “lie” suggests a deliberate effort to deceive, while the documentary evidence suggests there were few hard answers available then to policymakers. Even the Senate report signed by Rubio says the reports from the intelligence community “caused confusion and influenced the public statements” of policymakers.
Rubio is certainly within his rights to point out Clinton’s contradictory statements — and the remarks of the family members give us pause — but he does not have enough evidence to label Clinton a liar.

Two Pinocchios!

Sunday, May 1, 2016

The Plain Truth: A Colossal Fraud!

The Plain Truth: A Colossal Fraud!: Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-S...

A Colossal Fraud!

Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-Street investors. When the scam finally came to light it unleashed a shockwave of outrage around the world. It was the largest and most far-reaching investment fraud ever. But the evil of Madoff's embezzlement pales by comparison to an even more diabolical fraud being carried out in the name of Christ under the bright lights of television cameras on religious networks worldwide every single day. Faith healers and prosperity preachers promise miracles in return for money, conning their viewers out of more than a billion dollars annually. They have operated this racket on television for more than five decades. Worst of all, they do it with the tacit acceptance of most of the Christian community.
Someone needs to say this plainly: The faith healers and health-and-wealth preachers who dominate religious television are shameless frauds. Their message is not the true gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing spiritual or miraculous about their on-stage chicanery. It is all a devious ruse designed to take advantage of desperate people. They are not godly ministers but greedy impostors who corrupt the Word of God for money's sake. They are not real pastors who shepherd the flock of God but hirelings whose only design is to fleece the sheep. Their love of money is glaringly obvious in what they say as well as how they live. They claim to possess great spiritual power, but in reality they are rank materialists and enemies of everything holy.
There is no reason anyone should be deceived by this age-old con, and there is certainly no justification for treating the hucksters as if they were authentic ministers of the gospel. Religious charlatans who make merchandise of false promises have been around since the apostolic era. They pretend to be messengers of Christ, but they are interlopers and impostors. The apostles condemned them with the harshest possible language. Paul called them "men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). Peter called them false prophets with "heart[s] trained in greed" (2 Peter 2:14). He warned that "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (v. 3). He exposed them as scoundrels and dismissed them as "stains and blemishes" on the church (v. 13).
Those biblical descriptions certainly fit the greed-driven cult of prosperity preachers and faith healers who unfortunately, thanks to television, have become the best-known face of Christianity worldwide. The scam they operate ought to be a bigger scandal than any Wall Street ponzi scheme or big-time securities fraud. After all, those who are most susceptible to the faith-healers' swindle are not well-to-do investors but some of society's most vulnerable people — including multitudes who are already destitute, disconsolate, disabled, elderly, sick, suffering, or dying. The faith-healer gets lavishly rich while the victims become poorer and more desperate.
But the worst part of the scandal is that it's not really a scandal at all in the eyes of most evangelical Christians. Those who should be most earnest in defense of the truth have taken a shockingly tolerant attitude toward the prosperity preachers' blatant misrepresentation of the gospel and their wanton exploitation of needy people. "But we don't want to judge," they say. Thus Christians fail to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24). They refuse to be discerning at all.
How many manifestos and written declarations of solidarity have evangelicals issued condemning abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other social evils? It's fine, and fairly easy, to oppose wickedness and injustice in secular society, but where is the corresponding moral outrage against these religious mountebanks who openly, brashly pervert the gospel for profit 24 hours a day, seven days a week on international television?
Advocates of abortion and euthanasia don't usually try to pass their message off as biblical. The people who say we need to redefine marriage haven't portrayed themselves as an arm of the church. But the prosperity preachers deceive people in Jesus' name, claiming to speak for God — while stealing both the souls and the sustenance of hurting people. That is a far greater abomination than any of the social evils Christians typically protest. After all, what the prosperity preachers do is not only a sin against poor, sick, and vulnerable people; it also blasphemes God, corrupts the gospel, and profanes the reputation of Christ before a watching world. It not only tears at the fabric of our society; it also befouls the purity of the visible church and abates the influence of the true gospel. It is surely among the grossest of all the evils currently rampant in our culture.
In the weeks to come, we're going to be looking at the preposterous claims and false teachings of some of religious television's best-known figures. We'll analyze why a disproportionate number of celebrity faith-healers and prosperity preachers have succumbed to serious immorality. And we'll see what Scripture says about how Bible-believing Christians ought to respond. I hope this series will challenge you to take a more active stand against the phony miracles and false teachings that are being peddled in the name of Christ.