America’s Moral Divide

For decades Americans have debated politics.  But today, the deepest and most divisive divide is on morality itself.  We  used to argue about taxes, foreign policy, or the size of government.  But today it is on moral issues.

A newly released Gallup survey reveals a nation that is not merely disagreeing over politics but increasingly unable to agree on what is right and wrong. The results paint a picture of two Americas operating from entirely different moral frameworks, with Democrats and Republicans often holding views that appear almost irreconcilable.  

The numbers are startling.

According to Gallup, 73% of Democrats now view abortion as morally acceptable, compared to just 18% of Republicans.  60% of Dems say changing one’s gender is morally acceptable, while only 5% of Republicans agree.

Notice a trend, Democrats are fleeing from moral constraints while Republicans hold to a more traditional moral equivalency.  81% of Democrats consider gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable, compared to 35% of Republicans.  47% of Democrats view pornography as morally acceptable versus just 19% of Republicans.  Unbelievable is the stat that over half Democrats consider sex between teenagers morally acceptable, while only a small fraction of Republicans agree.

This is not political disagreements, but a moral view of a nation.  Once we were not only a moral nation, but highly Christian.  Not any more, depravity is rampant throughout America.  My eye witness account of this divide occurred a couple of years ago.  In an extremely red county in a red state, a prominent city allowed a drag Queen in the park show to be allowed.  Many of us spoke against this travesty on two occasions before the city council, but to no avail.

I attempted to have a Faith and Family rally in the same city and the same park later that very year.  I was told that the council was not allowing any large groups in the park due to noise issues.  Funny, it was not an issue just two months before.  And my initial contact with the person in charge of the park saw no problem with the event.  The council quickly passed a noise ordinance, so no Christians need apply.  The county was red politically, but the small city had a democratic majority.  Moral divide exists in America even in small towns.

The divide comes when a nation no longer shares a moral code or outlook.  Democrats and Luciferian leftist wish to transform America into a proverbial Sodom & Gomorrah.  The division is so sharp that only a true move of God will ever get the two factions back together.  

America will never be destroyed from a foreign power, but it might be destroyed from within.  That my friends is exactly what is happening in our nation.  Hedonism is the rule of the day in many areas of our country.

Our fight today is not left vs. right, but right vs. wrong.  For Christians, the Gallup findings should not merely be viewed as political data.  They should serve as a spiritual wake-up call.  We as Americans are traveling in two distant and polar opposite moral directions.  

Can America survive?  Only if we right our moral division.  That only comes from a shift back to our Judeo-Christian values.  Prayer and repentance is our only recourse.  

Pray, Engage, and Impact!!

Our Trust Is In The Lord

Stepping back from the disastrous Iran deal, I turn my eyes toward the Lord. He is our sufficiency and in Him I trust. Disappointed and heart broken for all the Iranian lives that have been lost throughout the years with a radical Islamist regime in power.

I never thought Trump would be the one to fall on his knees and capitulate, but he did. Just a few days away from victory against Hamas and Iran, he stopped!, Why? The Bible says ‘can two walk together unless they are in agreement”. Was the Qatari money and the new Presidential plane just too much for a greedy old man with thoughts of grandeur in his heart? Maybe.

It is very interesting that only after a visit, which should have been postponed, to China did Trump seem ready for a deal at any cost. His rhetoric never did match what was happening on the ground. For those who thought DJT was playing three D chess, think again. He lost, America will survive of course, but the relationship with Israel may not, and that my friends is serious.

A learned man once said “Iran has never won a war, but has never lost a negotiation”. Well Mr. Trump your very own words stare back at you.

For those of us who study Bible prophecy, it is God who protects Israel, not the ranting of a prideful man. Yes one day when the next big war breaks out it could be the Ezekiel war of Chapter 38. Iran was never to be totally destroyed, but now, Israel and their God Jehovah must fight for them.

Please be in prayer as a new Middle East is forming. Not sure if America will like it, but it is our doing. Your legacy Mr. Trump that you are so fond of, just took a direct hit. You stand in a long line of failed Presidents when it comes to the MIddle East.

Final note who is out front leading the charge for this deal? Vance not Rubio, very telling. That my friends says it all. Rh

Inside Israel Analysis

Forwarded from Amir Tsarfati, a Messianic Jew, author and former IDF soldier. Great take on the supposed deal with Iran. Enjoy the read. Rh

After several hours of confusion and uncertainty, it’s time to bring some order to the situation.

What exactly did Trump agree to?

The agreement rests on two very lean principles:

“The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to free navigation, and Iran must not possess nuclear weapons.”

Trump has insisted in nearly every other post that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, while simultaneously pushing to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to unrestricted maritime traffic at any cost.

But why was Trump so eager to reach such a minimal agreement? Why did he pressure Israel not to interfere, even at the cost of merging the various fronts and exposing soldiers to greater danger? Why did J.D. Vance, who has opposed military intervention, suddenly move to the forefront while Rubio faded into the background? And why has no one managed to offer a convincing explanation beyond references to the World Cup, birthdays, the midterm elections, and other superficial reasons for this apparent obsession?

Most importantly: What does Trump intend to do with Iran during the 60-day ceasefire he has effectively bought for himself?

It is possible – and I emphasize that this is an informed analysis of events, not verified information—that the answers lie in what took place in Beijing during the visit held last month (May 13–15, 2026).

Trump arrived in China after not meeting President Xi for nine years. Over the previous year, he had reshaped the global economic landscape through tariffs, supply chains, and trade routes in an effort to reduce China’s dominance and push it into a corner. He had even postponed the visit for a month because of the operation against Iran.

However, Trump arrived in Beijing in a weaker position than he had planned. He had hoped to come as the victor over Iran and force China to accept new trade oversight mechanisms, agreements on rare earth minerals, and AI cooperation that would secure American leadership of the global economy.

But the Chinese did not cooperate.

Instead, they threatened escalation and even the possibility of a wider global conflict, particularly through pressure on Taiwan. They were also deeply concerned about the loss of cheap Iranian oil supplies that the United States had disrupted.

As is often the case between great powers, the talks did not collapse. Some significant deals were reached – most notably Boeing’s sale of 200 aircraft to China. But the joint statement was remarkably brief, containing only one key sentence:

“The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to free navigation, and Iran must not possess nuclear weapons.”

Those are precisely the same principles that now define the agreement with Iran.

Trump is persistent and determined to continue building what he sees as a new global order under American economic leadership. After encountering Chinese resistance to broader agreements, he may have settled for a simpler bargain: oil in exchange for a non-nuclear Iran.

Like a businessman honoring a deal, he returned determined to fulfill his part of the bargain.

From that perspective, everything became acceptable: pressuring Israel to lower its profile, allowing Qataris, Pakistanis, and Saudis to serve as mediators, and bringing in J.D. Vance – whom the Iranians and Pakistanis reportedly trust more than Rubio or Witkoff. The overriding objective was simply to secure signatures and an agreement.

If this theory is correct—and if Trump did not simply turn against Israel in favor of Qatar and Pakistan – then Iran itself is not his primary concern, despite the fact that it allegedly tried to assassinate him only two years ago.

Instead, he will use these two months to complete his side of the understanding with China: ensure that Iran remains non-nuclear, after which Israel, America’s exemplary ally, will return to the position it has occupied over the past year and a half.

As for a formal nuclear agreement: if it succeeds, all the better. By Amir Tsarfati

Deal Was Made: A Bad Deal Uninforceable

President Trump: The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow! President DONALD J. TRUMP

As Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne right before the Munich agreement:

“We seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on even more adverse terms than at present.”

Americas chose shame

War will come a little later Amir Tsarfati

For whatever reason, Trump cowered. Mark my words, this war is not over. The West is ceding democracies all across Europe and even in the U.S. The rise of Islam is here. J. D Vance, Kushner and Witkoff are the instigators of this defeat. The art of a bad deal!

Very sad day in America. Rh

Seek If You Have Not Found

BY OSWALD CHAMBERS

EDITION

Modern Classic

Updated

Classic

Seek and you will find. — Luke 11:9

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (James 4:3). What motivates you when you ask? If you are asking to receive things from life rather than from God, you are motivated by a desire for self-realization. Watch out if this is the case. The more you realize yourself, the less will you seek God.

“Seek and you will find.” Have you ever sought God with your whole heart? Or do you merely give a half-hearted cry in his direction in moments of doubt? Get to work. Narrow your interests until they are centered on God. Seek, concentrate, and you will find.

“Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters” (Isaiah 55:1). Are you thirsty, or are you so satisfied with your experience that you want nothing more from God? Experience is a gateway, not a destination. Beware of building your faith on experience. If you do, you run the risk of becoming so smug that you wind up driving others away from God. You can never give other people what you’ve found, but you can make them homesick for what you’ve got.

“Knock and the door will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). The door is closed; your heart is pounding. “Wash your hands, you sinners.” Knock a bit louder; you notice that you are dirty. “Purify your hearts.” This is even more personal; you are filled with sincerity now. “Grieve, mourn and wail.” Have you ever gone before God full of grief about the state of your inner life? Have you gone without an ounce of selfpity remaining inside you, only a heartbreaking amazement that you are what you are? “Humble yourselves” (James 4:8–10). It is deeply humbling to knock at God’s door; you knock with the crucified thief. “To the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:8).

2 Chronicles 34-36; John 19:1-22

WISDOM FROM OSWALD

“When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” We all have faith in good principles, in good management, in good common sense, but who amongst us has faith in Jesus Christ? Physical courage is grand, moral courage is grander, but the man who trusts Jesus Christ in the face of the terrific problems of life is worth a whole crowd of heroes.

Desperate For A Deal

Below is an article I found on a reputable web site that gives a interesting view of Trump’s past statements on the “deal” with Iran. I voted for Trump 3 times, I still support him, but…his constant clambering for the deal of the century is getting old. Time frames, red lines in the sand etc, with no repercussions for Iran will not work. Iran is stalling for time, knowing that the US has mid term elections coming up. Economic restraints weigh heavily on a free flow of oil. I even posted an article about needing to secure Kharg Island for an ultimate victory. Soon we saw a halt in hostilities. Finish the job Mr. President. Your weakness is showing. Rh

A careful review of President Trump’s public statements over the past several months reveals an unprecedented pattern: on no fewer than 37 different occasions, he claimed that a deal with Iran was essentially complete and ready to be signed—what now appears to have been a messaging campaign largely disconnected from developments on the ground.

Trump’s virtual diplomatic campaign began as early as March 23, less than a month after the war began. Speaking to reporters outside Air Force One, he claimed that major points of agreement had already been reached:

“There are major points of agreement—I would say almost all the points of agreement.”

The following day, the president began repeating a familiar theme: that Iran was desperate for a deal. On March 25, he said Iran wanted “to make a deal so badly,” and a day later, during a Cabinet meeting, he escalated the rhetoric, claiming that Iran was “begging to make a deal.” When asked aboard Air Force One on March 29 whether he expected an agreement within the coming week, he replied confidently:

“I do see a deal with Iran, yes.”

As time passed, Trump’s predictions became even more emphatic. On April 6, he said the parties had been “very close to a deal” before a minor delay. The next day, April 7, he announced on social media that negotiations were in a highly advanced stage:

“We’re at a very advanced stage, but we need two weeks for the agreement to be completed and implemented. It’s a great honor to see this long-standing problem so close to being solved.”

When those two weeks passed without an agreement, Trump continued making optimistic declarations. On April 15, he told CNN:

“I think it’s close to being finished. I see it as very close to being finished. We’ll see what happens. I think they desperately want to make a deal.”

On April 17, during three separate public appearances, he claimed that Iran had “agreed to everything” and that the deal would be signed “within a day or two.” On April 20, he posted on Truth Social:

“Everything will happen relatively quickly!”

On April 30, he again insisted that Iran was “dying to make a deal.”

On May 18, when announcing a postponement of military strikes at the request of regional countries, Trump partially acknowledged that his earlier predictions had failed, but immediately qualified the admission:

“There were times when we thought we were very close to a deal and it didn’t work out, but this time it’s a little different.”

It wasn’t.

On May 23, he again claimed that the agreement was “mostly negotiated and drafted, pending final approval.” More recently, in an interview with Axios, Trump blamed both Israel and Iran for undermining his efforts because of what he called a “side fight,” declaring:

“We’re very close to a final deal with Iran. It’s going to be a good deal. I don’t want it to blow up because of what’s happening now.”

The latest installment came last night during a conference call held on behalf of Senator Lindsey Graham, where Trump repeated the promise for the 37th time:

“We’re negotiating right now. They want to make a very good deal. They’re willing to give us everything.”

According to this analysis, Trump’s determination to sell the public on an agreement that has yet to materialize appears to stem from two primary motivations.

First, he is attempting to prevent a sharp spike in global oil prices and major turbulence in financial markets, especially in light of Iran’s official threats to target regional energy infrastructure belonging to the United States and its allies.

Second, Trump appears to believe that by repeatedly declaring in public that Iran is “desperate” and “ready to give us everything,” he can pressure the parties back to the negotiating table and, in effect, create a diplomatic reality through persistent messaging.

Follow The Money Trail

We have seen how European Union has fallen to the Islamic immigration policies allowed by the various nations in Europe. Here in America we too have allowed our values to be put under attack as well. Our main source of invasion has been a money trail to collages and universities. Training and influencing young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh used to say. Below is a link to a fascinating article week worth the long read. Please enjoy Rh

Mapping Qatar’s $400 billion footprint in the US

For the full FFD Commentary click here

Why has a country of just 330,000 citizens that is half the size of New Jersey anda leading patron of the Muslim Brotherhood plowed $400 billion dollars into the United States? This amounts to approximately $1.2 million per Qatari citizen — an enormous sum.

FDD’s Natalie Ecanow has labored for more than a year, collecting the receipts for these Qatari transactions, most of which have taken place over the past decade. But as Natalie notes, $400 billion is a lowball estimate. She erred on the side of caution. If you take the word of Qatari government estimates or even the White House, the total number may exceed $1.2 trillion.

Some Americans may welcome the generosity of the Qatari regime. After all, one could argue that a great many of these investments — spanning energy, defense, biotech and other important sectors — serve to benefit the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens. One could also argue that Qatar, like Japan, Canada, or other countries that sink billions in the United States, simply seeks return on investment.

But Qatar is different. There are more than a few reasons to question the largesse of the Qatari government. At the end of the day, Qatar is ruled by an Islamist, autocratic regime; Freedom House consistently ranks the country as “Not Free” in its annual Freedom in the World survey.1 And Doha’s failure to guarantee the rights of its citizens is not the biggest problem. Rather, it is the country’s tendency to support jihadi causes in the Middle East that raises significantly more concern. The country’s horrific track record in this regard distinguishes Qatar from other Gulf states that spread their wealth in America.

Though the U.S. government has delineated Qatar as a “Major Non-NATO Ally” and has positioned its Combined Air Operations Center at the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, this regime may qualify as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” The regime has sheltered Al-Qaeda.2 It was a patron for the Taliban before the group recaptured Afghanistan, ending America’s intervention there.3

The government is a longstanding patron of Hamas, the terrorist group that plunged the Middle East into violence on October 7, 2023.4 Finally, it is the primary patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global network of violent and nonviolent Islamist groups that seek the downfall of the West.5 Several branches of this network have recently been sanctioned by the U.S. government.

Beyond that, the regime in Qatar has been embroiled in other scandals that should give Americans pause. Qatar bribed its way to hosting the World Cup in 2022. Later that year, the scandal known as “Qatargate” rocked the European Union when Qatari bribes to European parliamentarians were exposed.6 The bribes were reportedly designed to buy influence to rehabilitate Qatar’s image amid reports that more than 6,500 migrant workers had died during the construction of the country’s World Cup stadiums.7

To whitewash these and other offenses, the Qataris wield the Al-Jazeera Media Network, which broadcasts in multiple languages and multiple formats, to spread the regime’s messages.8 Al Jazeera’s U.S.-based affiliate, AJ+, has defied U.S. law for over five years by failing to register as a foreign agent.9

It is for these reasons, and perhaps others, that Qatar’s massive investments in the United States should be scrutinized. Some of these investments include naked influence-peddling — from sponsorship of the annual congressional baseball game to annual White House correspondents’ dinner parties.10 The Qataris spend an enormous amount on lobby groups and public relations, which helps ensure that their investments continue with minimal scrutiny.

Perhaps most disturbing is the massive amount this small Islamic state has invested in American education. Qatar has half as many citizens as Washington, DC, has residents. Yet somehow, it has surpassed China as the largest foreign funder of American colleges and universities. This is baffling. It is safe to say that the regime in Doha is not a stalwart champion of traditional liberal arts education curricula. Even more disturbing: the regime is funding public K-12 schools, engaging American children in the classroom at a young age.

War Update

Trump capitulations on a fantasy deal with Iran has emboldened them to re start the missile launches toward Israel. Once again how does one make a deal with terrorist? This should have been finished. Rh

Israel’s finance minister Smotrich intends to demand in this morning’s security cabinet meeting to turn the equation that Iran tried to create between itself and Lebanon on its head and focus mainly on a strong response in Lebanon. For every Iranian missile, dozens of buildings in Dahieh should be taken down.

According to his equation, two or three hundred buildings in Beirut should have fallen last night. This is much easier, more accessible, and more effective than a response in Iran, including taking advantage of the opportunity with long-term gains for the security of northern residents, like the “money plow” under which the IDF destroys the contact villages in southern Lebanon, so that Hezbollah will beg the Iranians to stop.

Conversely, this could also bring the Iranians to be flexible in negotiations with the Americans, after a month and a half of their insistence and American backing down. In such a case, Trump would also appreciate it, and Israel would again earn points with him for initiative and boldness that change reality. Trump always likes to take credit for others’ successes, and this is not bad for Israel.

Smotrich suggests saving the armaments and efforts against Iran for the moment when we decide to go after the energy infrastructures that will paralyze Iran and cripple its economy. In his opinion, it is a shame to waste capabilities on exchanges of blows within standard equations. In cost-benefit tests, strikes in nearby Lebanon are much more efficient than strikes in distant Iran that are not part of a comprehensive move where you go all the way without limitations.

An interesting thesis. Even more interesting if Netanyahu adopts it or if he has another ace up his sleeve.

(Amit Segal)

Trump on Israel

Seems that Trump is feeling his oats tonight, a deal is a deal but victory is still a victory. Why he hasn’t let israel finish the job in Gaza and Iran. I just don’t understand. How many red lines does he have in the sand anyway, kind of reminds me of Obama. Just a little disgusted with my President tonight. Rh

Trump:

Asked what would happen if any such deal failed “on its merits,” Trump said he would consider a commando raid on Iran.

“It means [one of] two things,” he said.

“Number one, it would mean that possibly we would go in and take care of the rest of the place that we didn’t take care of militarily. Or it would just mean that we would keep the blockade on Iran because the blockade has been probably more powerful than any attack that was ever made on that country.”

Trump says a failed Iran deal could leave the U.S. with two options: military action against Iran’s remaining nuclear infrastructure or continued economic pressure.