This Summer, Brother Jed will be starting a teaching series on the Book of Acts.   It will be held live Every Tuesday at 7am, Starting on June 6th.  Don’t Miss it!

“Trump is General George C. Patton”

I can understand why conservatives like Jonah Goldberg, David French and Bill Kristol remain anti-Trump. They are the literati. Trump in their mind is a hardly literate buffoon.

Jonah Goldberg is General Omar Bradley. Trump is General George C. Patton. Goldberg and Bradley are colorless, polite, courteous, reticent, gentle, dull, dependable, and respect the chain of command. Trump and Patton are colorful, cussing, outspoken, impulsive, independent, flamboyant, glory-seeking and victorious.

   Bradley and Patton were polar opposites personality wise and it is widely known that Bradley did not like Patton either personally or professionally. While Bradley was concerned about gaining a good press, Patton did not trust the press. Patton slapped the cowardly soldier; Bradley reprimanded Patton for doing so.

It took Patton, not comparatively low-energy Bradley, to win the presidency and to be victorious over two political dynasties, Bushes and Clinton’s. Trump was the street fighter, willing to get down and dirty with Hillary.

No other Republican could have carried Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania but Trump. Bill Kristol encouraged the genteel David French to run on a Conservative Party ticket against Trump and Hillary. Such a campaign would have gotten nowhere.

The National Review represented by Goldberg and French has been the primary magazine influencing conservatism since the mid-fifties. The Weekly Standard published by Kristol has been in thick of the battle for neo-conservatism since the mid-nineties.

These literati were battling while Trump was building a crass business empire, entertaining millions with a TV show and often supporting liberal causes. They must see Trump as an upstart and Johnny come lately to the conservative cause. Trump is philosophically more of a pragmatist than a conservative. Yet, he may end up doing more for conservatism than Ronald Reagan.

Brietbart News flashed on the scene in 2007 and eventually supplanted the National Review and Weekly Standard as the loudest voices on the right. Upon the death of Brietbart in 2012, Steve Bannon took over the Brietbart website and last year Bannon became instrumental in Trump’s victory.

Now Steve Bannon is chief strategist in the Trump administration! The National Review and The Weekly Standard no longer have the influence these publications once had. The literati are polar opposites tactically compared to Bannon and Trump. The literati operate as critics of our culture. Trump is a leader determined to Make America Great Again.


   This year we have been introduced to the term Fake News. Daily, we hear about Breaking News. What ever happen to the plain old News?
   When the Soap Operas reigned in day time TV, it used to be said, that you could miss a show for weeks or even months and tune in one day and you hadn’t missed a thing.
Each episode ended with with a cliff-hanger, not ever coming to a conclusion even at the end of a season. Breaking News is the cliff-hanger of Cable News.
   Donald J. Trump has been the leading character since he entered politics. He is the main character and all news worthy events revolve around him. These days the journalists and pundits themselves all want to become part of the drama. One can be sure Hillary is anxious to write herself back into the daily news narrative.

1916 vs. 2017, which is the richer time to live?

   Never Trumper, George Will is at it again! His disdain President Trump is clouding his thinking. Will’s article recently appeared in the National Review [My comments are set off with arrows]:
   Having bestowed the presidency on a candidate who described their country as a “hellhole” besieged by multitudes trying to get into it, Americans need an antidote for social hypochondria. Fortunately, one has arrived from Don Boudreaux, an economist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and proprietor of the indispensable blog Cafe Hayek.
   He has good news: You are as rich as John D. Rockefeller. Richer, actually.
Boudreaux says that if you had Rockefeller’s riches back then, you could have had a palatial home on Fifth Avenue, another overlooking the Pacific, and a private island if you wished. Of course, going to and from the coasts in your private but un-air-conditioned railroad car would be time-consuming and less than pleasant. And communicating with someone on the other coast would be a sluggish chore.
> It was not until into the 1960’s that most Americans would have had air conditioning to >drive across the country in their private cars.
   Commercial radio did not arrive until 1920, and 1916 phonographs would lacerate 2017 sensibilities, as would 1916’s silent movies. If in 1916 you wanted Thai curry, chicken vindaloo or Vietnamese pho, you could go to the phone hanging on your wall and ask the operator (direct dialing began in the 1920s) to connect you to restaurants serving those dishes. The fact that there were no such restaurants would not bother you because in 1916 you had never heard of those dishes, so you would not know what you were missing.
>The average American in 1916 would have rarely gone out for dinner. Wives and mothers >still cooked wonderful homemade meals, likely with fresh baked bread and pies. This was >better than your best restaurants of our day.
   If in 1916 you suffered from depression, bipolar disorder, a sexually transmitted disease or innumerable other ailments treatable in 2017, you also would not know that you were missing antibiotics and the rest of modern pharmacology. And don’t even think about getting a 1916 toothache. You can afford state-of-the-art 1916 dentures — and probably will need them. Your arthritic hips and knees? Hobble along until you cannot hobble any more, then buy a wheelchair. Birth control in 1916 will be primitive, unreliable and not conducive to pleasure.
>If you suffered from depression, which would have been called melancholy in 1916, you >would have likely been advised to, “Snap out of it,” and most would have. Bipolar disorder >was not a term in usage. One would have more likely been considered eccentric. >Respectable people waited for marriage to have sex in 1916 and then they still wanted to >have large families. Granted dental care is much improved.
   You could enjoy a smattering of early jazz, but rock-and-roll is decades distant, and Netflix and Google even more so. Your pastimes would be limited, but you could measure the passage of time on the finest Swiss watch. It, however, would be less accurate than today’s Timex or smartphone.
>People had better taste for music in 1916. Rock n Roll would have been considered to be >noise from the jungle. In 1916, we had the “National Pastime,” Baseball. George Will >would have been happy because Wrigley Field, then known as Weegham Park, was opened >in 1916. The swiss watches were accurate enough, men were proud to have one.
As a 1916 billionaire, you would be materially worse off than a 2017 middle-class American; an unhealthy 1916 billionaire would be much worse off than an unhealthy 2017 American of any means. Intellectually, your 1916 range of cultural choices would be paltry compared with today’s. And your moral tranquility might be disturbed by the contrast between your billionaire’s life and that of the normal American.
>Then the home was a place for culture, likely with a piano as the centerpiece and someone >in your family probably knew how to play it well. People read books by great American >authors like Hawthorne and Mark Twain and, yes, they read the Bible, which is the >foundation book of cultured living.
   Last year, a Bureau of Labor Statistics paper described the life of workers in 1915. More than half (52.4 percent) of the 100 million Americans were younger than 25, life expectancy at birth was 54.5 years (today, 78.8) and less than 5 percent of Americans were 65 or older. One in 10 babies died in the first year of life (today, 1 in 168). A large majority of births were not in hospitals (today, less than 1 percent).
>John D. Rockefeller did just fine without modern medicine; he lived a long healthy life, >dying at the ripe old age of 97.
>Few people today come close to reaching that age. When we figure that more than a >million babies are annually murdered in the womb by their mothers, we may be worse off >today. Certainly, we are morally worse. My wife gave birth to our last two in our home by >choice and we thought we got better care from the mid-wife than the doctors who assisted >in the birth of the previous three.
   In 1915, only about 14 percent of people ages 14 to 17 were in high school, an estimated 18 percent age 25 and older had completed high school, and nearly 75 percent of women working in factories had left school before eighth grade. There were 4 renters for every homeowner, partly because mortgages (usually for just five to seven years) required down payments of 40 to 50 percent of the purchase price.
>An eight-grade education in 1916 was better than a high school education a hundred years >later. Women were mostly still at home serving their husbands and children in 1916. Back >then, many people still gradually built their own homes, adding on as the family increased >in size. Homes were more likely to be passed down through the generations.
   Less than one-third of homes had electric lights. Small electric motors — the first Hoover vacuum cleaner appeared in 1915 — were not yet lightening housework. Iceboxes, which were the norm until after World War II, were all that 1915 had: General Motors’ Frigidaire debuted in 1918.
>Oh my, they did not even have microwaves! How did they ever survive?
So, thank Boudreaux for making you think about this: How large would your net worth have to be to get you to swap the life you are living in “hellhole” America for what that money could buy in 1916?
>We are all thankful for advancement in technology and the material improvements of >modern life. But are folks really better of then when the home was still intact and the >church was the center social life? Aren’t we better off with President Donald J. Trump than >the “progressive” Woodrow Wilson? He was reelected in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out >of war.” Within in a year, he was shipping our doughboys to Europe to fight WW I.


    The left’s use of language to win the “Cultural War” has been so insidious, that I can only conclude that it is satanically inspired.
   One of liberals most successful semantic campaigns is promotion of the so-called “gay” agenda. We end up adopting their language by calling them “gays.” Thus, putting a positive impression on their abominable practices. Even the term “homosexual,” which was not in usage until the late 19th Century, is a morally neutral term.
   The lefts support of “Planned Parenthood” sounds so reasonable and even family orientated, when in fact the organization is anti-marriage and anti-family and their philosophy has led to an alarming high rate of illegitimate babies [bastards].
Other terms the left has cunningly invented or employed to promote their socialist agenda are social justice [who could oppose that?], multi-culturalism, diversity, racism and tolerance. Their creation of new words and their redefinition of old ones are enough to publish a big fat dictionary of political correctness.
   The right has incorporated most of the semantics of the left in the public debate. Thus, losing the first battle of the Cultural War. Conservatives been generally dull in combating this war for words.
   Pat Buchanan is an exception. He thought up the term “Cultural War.” Regrettably, the old warrior was roundly criticized by many fellow Republicans for using this militant language at the Republican convention in 1992. We need more wordsmiths on the right like Brother Pat, if we have any hope of defeating socialism.
   With so many Christian conservatives, the Holy Spirit ought to inspire us to come up with the power words we need to combat political correctness. We can start by restoring the old fashion word SIN to our vocabulary, and in regards to abortion, BLOODY MURDER.
   I attribute the left’s semantic genius to the devil because leftists are really not as smart as they think they are. The talk show host, Michael Savage, has said, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” Savage employs psychobabble against the liberals. The truth is, liberalism is not a mental disease; it is wickedness, selfishness, thievery, etc.
The left was able to win the semantic war by its long march through America’s key institutions, that control the language–the government schools, academia, the media, Hollywood and the music industry.
   Even the church has infiltrated by the language of the left. Many of the Christian colleges founded in the 18th and 19th Centuries have closed, not being able to compete with the tax supported state institutions of “higher learning.” The ones that have survived, endured by implementing liberal jargon and teaching the same curriculum at the state universities.
   Pastor David Coke in his Preface to my book, “All Trumped Up,” identifies great leaders as those who speak a common language. It is not the new language, of social media, millennial’s and academics. “It is the language of the past, the language of TRUTH. Sadly, this language has become extinct in modern leadership and has been replaced with the language of religious and political correctness.”
   Rev. Coke explains, “Donald Trump speaks the language of truth fluently: pronouncing, repeating, pausing, and inflecting, in perfect diction, those words and phrases which describe REALITY. The ‘dictionary’ of this language is the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the lives of those men and women who gave themselves for its preservation.”
   President Trump’s forerunner was Patrick J. Buchannan. Trump is not the wordsmith that Brother Pat is; Trump’s language is the language of a man of business, who is able to communicate to the common man, whose vote put him in the White House.
   Trump is as wise as the serpent, when he calls the leader of North Korea “a smart cookie.” Whereas liberals and establishment conservatives simply see Kim as “crazy.” As long as he is regarded as mental case, he remains a formidable foe. Trump understands that he is dealing with a very calculating young leader, who with his late father has succeeded in manipulating both Republican and Democrat administrations for decades. Trump, who is the master of “The Art of the Deal,” has the craftiness to outsmart the communist enemy, Kim.

Join Mailing List!!


This will add you to Brother Jed's weekly newsletter.

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Campus Ministry USA, PO Box 3845, Terre Haute, IN, 47803, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact


   There are six stages that worldly men will pass through when hearing strong preaching or when observing the power of the Holy Spirit. These steps are mocking, caviling, threating, imprisoning, violent blows and finally, slaughtering.
   We discover these steps in the Book of Acts. First, skeptics mock. When the 120 were filled with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost, they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them the utterance. But some of the Jews accused them of being drunk.—Acts 2:13. However, three thousand souls were converted the same day.
When ridicule did not discourage the apostles, the religious leaders proceeded to caviling by asking trivial and annoying questions usually in a tone of contempt. After Peter and John healed the lame man in the temple, the council of priests asked the apostles, “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”—Acts 4:7.
   Their question implied a suspicion that it was the effect of magic, or, as in the case of our Lord’s casting out devils, by the power of Beelzebub. There is a touch of scorn in the way in which they speak of the healing itself. They will not as yet call it a “sign,” or “wonder,” but “have ye done this?” At no time did they show any evidence that they were happy for the man’s restoration.
   Still the truth continued to prevail. The council next resorted to threats. “What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.”—Acts 4:16-17.
   When multitudes heard the word, were healed and joined the church, the religious leaders became desperate. “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.”—Acts 5:17-18.
After the angel of the Lord freed the apostles, the angel commanded the disciples to start preaching again. Therefore, the Jews were determined to slay them. However, the advice of the more level headed Gamaliel prevailed to give the Apostles a little space. So, the council settled on flogging the apostles and ordered them not to speak anymore in the name of Jesus.—Acts 5:40.
   Finally, Stephen preaches to the council with such conviction that they can no longer bear it. Rather than doing the right thing and repenting, the council rose up and stoned Stephen to death, “the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul.”—Acts 7:58.
   Observing Stephen’s faith and obedience unto death ultimately made an impression upon Saul, who soon after was converted and he became the greatest missionary of all, Paul the Apostle, who in turn experienced mockery, caviling, threatening, imprisonment, beating and finally, beheading in Rome.
And the beat goes on!


    My maternal grandfather, Frederick T. Gelder (1874-1955), was editor and publisher of the Forest City News in Pennsylvania from 1898 to 1955. I have been reading his weekly column, “JUST A WORD IN PASSING,” written over a period of 52 years. I have copies of the column from the last 16 months of his life in our family archives.
My Grandfather held a number of political offices, including from 1924 to 1940, Republican Senator from the23rd District to the Pennsylvania Senate. During his last term, he was elected President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.
   “Because of seniority and his position as chairman of may state committees, he probably wielded more influence in state politics than any Republican of his day.”—Gertrude (Gelder) Bryan
   The following is from “JUST A WORD IN PASSING,” February 11, 1954: “Perhaps the infiltration of government into our lives—even in attempts at helpfulness has sapped from us some of the fortitude, independence and self-reliance of the pioneers.
We have reached the point where we do not just hope, we demand, that the government come to the rescue on any and all occasions. We’ve wandered far astray from the viewpoint of former president Grover Cleveland, who is 1887 enunciated the principle that ‘though the people support the government, the Government should not support the people.’
   It is said that one out of every eight persons in the country is receiving Federal money in one form or another. There isn’t a chance that the country will ever get back to the fundamental proclaimed by that robust Democratic president, but it is well to remember that each and every time the government helps one group it does so only with money it takes from other groups.”


   Donald Trump is daily accused by Democrats and Republicans alike of being undisciplined and off message. “He needs to stick to the script,” they say. They do not understand his satire and irony. If they do understand, they do not appreciate his unique approach to political campaigning. The fact is the Donald is very disciplined and focused on his message. The real problem is that his critics hate his core message, “Make America Great Again!”
   During the primaries he was outspent by many of his more politically prominent opponents, yet he easily defeated them all. Still, the pundits don’t get it.
As an open-air campus preacher, I understand Donald Trump. Much of the criticism of my ministry comes from the Christian community, who should supportive. They say, “Just preach the gospel. We have been listening all day and have not heard the name of Jesus once. Stick to the Bible. Don’t talk about politics, economics, philosophy, psychology, etc.”
   The fact is that I do regularly refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. I repeatedly declare that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The problem is students have ears, but they hear not. They cannot handle it when we smash their intellectual idols and convict their consciences with the power of the Holy Ghost.
   Virtually daily Trump makes seemingly outrageous statements. We preachers are daily accused of being offensive. We mock unbelievers so called life-styles and worldly values. To an extent we are showman. We do not have a captive audience like the professors but at least we do have the ear of the students. With our confrontational style of evangelism, we force the Christian community further and further into the background of irrelevance. They are losing their small corner. They accuse me, “You are ruining everything we have been working for all year.” Their work is peaceful coexistence with humanism and secularism.
   Trump dominates the media. Meanwhile, Hillary stays in the background afraid to duel it out with Trump, which is wise on her part since she does not come near having his charisma. And her message is without substance. It is the same old, same old, from the Obama years and the same socialist’s stuff going back to her husband’s administration with all the scandals. Trump has a new and refreshing message that captures the attention of the populace. “I will build the wall and make Mexico pay for it!”
Trump has to go it alone or so it seems. I have been going it alone for over four decades. Neither one of us are actually alone. Both of us have our supporters but they are unseen. There is a definite method to our apparent madness. But men refuse to see it. They do not want to believe what we say. Trump is a threat to the established order of both political parties. We are a threat to the university because if what we say is true, then most of what is being taught at the university is false.
   Sister Cindy and I understand that the gospel includes freedom from sin. Christians on campus share a gospel that forgives sin but does not set free from the power and dominion of sin. They hate this aspect of Christ’s message, which is the core of his message. When Trump speaks both the politicians and media are worked into a frenzy. He says what no one else dares to say. What he says seems outrageous but in reality it is not. It is so offensive because the abnormal has become the normal in our society and especially on college campuses. Neither Trump nor I accept the politically correct thinking of this generation whether in be in the general society or the church.
When I preach, the sinners and professing Christians are emotionally agitated and rarely engage us intellectually. Just as neither the media nor Hillary will rationally engage the man so loudly sounding the political trumpet.
   I could and I may give further explanation of why I say Trump is a man after my own heart. Since the primaries the politicians and pundits reluctantly admit that Trump’s tactics worked for the primaries but will not work for the general election. We shall see. The campaign is just getting started. “You ain’t seen nor heard nothin’ yet.” Trump is a master at communication. He is a unique in the history of American politics.