In my previous two posts I have been writing about the Satanic influence over the left, guiding their agenda and providing them with power, prompting and enabling them to steal, kill, and destroy. I had intended to write about why God is giving Satan a free hand to inflict such destruction on this country, and I plan to address that topic next.

However, it dawned on me that in describing the devil’s work in our nation I have left out one group that comprises a major element in Satan’s strategy. To some extent, that group consists of those we have come to identify as RINOs, an acronym for Republicans in Name Only, in other words Republican politicians who think and act like liberals, but who for one reason or the other have attached themselves to the Republican Party.

I find two problems with the RINO designation. First, it only tells us what they are not, that is, they are not Republicans in the true sense of the term. I would prefer a designation that tells us what they are.

However, a more significant problem with this acronym is the implication that this group of Republicans comprises a small, marginalized group of Republicans out of step with the party in general, hence Republicans in name only. This constitutes an inaccurate picture. Today, the party leadership, Republican National Committee, a majority of elected Republicans in Congress, and other party operatives all think and act like RINOs, that is, possess a liberal orientation and liberal instincts. Therefore, these people are true Republicans in terms of what the party stands for as seen in its actions and voting record.

In other words, the Republican Party is no longer the party of Reagan. I think of the words of Ronald Reagan, who was a Democrat much of his life, in explaining his departure from that association. He said, “I did not leave the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party left me.” Today conservatives, including evangelical Christians, might say the same thing about the Republican Party. It has left us.

Now we have the Tea Party, which seems to represent Reagan Republican type people, economic and social conservatives including most evangelical Christians. They stand in contrast to what has become the mainstream Republican Party, which is comprised of Democrats in Republican clothing.

What is the essential difference between these two groups? I believe the core distinction resides in cultural orientation.

The Tea Party is primarily committed to a Christian cultural stance. This does not in any way suggest that they are all Christians, but I am implying that in large measure they are driven by traditional American culture which was shaped predominantly by Christianity.

By way of contrast, mainstream Republicans, like liberal Democrats, buy into a non-Christian orientation. They may differ on some economic issues from Democrats, but to a great extent they seem aligned with Democrats in their non-Christian perspectives and attitudes.

The result of this non-Christian, liberal orientation of mainstream Republicans is that they are more closely aligned with Democrats than with Republicans affiliated with the Tea Party. This has become apparent in some of their tactics related to primary elections that reflect that they would rather see a Democrat win an office than a Tea Party candidate. This attitude was clearly demonstrated in the now infamous Mississippi Senatorial primary in which mainstream Republicans employed every dirty trick in the book against a Tea Party Candidate, even though it may cost them this Senatorial seat in the general election. Their thinking is evident. As those hostile to Christianity they feel a closer kinship with Democrat secularists than Tea Party Republicans influenced by Christian culture.

As such, these mainstream Republicans comprise key players in Satan’s strategy in that they continue to maintain conservative support by giving conservatives hope that they will stand for conservative issues. As with Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football, this invariably turns out to be a deception. The devilish dimension of this false promise is that it prevents conservatives from starting their own party, thus robbing them of any real influence.

Since RINO no longer fits mainstream liberal Republicans, what might be a better name?

I got thinking about what has really made the difference between America and a banana republic. The answer is Christian character. Under the influence of Christian culture politicians did not summarily lie, take bribes, cheat, and break laws. Sure, it has happened, as it will in any society made up of human beings. But previously, this has not been our MO. This is the stuff out of which banana republics are made. Now, having abandoned our Christian roots, our nation is sinking to that level. Mainstream Republicans having discarded Christian culture are also functioning at a Banana Republic level, as graphically manifested in the Mississippi election.

So let’s refer to them by a name they have earned: BananaRepublicans.

One comment on “BananaRepublicans
  1. Rhoda Yost says:

    Good name for them.

Have a comment?