[TheRealThing]

President Obama has but one wife, and to my knowledge, was not recorded suggesting that wealth and power enabled a feller to grab a woman's genitalia unhindered.

The folks described in your 2 Timothy passage? They seem to wear the veneer of religion, perhaps a sort of lukewarm, church respectability if you will. The admonition is to avoid them, the warning is that, as tepid water, they shall be spat out: perhaps in "last days" talk they are those whose "love has grown cold" (the single most ignored sign in the littany).

Obviously, the newspapers and television and social media sights give a generally slanted view of events, and a view so shallow and secularized that it cannot possibly lend itself to serious thought or spiritual contemplation at all. A good working knowledge of Scripture, a frequented prayer closet...these help us see with a little depth, and without partisan prejudice. Otherwise, one's thinking and speaking will be nothing but a jumble of absurd political cliches and self-complacent rationalizations which will prove worse than useless.

An example: the roll back of the regulation banning American companies from using conflict minerals such as blood diamonds. I hear an echo of Revelation 18: 11-13 in that, and, therefore, support the ban and oppose its lifting.

Sorry but no, I won't. I do not believe verses 2-4 describe backslidden Christians or Christians whose love has waxed cold, rather these are men as they are in the last days. I did not initially belabor the point by including verse 4, but not one of the 19 descriptive terms used in 2 Tim 3:2-4 would not be applicable to men in our time. 'Unholy' for example, means men will profane God in their conversation, Hollywood loves to profane God. 'Without natural affection' means men will embrace abnormal relationships, do I really need to go into what that means again?

I must have missed the part of the Timothy text that says anything about tepid water and being 'spat' out, the correct verse applicable to that situation is Rev 3:16. At any rate, you seem to have been saying that the true Church either can be or will be, led into some sort of cultic deception. A view with which I completely disagree.
Matthew 24:24 (KJV)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

There are two groups the Bible refers to as elect. The first is the Church, the second is the nation Israel. Matthew 24:24 is speaking of the elect of Israel. They are Jews as yet unsaved, and do not have the spiritual discernment afforded the saved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe it is possible for the true Church to be taken in by any charlatan or false prophet. Paul says the following on the subject;
Romans 8:38-39 (KJV)
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Say what you want, but the forces of death, life, angels, demons, etc., are far more powerful than partisan politics or a dead guy named Constantine who just happened to have legalized Christianity in Rome. Your argument is completely without merit, OR spiritual basis.

BTW, while we're extoling or slamming Presidential moral virtues, did 500,000 people die at the hand of Assad?