Friday, June 29, 2007

Hal Lindsay Seconds That Motion

The following is a column posted by Bible prophecy teacher Hal Lindsey at WorldNetDaily. I think it fits hand in glove with yesterday's post about the dangers inherent in the European Union. While the title suggests the subject of talk radio and the flap over re-instituting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," the real meat and potatoes is what Hal has to say about global governance.

Again, we would do well to listen to the warning, with the understanding that none of this is some "secret conspiracy." These things have been out in the open and well known for decades, but no one takes them seriously or pays attention until it's too late.


Why can't liberal talk radio succeed?
Posted: June 29, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Talk radio is not news, per se, but mostly opinion. Talk-show radio personalities are not journalists in the classic sense of the word. They are commentators who entertain. If the audience doesn't like the commentary and the way it's presented, the show gets canceled.

Rush Limbaugh has a brilliant mind and expresses his opinion in an entertaining way. His vast audience sticks with him because they generally agree with his analysis of the news.

Al Franken is a comedian, not a journalist. He moved from comedy shows to talk radio because his material didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. But Franken failed as a talk-show host because his material wasn't interesting, and his arguments weren't convincing to that audience, either. Other liberal talk-radio hosts may be entertaining, but, apparently, their opinions aren't convincing.

Opinions are funny things. We seek out those that fit our own core values. We tend to filter out opinions that don't confirm our core values. It's similar to the way we choose our friends – because we share common values. The fact liberal talk radio can't find an audience isn't because there's no choice – it's because there is a choice.

We should form our opinions based on raw information. That's the difference between talk radio and hard news. Hard news should be based on facts, not conjecture. If a person can find enough raw facts, he can make an informed opinion.

That's why the Founding Fathers created a free press. So that, given the unvarnished information, citizens can make informed opinions. Talk radio usually attracts listeners after they've already formed their opinions. It's obvious proponents of the Fairness Doctrine believe the average American is too stupid to form a correct opinion in a free marketplace of ideas.

And it's also apparent they feel the correct opinion is the one they hold. After all, the efforts of the "thought police" to shut down conservative talk radio is all in your best interest. So turn off the radio and leave the thinking to them.

It's hardly a secret that the majority of the mainstream press has a liberal bias. The only ones who would claim otherwise are the liberals who make up the majority of the mainstream press – and the liberals in Congress who demand a legislative "fix" to correct the "imbalance" in talk radio.

It's particularly significant that, despite the left-leaning mainstream media, even in cities like New York and Chicago, liberal talk radio still can't find an audience. The hypocrisy of the left in demanding government control of public opinion, even as it ignores mainstream media's non-stop liberal propaganda that favors them, is staggering.

Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in 1933 following a free and open democratic election that gave the Nazis a majority in 1932. What followed were gradual steps toward state supremacy, with each step predicated by some kind of managed "crisis."

The formula used to impose totalitarianism generally follows a three-stage process. It was the creation of the early 19th century German philosopher George Hegel. Called the "Hegelian Dialectic," it's divided into three parts: thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

This was a central doctrine used by Karl Marx and his communist disciples. The thesis is applied when a government wants to implement a policy that faces widespread popular opposition. To accomplish this – the antithesis – the government uses the media to invent a problem or crisis that drives the people to embrace the unpopular policy as the only solution to the crisis.

The synthesis is that the population will be more afraid of the crisis than the solution they did not want. They are then manipulated to demand the policy changes they previously opposed.

A classic example of Hegel's dialectic in action is gun control. To bring about a government ban on certain weapons, repeatedly showcase all criminal use of guns until the problem appears to have reached crisis proportions.

Suppress all incidences in which the private ownership of guns prevented or stopped crimes. Eventually, the public will accept the premise that "guns are the cause of crime," and soon, the population will be disarmed by popular demand.

Does it work? What do you think?

What if even one of the professors in the Virginia Tech massacre had possessed a gun? Instead, the VT massacre provides an object lesson in what can happen when we let the Federal Thought Police do our thinking for us.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Coming Dictatorship?

The following interview and speech published in the Brussels Journal was so good I had to bump the previous post with the transcript below. A serious warning is being sounded, and we'd do well to heed it.


Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-02-27 22:13

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR

In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.
According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.


Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President ValĂ©ry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.
The Teen Sex Case Flap . . . and What's Wrong With It

The wires were humming (no pun intended) with the news that 21-year-old Genarlow Wilson will not get out of jail for a while. This guy was charged in Georgia with having an underage girl perform oral sex on him a few years back. The courts thus far have been unsympathetic to the howls that the ten-year sentence he originally received was somehow harsh for the offense.

We can argue the sentence another time. But for now, I'd rather ask if Genarlow Wilson is remorseful over what he did (the girl ought to be ashamed as well). Does he exhibit a repentant attitude? Is he willing to admit that what he did was wrong? Dare I say the word "sinful?"

My judgment? If this randy young buck is unwilling to admit his culpability, and to try and excuse it on hormones, everyone's doing it, I shouldn't be punished for yada yada...then he needs to get another ten years. Anything other than contrite admission of guilt and repentance needs to be slapped down, and slapped down hard. And that includes his parents, relatives, friends, or anyone else who is trying to downplay what happened. What about mercy? When someone DEMANDS mercy instead of pleading for it, you can't grant it. The very act of asking for mercy implies a mea culpa. Has there been any mea culpa here? I don't know, because the media hasn't filled in the blanks.

Why am I taking such a severe line? Because so many are jumping on the bandwagon to excuse unacceptable behavior. It's like the kid who smarts off to his dad. Even if the dad might have had an initial reaction that was overly harsh, the way to resolve the situation is not to smart off to the dad again, and make like nothing wrong had happened at all. At that point, I as the dad don't care much about who is right and who is wrong. You, my son, are not going to talk to me that way. I am your father. ***SMACK*** There is a reason the Bible says that a younger man is not to speak sharply to an older man, but rather to "appeal to him as a father."

For those who think that such actions are akin to little kids playing doctor (and that's another issue), let me say this. If this young girl ends up with some venereal disease from placing her mouth on Wilson's privates -- not to mention ingesting his semen -- I suppose it won't be such a harmless event then, will it?

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Backward, Atheist Soldiers

By now, many are aware of the recent slew of especially vitrolic books written by militant atheists. They include books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Michelle Goldberg. No amount of ink (or cyberspace) will be wasted in replying to these screeds, but below is a link to a good summary review in World Magazine. As usual, when these rather spiteful people are in their graves, the Bible will still be here, and will be used by God to change hearts and lives for eternity. Were he not dead and probably in Hell, a certain German philosopher named Friedrich could tell you that.

World Magazine

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

A Kernel of Truth

Can two walk together, except they be agreed (Amos 3:3).

I got up this morning feeling very tired. My original idea to post was something along the lines of, "I'm a conservative. Get over it." Or maybe, "I am a conservative because it makes sense to me, having thought about all the alternatives in a rational, sober manner." Then I realized what sort of heated arguments this would provoke, and my world-weariness increased.

Then I saw that little gem from the Prophet Amos, and it's true. Everyone complains about so much division in the world, left vs. right, religious vs. irreligious, pick your poison. But human nature being what it is, we are all simply not going to come down on the same side of the fence in all matters. Sometimes we can overlook our differences, but other differences are too important to us individually just to cast them aside.

Hopefully, we can dialogue about our differences charitably, but human nature intrudes once again more often than not, and we end up making our disagreements personal. In some cases, we view those with whom we disagree almost like neanderthals, not worth our time and beyond contempt. Perhaps that is deserved from time to time when someone is really being obnoxious, but it shouldn't be the case in general.

I often wonder if this might be because formal debate seems to no longer be a part of the educational process. There is a difference between debating an issue and getting in a personal fight. C.S. Lewis and his "Socratic Club" at Oxford was a good example of where people on opposing sides of an issue could meet, read their papers, get critiqued, and then enjoy tea or other libations together afterward with no rancor.

The media doesn't help either. What passes for "debate" programs these days is often nothing more than a voyeuristic shouting match where few facts are on display, and no one really listens to the other. Must not deviate from the "talking points" so carefully crafted by the consultants.

I'd better stop. My blood pressure's going up and I'm feeling rather rancorous.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Barack Obama's Risky Move

Well, he's done it. I was waiting for this one. In case you haven't heard by now, Democratic Illinois Senator (and presidential candidate) Barack Obama in essence called out Christian conservatives during a speech at the annual convention of the United Church of Christ (UCC). He says that conservative Christian leaders in groups such as the Christian Coalition "hijacked the faith." I'll make a few comments after the ones I will quote below:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us."

Didn't Jesus say He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword? Christians are not told in the Bible to be unified around error. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If the good senator is so concerned about what divides us, he might check with his very liberal church, which long ago abandoned biblical orthodoxy. The UCC was among the first denominations to ignore clear biblical teaching on the subject of homosexuality, and ordaining practicing homosexuals into the clergy.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design."

Hmmm. I wonder how he can say this with a straight face? Liberal Democrats seldom miss any opportunity to call conservative Christians "extremists" who want the country to return to the Dark Ages. The two, ahem, ladies who were recently canned from the Edwards campaign (only under duress) for their hateful rhetoric aimed at Christians are a good example. Obama really should be more careful in a presidential campaign and avoid making such stupid remarks, especially when what he is denying can so easily be proven true.

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

Oh, this is rich. Obama has suddenly discovered the Bible, has he? Wonder which translation he's using? Funny how he can cite the Bible against tax cuts "for the rich" as he puts it, yet can ignore what both Old and New Testaments say about homosexuality. But that's the ultra-liberal, postmodern approach to truth. Cherrypick what you like and discard the rest. And for the record, I think you can look at whatever tax proposals put forward by the Christian Coalition (if they indeed did so) and I doubt very strongly that they said that their number one priority was tax cuts for the rich. This is a really old canard about conservatives. Perhaps he should examine President John F. Kennedy's position on tax cuts, which sounds an awful lot like supply-side economics. By the way, Kennedy was a Democrat.

I have always questioned the wisdom and sanity of anyone who would stand under a hornet's nest poking it with a stick. With this new gauntlet he's thrown down, Obama is inviting a swarm down on his head. He obviously doesn't understand the first thing about theology, much less economics. Economics aside, he'd best not try to introduce theology into the debate, at least until he can demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise, he's going to get de-pantsed pretty easily.
A Criminal Government?

So, according to a report on Fox News - based on an investigative piece in the National Review - our federal government is one of the largest employers of illegal immigrants (or aliens, if you prefer). What's wrong with this picture?

This is illustrative of so much that is wrong with our unresponsive government. They have the means through the Social Security system and other agencies to ferret out illegals, but they don't do it. They won't do it. They refuse to do it. And all the while, OUR tax money goes to pay for it all.

Now, what are we going to do about it?

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Why is Approval of U.S. Political Leaders so Low?

I typically don't pay much attention to political polls, but now and then one pops up that interests me. A recent Gallup poll showed approval of Congress at 14 percent. Couple that with approval ratings for the current presidential administration, and you get the idea that the American populace doesn't like it's governing authorities very much. Here's my take on why, and it's non partisan (believe it or not).

Of course, there are other factors, but I think the public is growing weary with what they perceive as the utter unresponsiveness of government to their voices. People demand action in certain areas, and our elected officials turn deaf ears. Historically, when there is massive public ire, politicians have tended to react. But now, even public ire gets ignored. The immigration issue is a good example. Our people overwhelmingly want border enforcement and illegal immigration curtailed, but both the administration and Congress aren't paying much attention other than lip service and shell games.

So what will it take to make our politicians get moving? Thomas Jefferson once said that liberty needed to be watered with blood from time to time, but such a thought frightens me. If things actually go that far and the public becomes that enraged, things could well spiral out of control. Back then, there was at least a Christian consensus in the country and some modicum of restraint. Nowadays, who knows what to expect? As a society, have we become so narcissistic and dumbed down that we'd let anarchy reign, or would we go to the other extreme and not care to get involved because we're too self-absorbed? So self-absorbed we wouldn't see our liberty being snatched away until it's too late?

Whatever the case, I really do believe that our country is in serious trouble. Many of our churches aren't helping any either. Rather than preaching the Gospel - unvarnished - and calling for repentance, they are instead "tickling itching ears," and are actually encouraging narcissism and self-absorption. Pessimistic? Maybe in the short term. I do know that God's purposes will be accomplished in the long term. But that doesn't mean it won't be painful for those of us who are still here to see (and feel) it all. May the Lord have mercy on us.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Three Telling Incidents

I almost had to take a beta blocker today, but I finally calmed down before I wrote this. My ire is aimed thusly:

1. Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York City (I am tempted to call him the American George Soros). So after being a lifelong Democrat who switched to the Republican Party just so he could chassee into Rudy Giuliani's chair, has now decided to become an "independent." While he demurs running for president (nudge nudge wink wink), this is precisely the reason he made this switch. Michael Bloomberg is just the sort of opportunistic political madame the country ought to reject, and reject loudly. Not only is he opportunistic, but he also thinks he can buy elections and impose his leftist views on the country by fiat. Just wait and see.

2. Hillary and Bill Clinton imitating the Sopranos in a recent Internet ad. Boy could I have fun with this one, but I think you can draw all the necessary allusions. I'm sure they thought it was clever and coy, but I think it's actually not far from the truth. Just ask all the people the Clinton machine destroyed in Arkansas and beyond.

3. Jimmy Carter. Oh, yes..the would-be world citizen from Plains is opening his ample maw again. This time, he calls President Bush "criminal" for favoring Fatah over Hamas and "dividing" the Palestinians. A former president of the United States - no matter how inept - supporting the terrorist Hamas?? Fatah historically isn't that much better, but even implying support for the murderous Hamas is unconscionable.

Once again, Jimmy Carter illustrates better than anyone else just why the voters turned him out of office and sent him packing back to Georgia. Every day that goes by and every time he opens his all too loud mouth, he disgraces himself further and further. Someone needs to convince Carter that it's time to go home, raise peanuts and be quiet.

I suppose this shouldn't surprise me any. Carter has long cavorted with the villainous likes of Fidel Castro and other leftist thug dictators. The fact that he's meddling once again in the Middle East and embracing the wrong side should really be no shock. The sad thing is, these murderous regimes only take encouragement when someone of Carter's "stature" pats them on the back. Think the news media will point that out?

Don't count on it.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Progressive? In a Pig's Eye

Today's comment is brief. Real brief. Afte seeing the news today use the term "progressive" to describe liberals (especially the far left), I finally decided that I'm tired of it. All news media do it. Bill O'Reilly uses "secular-progressive."

The term "progressive" implies progress. It's a positive term. But the fruit of extreme liberalism is not positive. It's negative. Regressive. The end result is tragedy and evil. So please, no more "progressive." Call it what it is. Evil libertine garbage.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Saved by Grace Alone - It's Non-Negotiable

If there's one thing you can say about the human race and religion, mankind has been the same since Cain and Abel. In fact, the two brothers whose story is told in the book of Genesis are two prototypical examples of how man approaches God. One of them God accepts, and the other God rejects . . . for a very specific reason.

We even fall into the same argument within Christendom, although we shouldn't. Scripture itself is plain enough on the subject of grace versus human works in connection with salvation. But some insist that there has to be some human work involved to merit God's favor. Such an insistence is damnable heresy no matter how you slice it.

Here is what the Apostle Paul had to say about human works and their inability to merit God's favor:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:21).

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).

We can see from these Scripture verses that trying to add works to the Gospel is a very serious matter indeed. This is such an important issue because it touches on the very sacrifice of Christ Himself on the cross. Any effort to throw human effort, merit, obedience to some command, ordinance or ritual, ANYTHING - nullifies the very Gospel itself and does violence to biblical soteriology. It is an insult to the Lord to imply or state outright that His sacrifice on the cross, His great mercy and redeeming love are not sufficient to buy the pardon of His elect.

What is the Gospel? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the only place in the New Testament where the Gospel is defined. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. Jesus paid it all and did it all. All we can do is believe, trust and be thankful. What about obedience? That is the product of our salvation, not what causes it.

Here is the final warning of God to all who would add works (including baptism) as conditions of salvation . . .

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Happy Father's Day

Father's Day almost always brings bittersweet memories to me. My own earthly father died in 1980. But as I reflected today, I thought I'd do something different than the norm, and wish Happy Father's Day to the most awesome Father anyone could ever hope to have -- God.

After years as a Christian believer, it still boggles my human mind as to why the Creator of the universe would ever bother with someone like me. Beyond that, why in the world would He - knowing me as He does - deign to buy my pardon with the shed blood of His Son, and to make me part of His eternal family purely by His grace and mercy? How many loving things does He do for me day by day - from the tiny to the major - and yet it's often hard for me to find time to take even 15 minutes out of the day to be thankful?

His salvation is a free gift. He calls us to repent of our many sins, and to believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose again from the dead for our justification. Grace alone, faith alone, by Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory.

Lord, Happy Father's Day. We owe to You a debt we could never hope to repay. Help us to love You as we truly ought to love You, more and more each passing day.

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

Friday, June 15, 2007

More on Gaza

As an addendum to yesterday's post, I am going to put up this piece written by former Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer. Spot on in my view.

But before I do that, I have this to say in reply to the individual who tried posting an anti-Israel screed under the name "President Ahmadinejad." I have no problem with people who post in disagreement, as long as it's civil, short and sane. Your Tolstoy novel-length diatribe didn't cut it, and it got deleted pronto. Pull a stunt like that again and I will ban you permanently from posting on this blog.

That said, here's Gary's article.


Thugs on the March
by Gary Bauer

The events of the last 24 hours should be a wake-up call for those who still
think we can talk ourselves out of war or simply walk away from the
conflict. Gaza, just as we and others predicted, is rapidly becoming
"Hamasistan," an Islamofascist terror state.

Israel, under pressure from the world community and from the U.S., withdrew
from Gaza just 21 months ago. The withdrawal was supposed to pave the way
for peace and the much sought after, but purely mythical, "Palestinian
State." The result instead is a "civil war" between the average thugs of
Fatah and the really bad thugs of Hamas. Not surprisingly the worst thugs
are winning. Hamas now controls virtually all of Gaza and is prepared to
implement its Islamofascist agenda.

In Lebanon, once an example of how tolerance might work in the Middle East,
Syria has been systematically assassinating any Lebanese politician with the
temerity to believe in the sovereignty of his own nation. The latest victim
is Walid Eido, who, along with his son, was murdered by the ubiquitous
weapon of choice of the enemies of freedom today, the car bomb.

Meanwhile the U.N. and other assorted diplomats haven't been able to conduct
an investigation of the first assassination, let alone the six that have
taken place since. Keep in mind that this is the same Syria that Republican
James Baker said we need to negotiate with and that Democrat Nancy Pelosi
did negotiate with. It didn't work.

In Iraq, Al Qaeda blew up what little was remaining of the Golden Dome
Samara shrine in an effort to stoke the fires of more strife between Sunnis
and Shiites. Finally, in Israel, a Palestinian woman associated with
Islamic Jihad was nabbed on her way to Tel Aviv to blow up a restaurant.
She was pregnant at the time - with her ninth child.

Pelosi and Reid announced today their plan to push another series of votes
to force the U.S. to "redeploy" out of Iraq. With murderers on the march,
all the Left can think of is how to ensure the failure of the U.S. at war.

Where do they think we will be able to redeploy to? How will a President
Hillary stop the advance of this death worshipping movement? And will
someone please explain to me how we are supposed to negotiate our own

Thursday, June 14, 2007

It's Only a Matter of Time

As the reports flare out of the Gaza Strip, and the factions of Fatah and Hamas gun it out with each other, I have such mixed feelings. One is a feeling of sadness and perplexity at such bloodlust -- a bloodlust that arises out of a mentality (not to mention theology) from whence even young children are taught the "virtues" of hate and killing.

Second is a feeling of grim irony, if that's even the right way to describe it. It's not quite cynicism, but it's close. Here is a group of people that want to fashion themselves as a sovereign nation ready to take their place in the family of nations. They demand a state. They demand self government. They demand this and they demand that. But as usual, if they aren't fighting and killing Israelis, they are usually fighting and killing each other. What was it the Lord said to Hagar? "The angel of the LORD said to her . . . And you shall call his name Ishmael . . . He will be a wild donkey of a man, his hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand will be against him (Genesis 16:11-12).

It's sad. Tragic. Grievous. Most tragic of all, it's only a matter of time before Israel will be blamed for this latest crisis, as usual. I can see the masked, rifle-toting video spokesman now . . . "It's all Israel's fault that we're fighting and killing each other. If every last Jew were dead and Israel was driven into the sea, we'd have our state and the Middle East would have peace. Death to Israel! Death to America! Forever Jihad!" And it won't stop there. Today, their wrath is aimed at each other, and then Israel, and then America. Next will be Europe and whoever else stands in their way of a global caliphate.

I am sure there are many Arabs and Muslims who do not agree with these fanatics or their vampiric bloodthirstiness, but they are afraid to speak up. The radicals detect Western/American resolve beginning to flag, and the power-hungry left is eager to further sap that resolve. What will it take for people to wake up and see this malignancy for what it is? We'd better wake up and soon.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Liberals and God?

The following is a column by Benjamin Shapiro, who writes for WorldNetDaily. While I am posting it in its entirety here, the original column can be seen at that site along with other interesting, provocative commentary. The URL for the WND home page will be at the bottom of Ben's column. I am sure his comments will be the cause of very loud shrieks, but people usually shriek when you puncture a very unpleasant truth. So it goes.


Dreaming of a world without God
Posted: June 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the empty spot where God should be. The American left – and the Democratic Party, as its political representative – has worked tirelessly over the course of decades to cast God from the public square, all the time disclaiming their mission by invoking "tolerance" for all beliefs.

But now the cat is out of the bag. In the aftermath of John Kerry's electoral defeat in 2004, Democrats explained that they wished to re-enter the arena of moral values. During the two Democratic presidential debates, God was mentioned just once, by scurrilous panderer John Edwards; ethics was mentioned once, by Barack Obama, who was disclaiming his association with a lobbyist; morality was mentioned only in the context of America's international "immorality"; values were invoked only by Joe Biden (ironically enough, in touting Roe v. Wade). When Democrats talk about moral values, they mean the Planned Parenthood brochure.

Where's God in the liberal moral equation? Nowhere to be found – and with good reason. The American left now stands for the wholesale displacement of traditional religious morality and the utter rejection of the Divine. "We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion," atheistic commentator Christopher Hitchens writes in his new best-seller, "God Is Not Great." Hitchens, consciously or unconsciously, speaks for the liberal movement.

A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent), abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq.

This, then, is the "ethical life" proposed by the liberals who echo Hitchens: the unethical life of moral lassitude. It is a collective program of moral abdication on the international and domestic fronts. It is the substitution of libertinism for liberty, accompanied by the substitution of enforced fairness for individual freedom.

Liberalism's morality is philosophically bankrupt. Its atheism precludes the human capability for free will – without a soul, we are nothing but mechanistic products of genetics and environment – yet it simultaneously insists on an infinite capability for individual and societal perfection. It asserts the potentiality for a triumph of the will, while obliterating the basis for willpower. It champions the "natural," while maintaining that nature need not dictate social relations. It weds deterministic Darwinism to Marxist utopianism.

Despite liberal ethics' internal contradictions, they have largely triumphed in America over the past 40 years. The same Gallup poll showed that Americans now believe in the moral acceptability of premarital sex (59 percent to 38 percent), illegitimacy (54 to 42) and doctor-assisted suicide (49 to 44). Large minorities believe in the moral acceptability of homosexuality (47 percent) and abortion (40 percent).

A morality promoting licentiousness is a powerful temptation. As a societal morality, however, it is doomed to failure. The consequences of legitimating illegitimacy and abortion have been dire – the plague of fatherlessness combined with the vast killing of the unborn is crippling America economically and demographically. Excusing homosexuality and premarital sex has bred cynicism, jadedness, illness and broken homes.

Forty-three years ago, Ronald Reagan explained that the time had arrived for choosing. "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right," Reagan explained. "Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down – up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

We have witnessed four decades of a punctuated slide down to the ant heap, thanks to the morality of those who reject the possibility of the soul and the righteousness of the Divine moral mission. But it is not too late. It is never too late, as long as the Divine spark smolders in the human heart – the spark that is always ready to burst into a renewed flame of enlightened morality. And no amount of liberal obfuscation and atheistic bluster can extinguish that spark.



Monday, June 11, 2007

God Being Ashamed?

For most Christians, Hebrews 11 is a really wonderful book of Scripture. Here is recorded a long list of "faith heroes" who endured and suffered much over the course of their lives, but were undaunted in their faith. The 16th verse especially has caught my attention of late. Speaking of these faithful believers, the writer of Hebrews says . . . "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them."

I've thought about that for quite a while and I am still thinking of it. Imagine the enormity of the Lord Himself saying that He is not ashamed to be called someone's God. Let's personify that bit. Would I (or you) want God to be ashamed that we were identified as His people? We often hear the term "guilt by association." We also often hear the old saw, "if you were put on trial for your faith, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" As we live our Christian lives, we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). I pray that we will all grow in our faith to the point that we live lives of distinction for the glory of God, so much so that He is not ashamed of us.
Duke Lacrosse Aftermath

Another brief comment to begin the work week. If you've been watching the news, you'll see that District Attorney Mike Nifong is going on trial for his role in the bungled Duke Lacrosse team rape case. By now, everyone is singing the praises of the exonerated team, and is out for Nifong's hide. (EDITED TO ADD: Since my disapproval of Nifong apparently wasn't clear enough for some readers, let me spell it out. Nifong deserves what he's getting for his handling of this case. Perhaps this will help lead to a full investigation and cleaning up of an obviously corrupt system. However, this no-brainer doesn't change the initial point of this post.)

Of course, no one wants innocent people prosecuted for crimes they didn't commit. But there is a HUGE thing that bothers me about this whole affair, and it's not just the false rape charges. Hasn't anyone ever made the point to the boys on the team that they never would have gotten into this trouble in the first place had a stripper NOT been hired for their little soiree? I guess not. Everyone just collectively chuckles that the randy boys at the party were sowing their wild oats. Boys will be boys.

Sorry. I don't buy it. It was wrong to hire the stripper. Period. If they had put on a wholesome party to begin with, no one would have had to worry about false rape charges. I just hope that this whole incident serves as a lesson to other frat boys and college students out there. Behave yourself at the outset, and chances are you'll come through university unscathed, with your reputations intact.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Ocean's Whatever Tanking...

I was just skimming through the Drudge Report when I noticed that the new sequel film, "Oceans Thirteen" (at least I think that's what it's called) is tanking at the box office.

This brings up a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Of course, there have always been sequels in film, but it seems to me like it's getting a bit ridiculous. Regardless of what happened in years gone by, it can usually be said today that sequels seldom measure up to the original. The thing is, there are plenty of good books, good stories, good ideas etc. out there to make a NEW film. Why does there always have to be a sequel? (And I write this as someone who has pitched a few sequel ideas out there)

Sometimes there is a legitimate reason for doing a sequel. Those films usually speak for themselves. But all too often, the only thing motivating a sequel is not the story, but $$$$$. Who cares if the end product isn't worth what it takes to line a bird cage. We hit the slot machine jackpot with the first one, so let's see if the suckers are stupid enough to bite the second time around.

This is one of the reason I like the idea of independent film. They at least try to do something original. Yes, I know that many independent filmmakers go that route to see how much "edgy" stuff they can squeeze in, but that's not the kind of independent film I am talking of.

I'd love to see someone do a modern version of "The School for Scandal," written in the 1700s by Richard Brinsley Sheridan. If they could do it without profanity or crotch, it would be a hoot. Unfortunately, most of today's filmmakers would have have to take Sheridan's original script and write in several pages of profanity, crotch, and whatever other crude device they could think of. Hate to be that cynical.

Come on, Hollywood. Prove me wrong.
The History Channel and Doom

I will make this brief. (Oh, yes..I'd love to write a Tolstoy novel for a post, but things are too hectic at the moment)

I was watching the History Channel this evening. Boy, are they full of doom and gloom. An asteroid hits Earth and wipes out all life. Nuclear war breaks out and wipes out all life, even with only 20 thermonuclear warheads. We're doomed.

Interesting. Of course, none of these gloomy prognostications leaves room for a sovereign God and His purposes for the planet. I could have saved the History Channel's experts some money and told them that the planet indeed faces some rather tough times ahead. But that would be telling, wouldn't it?

The overarching point I'd like to make is this. If you know the Lord as your Savior, things will come out all right in the end. Does that mean you won't personally die due to some conflagration? No. It doesn't. I know that doesn't sound necessarily cheery, but think of how many (and there are many, believe me) have died long before our generation. How many thousands in World War II? How many in World War I? How many in the Civil War? How many in the Hundred Years War? How many in the Middle Ages when the globe was ravaged by plague? Yet somehow the next generation went on.

I know that sounds callous. I don't mean it to sound callous. I want us to have a bit of perspective. I can't do much about how godless unbelievers think and talk. But as believers in a sovereign God, we ought to have something else more hopeful to raise before our fellow men. The Bible has something to say about how this world will meet its denouement. Perhaps we ought to start paying attention to it.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Some Pain Fueled, Grouchy Ruminations

As you read my brief post today, keep in mind that I just had surgery yesterday to put a dental implant in my upper jaw. While I was numbed up pretty well for the surgery itself, the procedure of raising my sinus up with a small mallet has resulted in some significant post-surgery discomfort and a swollen face. So I am a bit owly today.

First, in all the caterwauling over Paris Hilton's naughty little exposed rump being in the slammer, and her supposed "medical condition," don't you think it awfully funny that she was healthy enough to strut her stuff at the MTV awards the night before she went to jail? Now she's sick all of a sudden? For every outburst and squeal in the courtroom, I would have added an additional ten days. I would have also held the sheriff in contempt and ordered him jailed. The mother could do with a few nights in the hoosegow herself.

Second, don't you think it's just a tad outrageous that we have at least 40 Muslim terror training camps in this country, and they're being allowed to operate? Yes, I know. Freedom of religion. Sorry. That specific instance is a type of freedom I am not willing to grant. The rights in the Constitution are not absolute (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre under "freedom of speech"), and I am not willing for the United States to eventually be governed under Sharia law. Nor am I willing to allow a bunch of crazed thugs to train for terrorist attacks on United States soil. Round them up and close them down. This is quite a unique situation. If they're able to shut down neo-Nazi camps in Idaho, they can certainly well shut down these obscenities.

In the last days, because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. Mine hasn't grown cold yet, but I am getting very sick and tired of lawlessness, as well as our feckless "leaders" who are more interested in demagoguery and buying cheap votes than they are in protecting this country and its historic values.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

A Late Spring Night's Dream

I don't know. Maybe it's age catching up with me, but I seldom dream (or more accurately according to some people, I don't remember my dreams). But Monday night I dreamed, and I remember it vividly. It was an odd dream, very odd for me because it was so somber. It wasn't a nightmare, frightening or something surreal, but very mournful. I'd be interested to know what you think of it.

I dreamed that I found myself walking around my late grandparents' final home in Hoxie, Arkansas. The home had been abandoned, but I could see so many familiar things in each room on shelves, but the familiar furniture wasn't there. As I walked around looking at Granny's old mixing bowl and rolling pin, or Grandpa's walking cane and old radio, I also saw old photographs piled up. Some of them I remembered, while others I wasn't sure of. Some of the people in the photos had missing faces. Suddenly, I noticed that tears were running down my face. I saw my late father sitting in one of the few chairs there, and other faceless yet familiar people milling around the house. He was smoking a filterless Chesterfield as usual. He gazed at me blankly like I wasn't even there.

Finally, as I stood there, I knew that something wasn't right. This house was no longer my grandparents' house. I had seen it many times in trips back to northern Arkansas, driving by for simple nostalgia's sake. During one trip, the current owners even let me in to look. It had been altered substantially -- the kitchen was now a bedroom and the dining room was now the kitchen. But in my dream, I was in the house and everything was as it used to be, except for the missing familiar furniture. The old things that were in the house were on shelves like a display.

By now weeping openly, I said out loud, "I can't let these things go. They're mine. They're part of my heritage. They're part of my soul." Then I woke up. Groggily, I looked at the clock on my chest of drawers, and it was 4 a.m. Troubled by what I had just dreamed, I couldn't go back to sleep.

I am not one who usually puts a whole lot of stock in dreams. While not ruling out that good or evil spiritual messages can come through them, I also think a bit of bad pepperoni can cause dreams as well as indigestion. However, this dream means something. Right now, I just don't know what it is.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

A Hoot at John Edwards' Expense

Kudos to James Taranto at Opinion Journal for posting the following in today's Best of the Web:

The Poor Little Rich Boy

Here is one of the funniest exchanges in Sunday's Democratic presidential debate;

*** QUOTE ***

Wolf Blitzer: What is a "rich person," Senator Edwards?

The Lovely and Talented John Edwards: I don't know if I know what a rich person is.

*** END QUOTE ***

Reader Bart Harmon offers Edwards a little help:

*** QUOTE ***

You might be rich person if . . .
-You pay 400 bucks for a haircut, and that's with the ladies' day discount.
- Your house has more square footage than most Central American counties.

- You leave a larger carbon footprint than the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
- Your last three jobs were medical malpractice attorney, U.S. senator and hedge fund manager.
- You can talk easily about two Americas because you own at least one of them.
- You are paid $55,000 an hour to speak about poverty, and that's your college rate.


Wasn't that rich? I sure chortled over it.

Tomorrow, I will have a more serious post reflecting on a recent dream. And it had nothing to do with politics!

Monday, June 04, 2007

Open Theism at Biola?

In a recent "Biola Connections" article, a philosophy professor by the name of Thomas Crisp is featured. Here is a quote from the article:

"Crisp is working on his first book, 'No Time Like the Present: The Case for Presentism.' Presentism is a theory that God operates in the present time, which challenges the classic view of God's relation to time, supported by Augustine of Hippo, that God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. 'It has implications with how we think about God in our day-to-day devotional lives,' Crisp said. 'God literally grieves and rejoices. He experiences the flow of time, and his mental life changes as time passes.'

It is really sad when a respected Christian university's standards allow the advocation of heresy under the guise of "academic freedom." It is one thing to teach ABOUT open theism. It is quite another for the university or a professor in its employ to ADVOCATE Open Theism. For in reality, that is what "Presentism" ultimately is. A derivative of Open Theism. Open Theism, of course, denies the omniscience of God in that God does not know the future. The God of Open Theism is not the God of the Bible. It is really nothing but an effort to pull God down to the level of His creation.

None of this is really surprising, I guess. With the influence of the Emergent Church in the air, it was only a matter of time. Time will tell as to what reaction this gets. With Francis Beckwith announcing his embrace of Roman Catholicism, I am waiting for the day we find out that Christianity Today has decided to merge with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

That's sarcasm, son.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Seething, But....

As I write this very late at night, I can't help thinking of Matthew 24:12 - "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold."

I think I am living evidence of this, and it is something I must fight against because it is not the spirit and love of Christ. Some examples of my gut reaction:

1. Radical Muslim camps (around 30) where jihad is preached. My gut thought..round em' up, close em' down and deport them out. Or execute them immediately. They're planning violent insurrection against "fellow Americans." So why not?

2. Maddie McCann's kidnappers. Electric chair. 2400 volts minimum. Immediately.

3. Sheikh Al-Sadr in Iraq. Ditto. Same for Osama. Find him and kill him. Also that idiot underling with the knot in his forehead. Good target.

4. Palestinian terrorists. It's okay for them to blow up restaurants, kill women and children, launch rockets into Israel willy nilly, but if any one dares even cluck their tongues in disapproval, it's genocide. Electric chair or firing squad for every one they catch.

5 Kidnappers, torturers and murderers of journalists. The current one is the BBC reporter. Hang their "demands." And hang them, one by one, as slowly as possible. And while we're at it, let's hang everyone along the way who gave them aid and comfort.

6. The "mercy killer" Dr. Jack Kevorkian gets out of jail, ostensibly on good behavior and because of very poor health. But he's so sick he has lined up thousands of dollars in speaking engagements. Yeah, right. And his former attorney Geoffrey Fieger (brother Doug is best known for the rock group, The Knack, and it's vulgar hit single "My Sharona") is singing his praises on Fox News as a living martyr. Self murder is wrong, but euthanasia is even worse.

There is probably more venting of my spleen that I could do. But I am reminded of another very crucial Scripture. "The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God (James 1:20). I suppose that could also give me some sort of vengeful pleasure. The thought of all these evildoers burning in Hell for eternity. But then I have to remind myself . . . there but for the grace of God go I.

Does that mean I shouldn't wish evildoers to be caught and punished, and their evil deeds or plans stopped before they bear fruit? Of course not. But I shouldn't let that desire develop into a bloodlust of my own. Given my own fallen humanity, it wouldn't be long before that got out of hand. Thank God that He is just, and that He will not let the guilty go unpunished. Thank Him also that His mercy endures forever, and that He can change even the hardest, wickedest heart. May He begin with mine.

Friday, June 01, 2007

Carter Crashes and Burns Again

I'll say one thing for former president Jimmy Carter. He certainly draws negative attention and criticism, mostly deserved. And he does it seemingly oblivious to the fact that he's shooting himself in the rump each time.

Take a look at the article from the Christian Post linked below. Jimmy wants to "unite" Baptists, and he does it by sticking his thumb in the eyes of the very people he says he wants to unite. Earth to Carter. Bible-believing Baptists are not attracted by liberal theology or liberal social causes that are not necessarily rooted firmly in biblical theology, at least in the way they are carried out or applied. Until you repent of your approval of Paul Tillich's heretical ideas, liberation theology influences and whatever else you've imbibed of late, you're not going to get much of a hearing. Indeed, all you are going to do is provoke more of the division you helped start when you formed your so-called "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship," another thumb in the eye of biblical conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Oh, to be sure, Jimmy will certainly attract fellow liberals and a few, undiscerning "moderates" to his camp, but the biblically astute are going to have their discernment antennae tuned high, and will not be co-opted by such a transparent smokescreen.

Kudos to Mike Huckabee and SBC president Frank Page for deflating this lead balloon.

The Christian Post