Thursday, January 31, 2013

The London Melting Pot?

They've been saying for a while that immigration has been changing the fabric of the United Kingdom. We can say that about the U.S. as well, but this interesting article from the Guardian in England shows just how much demographic change there has been.

According to the report, Polish is now England's "second language." Again, interesting, because when you hear much discussion about England and immigration, it's usually in the context of Muslims from the Arab or Asian world. But Polish? That surprises me.

I think it's safe to say one thing for sure. It is much easier to assimilate Eastern Europeans into another European country than it is to assimilate other cultures and ethnic groups. And before anyone yells "racist," that's not what I mean and you know it. Or should. It's just common sense and recognition of reality. Some cultures resist assimilation. And in the case of radical Islam, jihad and conquest is on their mind. I don't have to make that up. The adherents are quite willing to admit it up front if you look and listen in the right places.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

More on the Boy Scouts and the "H" Word

I said I would have more to say today about the issue of homosexuality and the National Boy Scouts of America, so here it is. What prompts this is the growing bullying I see in the media and in the culture aimed at Christians and anyone else who holds to a traditional worldview. The Scouts have been under steady onslaught for some time, and I for one have had enough of it.

I was a proud Webelo in my childhood. As a former Scout, and as a Christian who takes the "Scout Oath" seriously, I felt that I had to register my firm opposition to any change whatsoever in the organizations' historic stance on the issue of allowing homosexuals to serve as Scout leaders.

The Boy Scout oath I took as a Webelo referenced "doing my duty to God" and being "morally straight." Homosexuality is not "morally straight." Far from it. A behavior is not and should not be in the same league as an ethnic minority. Many black pastors and civil rights leaders are aghast at how the homosexual lobby has latched on to this notion to push their agenda.

After winning so many victories at the court level in litigation, how Scouting could cave in now is beyond me, and very disappointing. Homosexuals are a small minority of the population, although they yell louder than anyone else and get an inordinate amount of attention. A sympathetic media and entertainment establishment helps them, and the left has been firmly in charge of the educational establishment for years. So you can see there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of indoctrination. But the Scouts won freedom of association in court. And after fighting—and winning—such a hard-fought battle, why throw in the towel now?

If Scouting nationally or locally caves in and drops this prohibition, they will do themselves far more harm than good in the long run. The organization, not to mention the children, will be seriously damaged. They will no doubt lose a significant amount of support from traditional-minded parents (not to mention Christian parents) who are concerned about the moral values being presented to their children.

I realize there is a values juggernaut going on in the culture. But it must be realized that this is driven by the media, as well as by the liberal educational establishment. There is a leftist administration in power at the moment, and no doubt the far left feels this is their time to strike. I think it's accurate to say that attitudes toward homosexual behavior have been changing, but that is not irreversible. Remember how and WHY attitudes have been changing. Traditional conservatives seem to have lost the art of communication, and typically, the worst possible spokespeople make it on the media to deliver what we think and why. Maybe that's by design, but it's sad. We'd better start getting smarter. 

I am a former career broadcaster, news director, and talk show host, so I know how the game works. I urge the Scouts, DO NOT give in to this. Stand firm. You have already won in the courts, and will continue to win in the courts unless there is a sea change at the Supreme Court. The precedent has been set, and courts in general go by the doctrine of "stare decisis." (The decision stands).

Even if, God forbid, general public opinion begins to turn against you, sometimes you have to stand for what is right—no matter what the cost. The traditional, Judeo-Christian point of view is under assault, which is predictable—Jesus Himself warned us that it would happen. But when you are under assault, you draw your sword and shield, and stand. You may be the last one standing, but stand. You will be vindicated in the end.

Two last things: The comments are closed on this post. I am not in the mood to bandy tiresome, invective-filled arguments from trolls and others, and my position on this subject is immutable. It is my blog, after all, and I am exercising my benevolent, dictatorial control of what gets posted here. I think this is only the second time I have ever closed comments on a post. However, given the profanity, obscenities, name calling, threats and other abusive nonsense I see elsewhere when this particular issue is discussed, there is no way in Hades I am going to allow that kind of garbage on The Seventh Sola. I delete and ban rarely, but I won't hesitate to do so if I must pull that trigger.

Finally, I am getting very, VERY tired of hearing the "bigot" word hurled at anyone who opposes homosexual behavior. It's a false charge that is way too easily thrown at people, and it angers me that those who throw the word are allowed to get away with it. The term "bigotry" is applicable if we are discussing ethnic/racial hatred. The term is NOT applicable to moral objections to a behavior, all the more when people are being obedient to their God and the tenets of their faith in determining their position on moral questions. So don't even go there.

We hear much these days on "tolerance." Tolerance is a two-way street. If homosexual activists were merely looking for tolerance, I suspect they wouldn't have much trouble. But they are not content with tolerance. They demand acceptance and approval. They want everyone to say that their beliefs and lifestyle are okay, and they want to stamp out anyone who refuses to go that far. To them, disapproval of any kind is a mortal threat, so it must be silenced by any means necessary.

If they think my direct words and thoughts are offensive and intolerable, wait until they hear what God has to say about it. He's already made His mind clear on the subject, but they're not listening and they don't care. Eventually, they won't have a choice and it will be too late to repent. 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

A Pyrrhic Victory for the Boy Scouts?

As if Bible-believing Christians and believers in traditional morality needed another punch in the gut these days, the latest one comes courtesy of the Boy Scouts of America leadership.

Please read this article from the Christian Post. The article contains the reactions of conservative Christian leaders about the news that the National Boy Scouts organization is considering dropping its prohibition on homosexuals serving as Scout leaders. I concur with Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Al Mohler on this issue. As someone who was a Webelo Scout when I was a child, I have an interest in this matter, and I wrote to the Scouts leadership to express my views. I would recommend that other former Scouts who share our concerns also write. You can send your email to

I use the term "pyrrhic victory" because the Scouts have won the legal battles on this matter up to the Supreme Court. Why give in to such a tiny minority of the population, even if they can scream loud and have the backing of the media and entertainment industry? But cave in they may. You might well make the difference on whether they stand firm or cave.

I will have some more to say on this tomorrow.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Why We Have a Bill of Rights

While the debate over the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is fired up again hot and heavy, I thought it might be useful to remember some discussion from our nation's founding days. The subject: The Bill of Rights—the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

First, I want to link to an an essay on this subject by G. Stolyanov II, who describes himself as a science fiction novelist, independent essayist, composer, author, and actuary. The last name is Russian, which is interesting. But he is quite accurate in his assessment.

The next article I want you to see comes from the Bill of Rights Institute. It also discusses some of the behind the scenes talk on whether or not to have such an addendum to the original Constitution.

I also want to give my own assessment based on study I have done of the founders and some of their other objections or concerns. There was a faction that based their thoughts on the earlier Declaration of Independence, which recognized—indeed, declared—that rights were God-given and were unalienable. That word is not often heard outside political discussions, but like most words, it means something. It means "not to be separated, given away, or taken away." A privilege, on the other hand, is NOT a right. It can be taken through due process of law, like a driver's license.

This was the historic understanding that the vast majority of our Founding Fathers held of rights. Among the founders, there was significant concern that codifying "rights" in the text of the Constitution would lead in future years to the notion that if these rights could be amended into the Constitution, they could be amended right out of it. The other faction, as the articles above noted, was led by James Madison, who carried the day. He managed to persuade people that codifying these rights would ensure that they would be held inviolable in future generations, and that there were safeguards in place to prevent these codified rights from being taken.

From hindsight, I tend to judge the former faction probably was correct. They understood how fickle human beings can be. They understood the fallen nature of man, and they knew that human government inevitably reaches  for ever more power and control over the governed. There are those who speak actively of repealing the Second Amendment, thus opening the door for total gun bans and confiscation. And if it ever comes down to that, I will maintain that this is an incorrect reading and interpretation of the original intent of our Founders. I don't believe that they ever intended for the Bill of Rights to be amended. And it was unusually shortsighted of them to not put a proviso exempting the Bill of Rights from the amendment process.

I am saddened at the lack of knowledge about American history that exists out there. We can blame a leftist-controlled educational establishment. They feed off the ignorance of their students, and they can place their own deeply flawed understanding of our founding documents on to future generations. And that is where we who know better come in. We have to sound the clarion call loudly, teaching the truth about proper interpretation to whomever we can get to heed us. Our very freedom as a nation is at stake.

Two final comments. Get this straight if you don't get anything else straight, and insist that the liberal media (and liberal politicians) get it right even if you have to rub their noses in it. Confront politicians to their faces with the facts, and INSIST that they acknowledge it or face removal from office.


Now to be sure, as a side benefit, we also enjoy the right of hunting and fishing under reasonable regulation. But the federal government has no right whatsoever to infringe on our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Definition time. What does "infringe" mean? Answer: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." That is pretty absolute, and the one right in the Bill of Rights that uses that term. This was ONE right that the Founders wanted maintained, and for the government to keep its hands off.

Left-wing mouth frothers will try to make the idiotic charge that this means we want to see children killed, or that we want absolutely no reasonable restrictions out there on firearms. They love to wave the bloody shirt in order to guilt-trip or whipsaw the public into falling in line with their dictatorial dreams.

This is sheer nonsense. Gun owners agree that the mentally ill should not have them. Criminals need to go to jail for having them. Background checks are worth doing to make sure no individuals convicted of violent crime can carry a gun. There are ample laws on the books that need enforcing. The mental health situation above all needs immediate reform. It is next to impossible these days to institutionalize someone for fear that their "human rights" are being violated. That's partially what drove the "deinstitutionalization" drive in the late 70s and 80s. We're paying for it now.

The hard, cold fact is that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Imanuel and a host of others in and out of government want the American people completely disarmed. They won't give up, and they'll try anything they can get away with. If they can't manage an outright ban, they will hike prices on ammunition, ban its import or restrict its sale in some fashion, make suppliers so afraid of litigation that they refuse to ship ammo to certain states, and a host of other measures. They will do their level best to make it as difficult as possible for folks to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This is ONE battle where conservatives need to be united, and to NOT do what we usually do when we win a battle. Roll over and go back to sleep. We need to be as bloody-minded on this and as determined as the left is to ram their entire agenda down our throats. Never underestimate the tireless, dogged, almost missionary zeal of the leftist true believer. THEY WILL NOT RELENT. They must be defeated, defeated badly, crushingly so, and in such devastating fashion that, like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, they will never be able to take shape again and threaten the West. And even after that crushing defeat—should we be blessed enough to be able to inflict it—will need to teach future generations to keep vigilant. There will always be some great enemy to take the place of the last one. There will ALWAYS be someone else.

It will be that way until Jesus comes again and settles matters once and for all. But for the time being, we live in a fallen world with fallen people. When fallen people given over to their fallen natures end up in positions of power, people suffer. Sometimes enormously.

God forbid we fail to do our duty and let that happen here.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Dan Phillips on A.W. Pink

For today's post, I want to link over to Dan Phillips' recent article on A.W. Pink.

As Dan points out, Pink is fondly thought of by many in the Reformed/Calvinist camp for his book on the sovereignty of God. But Pink was also a man of many quirks and inconsistencies, especially in the latter period of his life when he basically cut himself off from all Christian fellowship and accountability.

And THAT, my friends, is the main part of Dan's post, as I see it. Look beyond Pink to the larger issue. Do we really give God glory as believers by living lives of disobedience to Him?

I think not.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Larry Correia on "Gun Control"

I got wind of this on Mike Huckabee's television program on FNC. If you haven't yet read this article by Larry Correia on so-called "gun control," you need to read it. Now.

It's that good, and spot on in my humble opinion.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Another Legendary BBQ Gone

Today is a mourning post. The legendary Couch's Barbecue in Jonesboro, Arkansas, is no more.

From what I am reading online, the original family sold the restaurant to a new owner back in 2011, and this article was published afterward. Apparently, the new owner was unable to make a go of it. Assuming he didn't change the food or sauce recipe any, it saddens me how a business can be there for generations, and as soon as some fancy new chain restaurant comes to town, the old Mom and Pop places get run out of business. And the food isn't anywhere near as good.

Then later on, people will begin lamenting and bellyaching, missing the old restaurant. Hmmm. Perhaps they should have thought about that when they quit going to it in favor of the new kid in town.

Couch's Barbecue Sauce was stunningly good. Nothing tasted better on pulled pork or charcoal-broiled ribs. I used to go down when I could still travel and bring back bottles. The last time, I had to order a gallon of it because I couldn't travel to AR.

Now, it's gone. A sad day.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Conspiracy Theories and Sandy Hook

Seeing this story about Gene Rosen, the psychologist who sheltered children after the Sandy Hook school massacre, is upsetting.

It appears the poor man is getting harassed by folks who think the school shooting was a government conspiracy or plot intended to change public opinion on gun control, and they believe that Mr. Rosen is part of the plot.

I have a hard time with conspiracy theories here in America, as a rule. We've always had them to some extent. Some have borne out later to be pretty true, such as the Alger Hiss case and communist moles in the State Department. The old Soviet archives revealed that the Congressional Un-American Activities Committees maybe weren't so wild-eyed after all. Yet, other conspiracy theories are the work of complete nut jobs. A lot of discernment and diligent, accurate research is required, and many of us don't have the time.

While I have to admit times where I wonder (sometimes things just seem too convenient in timing), ultimately I highly doubt that there was any such conspiracy at Sandy Hook. The kid was from all appearances off his rocker. But having said that, I also get a bit concerned at those who go off the deep end on the other side, insisting that conspiracies can't and don't happen. Or that it's impossible here in the United States for such a thing to happen.

History shows us (that is if you've studied any history) that this is not true. There is a reason for terms such as "agent provocateur." Remember a little incident in the early days of Nazi Germany called the Reichstag Fire? It is believed by many that the Nazis set this fire on purpose to inflame public opinion. To this day, historians and investigators still debate whether the Nazis did it. Such an incident is called a "false flag" incident. Even aside from that, Josef Goebbels was notorious for vicious propaganda intended to manipulate public feeling.

Outside of a restored relationship with God through Christ—which changes the heart and gives someone a new nature—human beings are capable of anything, especially if they hunger for power and control—and if they are driven by an all-consuming political agenda. To the zealot, the cause is everything, and incidents are only means to an end—completely justified to them if it advances the cause. Both the far right and the far left can, and have, done it.

Therefore, my view is that we ought not to jump to wild conclusions without solid evidence. We're all capable of doing so when we're upset. But don't be naive about human nature either, and the ability of a government to do evil things to gain more power and enrich itself at the expense of citizens. It is not impossible. History teaches us this. It also teaches us that people seldom learn from history.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Spirit of 1776 or Spirit of Rebellion

Let me be clear right at the outset. This post may be controversial to many. Even so, the questions that I will be referencing are important for those of us who identify ourselves as Christian believers. I can tell you quite frankly that I am not sure where I will end up landing on the issue. You'll see why in a moment.

Guns are a hot debate again in American society, pushed to the forefront of the news by another nutcase shooting up a school, as well as by opportunistic anti-2nd Amendment politicians and their acolytes in the media. I am a proud NRA member and have been for years. I am also probably among the last of the generation that had the opportunity to attend a public school where traditional patriotism was taught and upheld in my elementary education years. The leftward drift had begun, of course, but the small town in which I was raised had plenty of old-school teachers still on the job. I am thankful that I grew up to be a patriot who loved my country, and also cherished the great gift given to us by our Founding Fathers—and ultimately by God.

But within Christianity, another debate is out there if you look for it. There has always been a pacifist strain in the faith, with adherents believing any use of deadly force by a believer was wrong, i.e. sin. Others follow the "Just War" doctrine of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas. Many believe that use of deadly force is entirely appropriate in self-defense or the defense of others, interpreting the Lord Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" as applying to personal offenses. That has long been my view.

Complicating this a bit are other places in Scripture where believers seemingly did not resist governmental authority and went to their deaths without trying to defend themselves. Many cite Romans 13 and other places in Scripture where submission to authority seems to be an absolute command. Others see something else in Romans 13—namely, that if the purpose of authority is to "restrain evildoers," and the authority stops doing that and begins oppressing and terrorizing the righteous, then it is no longer a legitimate government and can be resisted. Theologians and teachers I respect come down in different places on this subject.

Some point out that those jailed and killed in Scripture were penalized for their faith, the advance of the Gospel. Christians are not to spread the faith by the sword, and if you are suffering for the sake of the Gospel, then we are to follow the example laid out before us in Scripture and be witnesses faithful until death. But if faith is not the issue and its simply political tyranny, then the door may be open more broadly to resist with force.

Yet others point to the unique nature of the United States and the country's founding values. The Declaration of Independence clearly sets out the right of the people to alter or change a repressive government, and the Constitution—the supreme law of the land—restricts government power. The Founding Fathers would have had no debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Its purpose was—and always has been—to give the people "teeth" to resist a government gone tyrannical. That mindset is in our very makeup, the American DNA.

It is an interesting and troubling question. Kings and Emperors governed largely in the biblical period. There was no government such as America in biblical times with a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. Some theologians today say our Founding Fathers were sinning against God because they rebelled against King George and the British government, and Scripture says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." And to "obey the governing authorities." (Keep in mind the different interpretation of Romans 13 and how far that obedience needs to go)

But if the very supreme law and founding documents of your government recognize a right of the people to resist and overthrow an unjust, tyrannical government, is it then sin to adhere to that supreme law, and insist that your governing authorities recognize it, and be ready to lose their positions if not their heads if they dare try to become tyrants?

God's law outweighs human law, of course. And as believers, in the end we must be obedient to the Lord and not men. Those who fought for American independence thought they were just in their cause, and that God was on their side. No doubt the other side found some justification for their position.

With this gun debate ranging, the question lies—just how far will the Obama Administration and rabidly anti-gun lawmakers try to go in clear defiance of the Supreme Court and of the Constitution? Will they chip away and lull people to sleep, taking away rights bit by bit? Or are they so emboldened that they will try outright confiscation, which they will certainly not announce ahead of time. They'd just do it. And you know as well as I do. There are those who will not give up their firearms, believing it is their unalienable right to hold them. Are those smug, self-righteous politicians (protected themselves by armed guards) ready to take responsibility for the bloodshed that will result if there is a confiscation scheme tried?

What if—God forbid—there does end up being a large-scale insurrection over this issue? What will we as Christians do? Where will we stand? We have enjoyed freedom for more than 200 years, but our sin as a nation and forgetting of God has resulted in the decay of values and morals that has brought us to this point in time. We now have the freedom to worship freely, although even that seems to be losing ground. Are we ready as believers to face persecution and oppression?

What is the right thing to do? I hope and pray that I am not placed in the position that I will have to make that final choice. May the Lord come and take His people home to be with Him before we are put to that test. But we may not be. The thought of bloodshed grieves my heart. The thought of hundreds if not thousands of people being rounded up and put in concentration camps makes my blood run cold. There are some who think there are plans to do just that, and I can honestly find no credible evidence that this is the case (and yes, I've seen all the websites and pictures that claim to document it. I am not convinced). If you fall for wild conspiracy theories, then you lose all credibility and people will not heed you when a real crisis does arise.

Let's pray for peace, and let's pray that cooler heads will prevail. Let's pray that President Obama, Vice President Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the other far-left gun banners will give up their nonsense, and put the focus where it should be—enforcing existing law and doing more to get guns out of the hands of nutcases, plus turning the focus on the forces in society that are causing young kids, teenagers and others to turn into narcissistic, soulless mass murderers. Reform the mental health system and let's reverse this ridiculous "de-institutionalization" idea that has been a disaster. Leave people's 2nd Amendment rights alone, and stop making it harder for the law-abiding to exercise their rights.

I do believe there is one cardinal truth here. It's been this way internationally for eons, and it is the same here, no matter how much the left swells up like puffer fish and deny it. The ultimate intention is to completely disarm the people. And once the people are disarmed, they are sitting ducks to be victimized by whatever government wants to do to them. Right now, government can't. The people as it stands right now have the means to defend themselves. That's why they're so desperate to disarm you. I wish they'd just admit the truth, but they can't.

As a believer, I would much rather focus on spreading Christ's love, teaching Bible and sharing the Gospel with any who will hear. I pray that I will be able to do this for a good many years to come.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Musician Charlie Daniels on Gun Control

Well-known country-rock musician Charlie Daniels, a believer in the Lord and a great patriot, recently penned a column with his views on the push for gun control. Here is a link to the commentary. It's worth reading.

I am going to try to find some time today to address another issue many Christians find troubling—that of whether the American Revolution was biblically appropriate for believers, and what if it comes down to this again? What is the appropriate Christian response? I have a viewpoint, but I remain open and teachable on the subject. In the end, I want to do the right thing, and not to be manipulated by politicians. I may post this piece later today and bump this one, or schedule it to post tomorrow. But it's a question we need to seriously ponder as individuals.

No one wants insurrection. No one wants bloodshed, anarchy, or anything else like it. Above all, Christians want to take godly stances in their viewpoints, actions etc. We do not want to violate biblical commands, nor do we want to disobey our Lord. For believers, our citizenship is ultimately in Heaven, and we are "no longer of this world." But there is a lot of knee-jerk demagoguery on this subject, and very little honest biblical reflection. It's time we do that.

Friday, January 11, 2013

The Emergents are Dead. Long Live the Emergents

Readers of this blog for the past several years know that I have had serious doctrinal and praxis issues with the so-called "Emergent" and "Emerging" Church movements within evangelicalism the past several years.

We have heard of late (sometimes from theologians and teachers I highly respect) that the threat may be waning. I have never believed that. Like most errors spawned by false teachers (and we know who inspires them), the usual pattern is that they get exposed, cause numerous church splits, ignite a raging debate that divides God's people, and after they've gotten the shreds ripped out of them by those who know God's Word, they retreat. But it's only a temporary retreat, sort of like in Lord of the Rings when the White Council drove Sauron out of Dol Guldur in Mirkwood. But Sauron only pretended to flee. He went back to his stronghold in Mordor, rebuilt the Dark Tower, and we know what happened from that point on. A whole lot of trouble.

It's no different with the Emergent, postmodern-driven in the church. They got caught and exposed, whined and moaned, said that we didn't understand them, we're arrogant and ignorant, we're the reason the church is dying, yada yada yada. Some of their prominent leaders in the origins began to distance themselves from the more extremes in the movement. And you didn't hear much for a while. But check this post out from the Stand Up for Truth website. They're baaaaack!

As I suspected would be the case all along, the lull was only temporary and the flight was only a feint. They are the same postmodern-minded folks with the same low view of Scripture, but they're morphing into a new form and using somewhat altered methods of getting their wares out. And they're influencing a generation.

Pastors, youth pastors and elder boards—keep your eyes open, be vigilant and stand your ground. These people won't give up. Nip it in the bud before it starts.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Dr. Ablow: A Generation of Narcissists?

I am a fairly regular viewer of Fox News Channel, as well as several other news and information outlets. I see Dr. Keith Ablow (pictured right) on FNC often, and while I am skeptical of much of modern psychology, Keith often makes sense. I suspect he is more in tune with truth than were Freud and Jung.

Anyway, he just wrote this column for the FNC website. In it, Dr. Ablow wonders if we have managed to raise a generation of narcissists, and how dearly the country is going to pay for it in the long run.

I think he's right. Read and ponder.

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Some Thoughts on the "N" Word by a White

Oddly enough, I think back to the early 70s song by lefty-loved singer John Lennon called "Woman is the Nigger of the World." And I still gasp at it. After all, the "N" word is absolutely verboten as a "racist" term. Unless, that is, a black (or person of color) uses it in reference to another black person.

Now, I have been called "honky" before by blacks, and somehow, I have managed to not be offended and to laugh it off. Racism, it seems, is something that forevermore will have a double standard. And it ought not to have a double standard. If it's racist, it's racist. No matter what the color of the skin.

There's another interesting corollary to this subject. I have from time to time have heard this discussed among whites and blacks both. This might step on a few toes, but I have to be honest. And please keep in mind, the most severe censure I have heard on this—justly—comes from blacks. And it is this. The term "nigger" is reserved for the lowest, most shiftless stereotype one can imagine. It is heartbreaking that it has to be a stereotype. But it is just that. An unfortunate, false stereotype. The actor "Stepan Fetchit" used to get a lot of grief over portraying exactly that stereotype. When you look at the global contribution of African-cultured folks to the world, it is enormous. Because of American slavery in the 1800s, it is often forgotten that Americans did not invent slavery. Slavery has been done among many cultures, and not always dictated by skin color.

There's another fun term. "White Trash." Or how about "Trailer Park Trash." Here again, skin color seems to be the focus of the problem. And it ought not to be. Here's some truth.

Red and Yellow, Black and White, we're all the same in His sight. We have ALL fallen short of the glory of God. We are all of "one blood" according to the Bible, and we ALL are brothers and sisters. We all need to repent, and trust in the Lord Jesus for our salvation. And as a result of our salvation, we need to learn to love one another. Skin color doesn't matter.

When I was a little boy, my mother and I (she still lives with me and is nearly 90, every moment precious) knew a precious black couple. Johnnie and Annie Wilder. When my Mother had to work, she used to leave me with Johnnie and Annie to keep an eye on me. One day, the subject of race came up. (Keep in mind, Johnnie was an old, old man, well into his 80s—and my mother was in her late 40s at the time.) Johnnie reached up, patted my mother on the face, and said, "Miss Rea, when I look at you, I don't see black and white. I just see you."

That was the best, most wonderful, and most poignant, true lesson on race that I ever received. I have never forgotten it. That is why I find it so reprehensible that modern "race-baiters" like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc. get so much publicity, because they get their money and power by perpetuating conflict. And to their shame, they are both publicized as "Reverends." People who ought to spread the love, forgiveness and reconciliation of Christ. Instead, they spread division and anger.

One more lesson from Johnnie. One day, he wasn't feeling well, and we got him to the doctor. He had heart trouble. My mother ended up on the hospital at the same time over another malady. Despite his illness, black Johnnie went to visit my white mother in her hospital room. He was prescient, and he said "Miss Rea, I'll see you on the other side. I'll be waiting for you at the gate. Don't you disappoint me!" Johnnie went back to his room, and went to be with the Lord a short time later. Annie lived a while longer, and then she came down with cancer. We tried to stay with her as much as possible. And that leads me to another aside, one that fills me with righteous rage to this day.

We took Annie to church with us. This "church" I now recognize as a cult or at best, aberrant, because of its teachings. This particular church is strong in the American South (and it's not Baptist, so don't go there). I am no longer part of it in adulthood, and am part of a true, Bible-believing and Bible-preaching church. But we brought Annie to church with us when I was 9 or 10 years old. People actually got up and crossed the aisle when Annie came in with us and sat down. The majority of the people of this church—even though it was in northern Illinois—were people from Arkansas, the American South, where racist attitudes were prevalent. The Southerners could not make it in agriculture down there, so many (including my father) moved North to work in the factories to make a living for their families.

When Annie came down with lung cancer, we helped her daughter, Mattie, take care of her. But we were not able to give her the pain shots she needed. We had registered nurses in our church congregation, so we asked if someone could help. The answer was, "We're going snowmobiling, and we can't be available. She's going to die anyway." Oh, my Lord. Have mercy on their souls. We loved Annie, and the Lord provided to take care of her. She got the pain relief she needed. That year of my life—spent in my youth—was all I needed to teach me about race relations. Love—the biblical love of God—overrode all. And that's all I want to live.

As for me, I'll remember my beloved Johnnie and Annie. "I don't see color. I just see you." And I trust I will see both of them in Heaven, and nothing of this earth will matter. Especially color.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Doug Wilson, Obama and Celebrity Hypocrisy

Doug Wilson is a Christian blogger/columnist I read from time to time, and he always has something thought-provoking to say.

It is no different with this column on celebrity hypocrisy. Actually, Doug addresses more than that, especially the state of our own population here in the United States so easily bedazzled to give up the freedoms we have that have been so hard won in our history.

Read it and think.

Shred the Constitution? Really?

So, you thought I was a wild-eyed loon when I warned in the past (and now) that there are influential people who want to put our U.S. Constitution through the shredder. Well, well, well. Maybe I'm not a loon after all, and this male Cassandra was correct!

Georgetown University law professor Mike Seidman (pictured left) is just one of those people. Read the article and weep. Fox News is interviewing the professor just now as I type and post this.

Seidman bemoans the Constitution being written by a bunch of dead men, calls it downright evil in some provisions, and thinks it needs to be ditched. He bemoans the fact that it's so hard to amend, among other things. I hate to tell the professor, but that's precisely the point, and exactly WHY the Founders wrote it that way. These were timeless principles intended to be preserved, with the rights and liberties of the people protected, and the power of the government strictly proscribed within limits. They realized that the advance of time might make some amendment necessary, but they didn't want some future bunch of power-hungry, career politicians scrapping its provisions willy-nilly. They made the Constitution hard to amend on purpose. And they were wise to do so.

Funnily enough, Professor Seidman says this isn't a "right-left" issue, and he agrees with the NRA on guns. What he doesn't realize is that if he got his wish, he could kiss those guns goodbye along with most, if not all, of the rest of our rights and freedoms.

This stuff is out there folks. And it's being taught to your children, teens and young adults in schools for which YOU are paying. Wake up, speak up, and do something about it!

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Democrats: Constitution be Damned!

I want you to read this Fox News report from my beknighted state of Illinois. My late father (Arkansas-born and bred) used to call it "Ill-annoyed." For good reason.

Despite the clear ruling from the United States Supreme Court that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, and despite the continual polls showing a majority of Americans back that right, the now extremist Democratic Party in the state is determined to say in essence, "Constitution be damned!" They are bound and determined to make otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons, and if they can't take away every gun they possibly can, they'll try to make it as difficult as possible to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

It's kind of funny, in a way. The Democratic Party is really misnamed. They should be called the Left-Wing Dictatorship Party. They applauded former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for upholding the right to kill an unborn child, saying any abortion regulations must not place an "undue burden" on a woman. The "right" to an abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but the very real right to keep and bear arms is. And they have no problem whatsoever placing an "undue burden" on legal, law-abiding gun owners.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats in the legislature who actually believe in our freedom are still in enough of a majority that they can block this nonsense. At this point, I don't know how this will end. I can pretty well guarantee that if such draconian laws are put in place, they will immediately be litigated. I am also pretty well sure that they will be widely ignored. And we will see if the state intends on trying to confiscate guns door by door, and to put a significant part of the population in jail.

There's something else doubly tragic to me about all this. You know human nature as well as I do. I would hope that enough people have at least some knowledge of history. You can only infringe people's liberty so far before there is an explosion. That is precisely what led to the American Revolution and the formation of this country. That is what caused the Founding Fathers to draw up the Constitution that they did, and it is also what gave many great pause about even putting a "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution. All sides recognized that rights were inherent and did not come from government. All sides recognized that it was the government's responsibility to PROTECT rights, not take them away. They understood and believed that rights are unalienable. Government has NO right to take rights away. But some wanted the Bill of Rights to make sure the enumerated rights were "set in stone" for future generations. Others were concerned—in retrospect wisely—that the amendment powers in the Constitution might tempt a future government to try and tamper with the Bill of Rights. A future government might not find certain enumerated rights so convenient for their purposes.

We've heard as much out of many Democrats' mouths, especially that of President Barack Obama. In an unguarded interview, he pretty much said that the Constitution is an impediment to the government. Here is a written article on this, and next is a video clip of Obama's doublespeak. Regardless of all this, the Democrats seem to be making it pretty clear that they really don't care what the Constitution says. (In fairness, some Republicans have played fast and loose with the Constitution as well. All deserve the sharpest condemnation for it.)

But back to my fear and tragic sense. How far is this going to get pushed on either side? Are we going to see violence and bloodshed as a growing number of people come to the view that enough is enough, and they have to resist with force their rights being taken away? Will the government, in its zeal to force its will by diktat, get so brutal that they're willing to arrest, incarcerate and even kill their own citizens for not being compliant enough with the demands of the state? Will the American experiment with liberty finally end because the fallen human nature recognized and restrained by our Founding Fathers (not to mention fear of God) won out at the end of the day? I am not liking what I am seeing. At all.

In the last studio album by Genesis, there is a song called "One Man's Fool." The lyrics ran something like "One man's saint is another man's fool, one man's hot is another man's cool." There are two sides to this debate, with plenty of demagogues to go around. Many are yelling but no one is listening. The one who will "win" the argument seems to be those who can yell the loudest and intimidate the most (or even lay on the best guilt trip).

But on this issue I fear, demagoguery is not necessary. We are in severe danger of losing our very identity as a nation—our very freedom. The Second Amendment was intended as the guarantor of all the other rights in the Constitution. It was to be the last means of the people to defend themselves from a government gone tyrannical. And I cannot think of any right-minded person (especially any Christian) who wants such a situation to arise. God forbid! But we are seeing the fruit of a nation in rebellion against God, and when God lifts His hand in judgment, bad things happen. The people lose all manner of self-restraint, and then come the cries for government to step in and "save us from ourselves." Just the conditions that any slick-tongued dictator dreams of having. "Never waste a good crisis!"

It is no accident that left-wing control of our educational establishment and much of the media has done much to remove the "Spirit of 1776" from as many children and young adults as possible. Steady indoctrination over time, with sometimes even overt mockery of patriotism and the idea that the U.S. is an exceptional nation in world history in terms of liberty and prosperity. Instead, we're raising them to be "good global citizens," and to believe that government is their god.

There is a solution where none of this is necessary. That involves the nation recognizing its sin and rebellion against God, and turning back to Him in repentance. It also involves rekindling the memory of what made America a great nation in the first place. The task will not be an easy one given the hostility and hatred of the opposition. I use those words regretfully and gingerly, but all one has to do is read a Twitter exchange and listen to comments aired on talk shows to see it's not much of a stretch. Christians, of course, have an eternal perspective and hope that goes beyond the events of this world. But that certain promise doesn't mean we will always be spared the trials that earthly life brings. The growing darkness of times like these are hopefully what makes faith shine all the brighter

Ben Franklin is said to have told a woman (in response to her question about what kind of government the Founders had given us), "A republic, madam. If you can keep it." Can we keep it?

That is the ultimate question, and I don't have the answer.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Dan Phillips Remembers Judge Bork

I need make no comment. I concur with Dan's comments completely. God alone knows the heart, but it doesn't look good.

It is tragic Judge Bork never made it on the court due to the defamation campaign against him. It is also tragic that late in life and pre-death, the Judge didn't apply his own Constitutional interpretation philosophy to Scripture.

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

Happy 2013!

The Seventh Sola wishes one and all a blessed, prosperous New Year. May your 2013 be filled with seeking what is most important in life—a saving faith and relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.