The New Mrs. Gunderson

Check out my "new" blog

2011-03-06T21:08:00.001-05:00

If you like apologetics, logic, and me being a theological jerk, come and see Mr. Bultitude. Come on, it'll be fun.

The liberal psyche

2011-01-14T20:51:00.001-05:00

"This, above all things, is what liberals fear most: fear of the responsibilities of freedom. Fear they’ll have to work for and to pay for everything they have for themselves. Fear they won’t be able to indoctrinate other people’s children through government schooling, paid for by forced taxation (upon threat of violence). Fear they might be dependent upon family members some day. Fear they may have to form and to maintain family ties. Fear that no one or nothing actually owes them anything. Fear that someone may not take them—almighty, brilliant, elite them—seriously. Fear they’ll have to have the courage to defend their own person and property. Fear of all the unpredictables of life (Oh! that we should above all things create as many government agencies as necessary—all funded via taxes extorted by threat of violence—to insure us from every uncertainty and contingency of human life: sickness, old age, disability, healthcare, unemployment, climate change, alien invasion, and even conversion to Christianity).

Joel McDurmon

Ron Paul vs. TSA

2010-11-18T17:44:00.001-05:00

Here's one of the few in Washington who recognize what's happening. We are, indeed, cattle fattened for the slaughter.

My Matthew 18 encounter with K-Love

2010-08-22T12:51:00.009-04:00

At this moment last week I was on the verge of posting a nasty message about our K-Love radio station. I even planned to twist their motto into something like, "I am POSITIVE that I will no longer listen to your station and I will ENCOURAGE others to do likewise." I'm glad I didn't and here's why...

My email sent on 8/15/2010:

I was extremely disappointed while listening to 94.1 K-LOVE in Lexington this morning (8/15/10) around 7:00 AM. The station broadcast an interview with Barry Petersen who described his wife's tragic descent into Alzheimer's Disease. I listened intently because my grandmother suffers from the same illness and I was hoping to pick up some helpful advice. All was well until Petersen spoke of his relationship to his wife after her deteriorating condition led to institutionalization. He spoke of moving overseas for his work and becoming involved in an adulterous relationship while still married to his wife. Both of these events were portrayed in a positive light by the story. Petersen even spoke of how some people "judged" him because of his choice to have an intimate relationship with another woman.

As a Christian station, K-LOVE should maintain biblical standards in its programming. This presentation portrayed adultery and spousal abandonment as reasonable ethical choices. Clearly, the scriptures teach otherwise (Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:31-37, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 5:8). While I appreciate that K LOVE attempts to provide helpful information to its listeners, the station should also have careful regard to the content and the worldview it promotes.

I have decided to stop listening to K-LOVE and will encourage friends and family to do the same for the reasons cited above.

The reply received 8/17/2010:

Hello Joel,

Thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking a moment to share your thoughts with us regarding the discussion you heard on the air. I apologize for the delay getting back to you.

After researching this, I can tell you that it was not a K-LOVE program that you heard Sunday. The station at 94.1 is not owned by K-LOVE and while we provide most of the programming on the air, the local station owners have a Public Affairs window every Sunday. I'm afraid that this is what you heard.

I am so sorry for the frustration and disappointment you felt and completely understand your concern over the content of the discussion. I have already forwarded your message to our management team. We WILL be working with them to be sensitive to the expectations of our audience.

Thanks so much for keeping in touch. The Bible says "iron sharpens iron" and we are grateful for input from our listeners. I do hope that you will give us another chance. We strive to be encouraging and God honoring with all of our programming!

In His Service,

Lisa Torres
Correspondence Assistant

I will continue listening to K-Love and the Word of God.

Don't Waste Your Grief

2010-05-02T22:33:00.002-04:00

1. Trust that God is both sovereign and good. Faith will allow you to see this.

2. Think about your death every day. This is the only way to destroy banality and vanity.

3. Live with a sense of urgency. Know Jesus right now. Make Him known to others immediately.

4. Remember that only God and people last forever. Love them both well.

5. Stop asking, "Why me?" and, instead say, "Why not me?" None of us deserve anything good from God. Any mercy we receive - whether it's our next breath or the salvation of our souls - was purchased by the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross.

My thoughts exactly

2010-04-02T22:41:00.000-04:00

Guess who is my new hero?

A balanced, tolerant view of murder

2010-03-22T21:42:00.001-04:00

After American abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in church last year, [Ann] Coulter was asked to condemn the killing by conservative Fox host Bill O'Reilly. She replied: "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others."

* In the photo: Late term abortionist George Tiller "the Killer" with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Joy-Killers

2010-02-13T23:06:00.001-05:00

I call them emotional black holes, mockers, scoffers, or heart-hearted cynics. Probably the most appropriate and user friendly term for them is "joy-killers." Their words, countenance, and mere inflection can take the life right out of us if we're not on guard. I should know. I personally struggle against the impulse to be a joy-killer every day. The school where I teach is infected by them and their sorry attitudes.

Don't get me wrong. Cynicism has its place. A small dose protects us against the peril of naiveté and gullibility. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a little realism in a world filled with fakers who seek to gain an advantage over our uncritical acceptance of their propaganda. The problem comes when the cynical nature overtakes and dominates us. Our jaundiced eyes evaluate all with skepticism and suspicion. Those who refuse to stand back and scoff with us are regarded as blind fools duped by the system (whatever "system" we're evaluating at any given moment). We become the Typhoid Mary of negativity, spreading our contagion to everyone we meet, and sucking the life out of otherwise enthusiastic gatherings.

I have seen this happen up close and personal at my job. Four of the six classes I teach are a delight. The student are generally motivated to learn, have positive attitudes, and most enjoy the time we spend together. Discussions and laughter flow easily. Two of my classes, however, reveal a marked difference. They can be characterized by criticism, apathy, and even fear - fear of making a mistake, of expressing excitement, and of appearing interested in the subject matter. The key difference is the presence of influential joy-killers. I can teach the very same subject matter with the very same methods and the classes without them respond well, while the classes where the cynics reign supreme are an absolute chore to teach. The joy-killers render the class silent, sullen, and bored ... at least that's the appearance.

Interestingly, joy-killers are present in every class, but it's only in those where no positive leadership rises against them that cynicism prevails. Negativity, I have discovered, only dominates in classes where the joy-killers have either great intellect or strong personalities or both.

I've made it my mission to combat the joy-killers. On a personal level, I have to reaffirm my call to teach after every encounter with them. God put me in this place and at this time for a reason and I must not allow Satan to sidetrack His purpose through heart-hearted individuals. Decades ago when I was in sales a manager advised me not to take the criticism of customers personally. It's easier said than done, but the wisdom holds true with joy-killers. It's not me, it's them that's the problem despite their statements to the contrary. I must intentionally and prayerfully transition out of hurt and anger to pity to sympathy for them. I've heard it said that a cynic is an idealist with a broken heart. For the most part, I think this is true. The attitude they exude is a protective front which, left unchecked, will ruin the joy-killer's life. Above all, I cannot allow myself to be pulled into the vortex of negativity. If I don't enthusiastically endorse the subject I teach, who will?

I'm trying to make it a point to compliment and encourage students who display positive enthusiasm. The class desperately needs more of their input. If "what gets praised gets repeated" I must make sure that the joy-bringers are held up as the standard.

I've also made a personal commitment to attempt "converting" the salvageable the joy-killers. I noticed that on one particular day one of my cynics actually had a good attitude and positive contributions for the class. We experienced a wonderful time of discussion and interaction. On the next class meeting the demon returned and it was sour business as usual. I am going to have a private conversation with this on-again-off-again joy-killer and enlighten him about his power to change the character of the class. Fortunately, he's a Christian (or at least claims to be) and will likely be open to counsel. I also intend to separate him from the emotional black hole who sits beside him. (By the way, two negatives don't make a positive. They make a royal pain in the rear.) Whether or not this is successful, I will report in the coming weeks.

As I see it, the real enemy in all of this is fear. The joy-killers fear vulnerability. They fear handing themselves emotionally over to a subject, an idea, or another person. The non-cynics fear the scorn of the scoffers. They fear that their expression will be used against them. The safest path is to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

I wonder if Paul was facing joy-killers when he wrote his letter to the Philippians? It has been called the "Epistle of Joy" by some. His advice to them certainly fits out context, so I'll end with his inspired wisdom: "Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God" (1:27-28).

Political Whoredom 2.0

2010-01-14T20:57:00.003-05:00

The presidential candidate who promised hope and change turns out to be just another dead end political prostitute. No one will be shocked or outraged by this because it's so common, but it was recently revealed that Barack Obama's campaign took in $20 million from the health care industry in 2008. Is it possible that this has influenced the president's decisions of late? Check out this quote from Brad Jacobson at The Raw Story:

Some experts who spoke with Raw Story also noted the rather stark evolution from candidate Obama, who once advocated for universal healthcare and was a vocal critic of mandated health insurance, to President Obama, who excluded single-payer advocates from White House healthcare summits and who has since strongly embraced mandates.

Hmmm... Maybe he's on to something here. This explains why the issue has been phrased in a particular way. Notice the focus of the current debate:

“We don’t hear so much now about ‘health care reform,’” Solomon said. “We’re hearing a lot more about ‘health insurance reform.’ And that is absolutely in large measure driven by the White House.”

What does this mean? The insurance companies should have paid Senator Obama off first. Perhaps then he'd go after the uncompetitive doctors and pharmaceutical companies who are charging the high prices. Doesn't it make more sense to put price caps on drugs and procedures? Isn't that the root of the problem rather than health insurance? (Just so you know: I advocate zero government regulation. My thoughts here are just to illustrate the inconsistency.)

I guess I should be angry, but I'm getting used to this kind of thing. Call me the frog in the kettle.

Church is for sissies

2009-12-31T12:33:00.002-05:00

Where are the young, single men on Sunday morning? Answer: Anywhere but church! According to Bojidar Marinov the reason is that young, single men aren't being engage by the church. Unless they have gifts, abilities and passions that can be directly utilized in the institutional church they have no sense of calling within and alongside the church. It is irrelevant to those who have the greatest potential to impact the world for Christ. Here's how the author puts it:

But then, why would a young man stay in the church? Is there a “male” message in our churches today? Is there a message that gives a young man a worthy cause to work for and to fight for? Why would he stay, to listen all his life to the same sermon over and over again, in many different versions of it? Come back every Sunday to learn—for the n-th time, over and over again—that God loves us? Shed tears over the same emotional stuff every week? Or hear that we live in the “last times” and therefore evil will expand and he can’t do anything to turn the tide? Or that his gifts mean nothing in these “last times,” all he is supposed to do is to “witness” to save a few souls from hell?

There is no message for them. The church’s message concerns only the church and the limited scope of activities that the pastors have declared to be “spiritual.” Any young man with gifts outside the scope of these activities is left to feel a “second class” citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. And guess what: Men are born with the impulse to be first class. This impulse is in the Y-chromosome. They will look for a cause, they will look for meaning in life, they will look for ideas, worldviews, professions, that give them the opportunity to have that meaningful first-class life.

In the world outside the church there are many opportunities to find meaningful life. Jobs, careers, political and social causes, sports, adventures, business opportunities—they all give a man an opportunity to prove himself, to have a sense of accomplishment, to achieve goals. Not long after a young man leaves his family he is drawn to them—and predictably. He is a man, for crying out loud, he has the drive, the inner energy to do something! Why would he want to stay in a church, passive, listening to the same sermon every Sunday that tells him that there is nothing he can do to change the world except snatch a few souls from hell? He is eager to go out there and prove himself in all those fields but then the church is silent about them, the preachers never preach about them and never explain the spiritual value of those jobs, sports, political and social causes, business, etc. in the Kingdom of God. There is no theology for political action, no theology for business action, no theology for social activity. What would a young man do then?

The silence and the refusal of the churches to preach and teach a comprehensive worldview creates a tension; and our young men resolve the tension by leaving the church and going to the world. It is not necessarily “backsliding,” it is not necessarily “apostasy.” It is a perfectly logical response to the deficiencies in our churches’ preaching and teaching.

As long as we have a female church with a female message, our young men will prefer to stay away from it. You only get what you preach. The loss of our sons to the enemy is a curse, and it is our fault we have let our churches truncate the message to irrelevance. Today’s gender demographic in our churches is a product of today’s irrelevant message in the churches. You know a society by its men. If they are gone, then the society has ceased to be relevant to the real world.

Penn and Teller demonstrating Obamanomics

2009-08-16T20:25:00.001-04:00

Top Ten Reasons I'm Glad to Be Leaving "The Ministry"

2009-08-05T22:51:00.005-04:00

It's finally over. After nearly a decade and a half of pastoral ministry, I'm done. No scandals, hurt feelings, burnout, or loss of faith. That season of life simply ended and I've moved on. I'm going back into teaching because "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). I'm sorry I don't have something angry or juicy to report.

Below is my final stab at humor in assessing all these years in THE MINISTRY. I've always despised that term. Even worse is being called THE MINISTER. Last time I checked all Christians are ministers in the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-13). Anyhow ... here are the "Top Ten Reasons I'm Glad to Be Leaving Pastoral Ministry." I'll leave it to you to decide which are serious and which are jokes.

10. I really am annoyed by snoring when I'm speaking.

9. Now I can discover whether or not it is possible to worship God on the golf course.

8. I'm not really all that interested in Bertha's goiter.

7. In the real world, "We want change," doesn't mean "You make something happen without disturbing us."

6. I can finally watch King of the Hill guilt free.

5. Two words: Associational Meetings.

4. Now people will have to learn my name rather than just call me "Preacher."

3. Two more words: Christmas pageants.

2. People will feel at ease to be themselves when my occupation is divulged.

1. No one should be a professional when they're not a very good amateur.

Obamageddon 2012

2009-07-08T11:47:00.001-04:00

David tells it like it is

2009-06-19T09:41:00.003-04:00

Apparently David despised the actions of sleazy politicians as much as I do. Don't miss the next to the last line in this Psalm. I wonder if David had an IRS agent in mind.

Even more I wonder if any modern church would employ this psalm in worship.

Psalm 58

Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly among men?

No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth.

Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears, that will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be.

Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; tear out, O LORD, the fangs of the lions!

Let them vanish like water that flows away; when they draw the bow, let their arrows be blunted.

Like a slug melting away as it moves along, like a stillborn child, may they not see the sun.

Before your pots can feel the heat of the thorns—whether they be green or dry—the wicked will be swept away.

The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.

Then men will say, "Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth."

Another reason I'm glad my kids are homeschooled

2009-05-28T21:40:00.005-04:00

An actual conversation between two teenage public school girls overheard in the Asheboro Zoo this afternoon ...
Girl One: [Looking into the lion enclosure] "They got any tiger babies in there?"
Girl Two: "You gotta have a man tiger for that."
Girl One: [In a tone of confident derision pointing at the male lion] "What's that over there with all that fur around its face?"
Girl Two: [Humiliated silence]

Memorial Day Misgivings

2009-05-26T23:45:00.003-04:00

I hesitate to write on this subject for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, uncaring, a Communist or worse. I am about to question an icon of American culture and I’m sure it won’t be well received by some. Yet, my conscience drives me to speak, so I will regardless of the cost.

I truly appreciate the sacrifice of men and women in the US armed forces. Their valor is admirable. Their willingness to put their lives on the line for a cause bigger than themselves is to be emulated. I have nothing but gratitude and words of praise for their commitment. My only question is: For what purpose did they sacrifice their lives?

On Memorial Day we remember those who have died to “preserve our freedom,” but, if we’re honest, can we really conclude that’s what they gave their lives for? How many wars fought under the banner of the US flag were genuinely for the sake of our liberty? I can only think of three: the War for Independence; the War for Southern Independence (erroneously called a civil war); and possibly World War II. (I say “possibly” because the Freedom of Information Act of the mid-1990s revealed FDR’s eight-step plan to manipulate Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor.) American freedom was seriously threatened only in these wars. One could reasonably argue that all the rest were fought for economic or territorial interests. The past 100 hundred years in particular have witnessed the deployment, maiming, and death of our troops for the expansion of the US empire, imposing its hegemony across the globe.

I fear that Memorial Day instills a healthy remembrance, but also a malignant forgetfulness. We should remember the heroic actions of our soldiers. A day may come when we too will have the choice to lay down our lives for others or to preserve ourselves at the expense of a noble cause. The blanket honoring of our fallen warriors in all wars on Memorial Day, however, lulls us into a forgetful stupor. We no longer ask if our troops were or are fighting just wars. We take it as a given that we’re always on the side of righteousness and all of our enemies are on the side of evil. In our desire to honor the valiant dead we vindicate all of America’s battles in every generation. Healthy introspection disappears in flag waving jingoism.

This past Sunday I was struck by the power of remembrance during our Memorial Day worship service. In numerous places God calls His people to remember the past so as to determine their present and future actions. The Israelites were commanded to remember that the LORD God had delivered them with a mighty hand out of Egypt. The purpose was so that they’d never bow the knee to idols and false gods. Jesus told His disciples to remember His crucified body and shed blood through the broken bread and poured out cup. They were to follow their Master’s lead by offering their lives sacrificially for the Gospel. Remembering shapes us and guides our forward vision.

Is it possible that our government’s promotion of Memorial Day has power over us as well? Might the patriotic fervor be a tool bending us to the politicians’ will? Perhaps what we experience each year prepares masses of young men and women to throw their bodies beneath the national juggernaut in the name of liberty, but really to fuel their overlords’ insatiable lust for power. Our soldiers’ courage is stirring, but the rightness of the federal cause is suspect.

The coming economic catastrophe

2009-05-26T20:43:00.002-04:00

I'm not trying to scare you, but preparation is probably a good idea at this point. We cannot escape the financial tsunami created by the federal government. Thanks George. Much obliged Barry.

“The Body’s” Inconsistency

2009-05-23T16:13:00.006-04:00

The longer I live, the more I recognize how few people think through their beliefs and actions. It’s as if folks have so compartmentalized their own knowledge, values, and behaviors that it’s quite okay if there’s a complete disconnect between them. In a reasonable culture one would expect a congruency flowing from affirmation to action. More often than not I find inconsistency.

Take for example Christians, the born again types who think that government sponsored torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) is perfectly acceptable. Generally, evangelicals uphold faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. They tend to affirm the authority of the Bible and especially the teachings of Christ. How can these same Christians endorse the use of torture against our enemies? God says love, bless, pray for, and do good to your enemies. Torture is in direct opposition to God’s explicit word, yet, if (conservative) government says it’s okay, evangelicals loudly voice their approval. Isn’t there an inconsistency here?

I think the problem may be with how Christians view law. There are basically two camps regarding what does and does not constitute law in our nation. On the one hand there’s the natural rights theory of law. Advocates of this view confess that our Creator invested each human being with the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The role of law is to protect the natural rights of man. According this theory the only responsibility of government is to pass and execute laws that protect natural rights and judge between men with fairness in this regard. This was the perspective of our Founding Fathers, as is evident in an honest reading of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

The other camp is called legal positivism. This view says that law is whatever the government decides it will be. In other words, people who are elected to, placed in, or attain by force a position of authority have the right to decide what is and is not law. This is the prevailing understanding of law in America today. It’s easy to see the flaw of legal positivism. Authority could actually (and does) pass laws which deprive people of life, liberty, and property and a legal positivist would have to affirm that it’s just no matter the context. It is this pragmatic view of law that opened the door for acceptance of torture.

Let’s think about this for a second. Which perspective on law would a rational person expect Christians to adopt? Natural rights would be my guess. How then do we make sense of evangelicals saying torture is right when the (conservative) government says its okay? It’s nothing less than the affirmation of legal positivism, which Christians abhor when such legal decisions flow from a liberal administration. If it’s okay for Bush to order the torture of terrorist suspects though it violates God’s clear commands, why not affirm Obama’s advocacy of abortion rights and stem cell research though such practices violate God’s word too? Do you see the inconsistency? I conclude that in the minds of many born again Christians God’s word and the GOP’s word are the same.

I started thinking about this after hearing the comments of Jesse “The Body” Ventura on Fox and Friends. He expressed opposition to torture more eloquently than I have yet heard it conveyed. He reasoned that we’re a nation under law and that we’re better than the terrorists and should not use their techniques. I wholeheartedly agreed with Jesse on his points. I don’t think 9/11 was an inside job as he hinted, but his comments on torture hit the nail on the head. Ventura brings a much needed libertarian opinion to the table. He believes that the natural rights of man exclude a government from inflicting torture.

As the program continued, however, Jesse let slip a perspective that I not only disagreed with, but felt conflicts with a libertarian view of natural rights theory. Somehow the conversation turned to the dreaded Swine Flu. At this point, Jesse seized an opportunity to call evolution deniers idiots because the current strain of influenza “proves” evolutionary theory.

He’s wrong of course. For the most part a virus is a chunk of protein. When new strains arise it is evidence of mutation, not evolution. A new species has not resulted from a previously existing species. It’s questionable whether a virus can even be classified as “alive.” They do not respire (breathe) or consume water and nutrients like true organisms. They do reproduce but only by binding with the genetic material of host cells. Viral change is more akin to the tweaking of a strand of protein than evolution of a species as scientists typically describe it.

Not only did Jesse reveal a misunderstanding of science and a dislike for people of faith, but also a glaring inconstancy in his worldview. If he affirms evolutionary theory, how can he simultaneously maintain a libertarian political ideology? Libertarians promote law based on natural rights. There must be a Creator if natural rights are anything more than a human construct. Evolution and creation are incompatible theories. Evolutionary theory says that blind, random, undirected, natural processes over eons of time produced life as we know it on this planet. Creationism says that a purposeful God directed the formation of the universe, the existence of living things on Earth, and the creation of mankind in His image. Natural law flows logically from a creationist perspective. Legal positivism arises more easily from an evolutionary paradigm.

For Jesse to be consistent with his confession of evolution and hatred for creation he should reject natural rights and libertarianism. The torture which he rightly abhors fits nicely into an evolutionary perspective. After all, the stronger, smarter, well-adapted creatures survive in his chosen scheme. In this case, the evolutionarily superior Americans should torture and eliminate inferior ethnic and religious groups from which terrorists arise. Isn’t that survival of the fittest? Domination by the powerful is the logical outworking of evolution, not natural rights.

I find libertarianism to be extremely consistent with a Christian worldview. I can affirm natural rights because I believe we were all created in God’s image. The Bible tells me to love my neighbor and love my enemies. Libertarianism promotes the same agenda in political and economic spheres. The scriptures say that mankind is inherently sinful. Libertarians insist that free markets without the constraints of government intervention provide the best means for sinners to interact with and serve one another outside of a religious faith. A nation governed by natural rights theory of law would ensure that Christians (along with people of any faith) be able to live a quiet life, love and serve their neighbors, worship their God, and proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ without “lording it over” unbelievers through legislation.

Jesse “The Body,” I admire your political views, wrestling skills, and acting ability (“I ain’t got time to bleed” was a classic!), but your inconsistent philosophy needs some work.

So that's why they call it "green"

2009-05-21T17:38:00.004-04:00

You can be sure that any stupid, panic-stricken legislation always has either an ideological or profit motive or both behind it. The Wall Street Journal, in the article "Cimate Industrial Complex," is shining some light on who is pushing for cap-and-trade and other climate hysteria legislation. Apparently, it's big business. And I thought it was simply mutated socialism!

Wanna understand political motivations? Listen to what they say and then follow the money.

Even St. Gore has something to gain besides a legacy of saving the world. He stands to make some major dough.

This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December.

The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.

American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

Further proof that the government should stay out of the economy. Mercantilism produces tyranny.

A good assessment of American (Christian) culture

2009-05-21T12:59:00.003-04:00

A New Law by Derek Webb
(vs. 1)
don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for

don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music

don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus)
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me

(chorus)
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law

(vs. 2)
don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice

don’t teach me about loving my enemies

don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus/chorus)

(bridge)
what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid

Practical advice on returning to gold

2009-05-20T22:36:00.004-04:00

How to Return to Gold
By Thomas Woods

Plenty of sensible people recognize there’s something wrong with our money, and favor a return to a commodity money as existed under the gold standard. But how do we get from here to there? Here are the answers of Henry Hazlitt (.pdf; scroll down to pp. 58-61); Murray Rothbard, and George Reisman (mp3).

One of the difficulties with the classical gold standard is that it relied on decent, honorable, and intelligent politicians who wouldn’t just abandon the system when it suited them. Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek didn’t trust them. Here are his remarks on the complete separation of money and state.

Ron Paul has arguably the simplest solution, which he outlines in The Revolution: A Manifesto, his #1 New York Times bestseller: abolish legal tender laws (which are a monopolistic intrusion into the free market), do away with all taxation on gold and silver, and simply allow people — this is a free country, right? — to choose what suits them best as a medium of exchange. In no time society would, I am certain, converge once again on precious metals, what Professor Jörg Guido Hülsmann calls “natural money.”

Soup Nazis arise!

2009-05-19T15:11:00.005-04:00

Let's read the tea leaves here. This is what candidate Obama said a year ago:

We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen," he added.

Now take a glance at this description of Thomas Frieden's activities as NYC's health commissioner. Obama named him as the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today:

During his 7 years as New York’s health commissioner, Frieden has earned a reputation as an innovative advocate of stern public health initiatives, including tobacco control, mandatory HIV testing, reducing artificial trans fats in restaurant meals, restrictions on salt content, and his recent call, in an article in The New England Journal of Medicine, for a steep excise tax on sugared sodas. President Obama called Frieden “an expert in preparedness and response to health emergencies” who also “has been at the forefront in the fight against heart disease, cancer, and obesity.”

Hmmm. Might these actions be applied nationally? What do the tea leaves tell you? Better read those leaves quickly before the federal government slaps a tax on 'em.

I'm not saying this just because it's my church

2009-05-19T10:26:00.004-04:00

I never cease to be amazed at the people of Antioch Baptist Church. This little church that God has called me to as pastor continues to demonstrate love and generosity that I've never before witnessed in a congregation.

On Sunday the congregation voted to give 6 organizations in our community $3,000.00 each. Why? God has blessed Antioch financially and the church leaders desired to bless a few worthy charities in return. They didn't think it'd be right to horde what God had given.

Let me add that this was not my idea. I come from a long church tradition of holding on to every penny and spending it on yourself. Antioch's deacons initiated this give away. I just sat in the meeting and told them I thought it was a great idea.

No church or person ever deserves to be blessed by God. There's no way we can merit His favor. But if blessings could be earned, Antioch Baptist Church comes as close as I've ever seen. I am privileged to serve with this community of believers. They are the real thing.

Jesse "The Body" Ventura on waterboarding

2009-05-19T09:55:00.002-04:00

It's nice to hear commentary on "enhanced torture" techniques from someone other than a biased Democrat or Republican. Jesse cuts through the partisan fog on this issue and manages to nicely slap down Elizabeth Hasselbeck in the process.

Antistate holidays

2009-05-18T22:22:00.004-04:00

Sign me up for this selection of new holidays by Michael Rozeff. Some of them sound like a realistic way to starve the kleptocratic government.

Unelection Day. This is the day on which voter turnout became zero. Well, not really zero, but such a small number that voting became meaningless. It is the day when oodles of people pressed so few levers and buttons that they de-legitimized the State and it withered away from lack of support.

Unregistration Day or Unpermit Day or Unlicensing Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped registering with the State. They stopped registering for political party affiliations. They stopped registering their vehicles, from automobiles to bicycles to boats to snowmobiles. Youths stopped registering for public schools. They stopped registering for the military draft. They stopped registering for passports and driver’s licenses. They stopped registering for Social Security and Medicare. Businesses of all kinds stopped registering for licenses. Inventors stopped registering for patents. Doctors stopped registering for medical licenses. People stopped registering for professional licensing of all kinds, from accounting to architecture to lawyering to zoo-keeping. People and businesses engaged in transportation and communications no longer applied for licenses. Hunting licenses stopped. No one registered their pets. Immigrants no longer had to register. No one registered to vote. No one got a tax registration or identification number. No one registered guns, from handguns to automatic machine guns. People stopped getting marriage licenses who did not want them. No one registered for jury duty. No one who did not want them had to get permits or licenses from the State.

Uninspection Day. This day commemorates when people stopped getting inspections done by State order. This is the day when State inspectors were barred from entering anyone’s premises unless they wanted them on there. On this day, State inspectors had nothing to inspect. They could not hunt for environmental infringements, safety violations, or anything else.

Unrequirement Day. On this day, manufacturers, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, and all other businesses from the smallest to the largest stopped obeying State requirements having anything to do with labor, hours worked, pay, overtime, workweek, hiring and firing, safety, and unions. Businesses chose the hours they wanted to. Manufacturers no longer paid any attention to State regulations concerning products. They freed themselves to produce whatever they wanted to. They no longer obeyed regulations on energy, safety, the environment, product size or design, or anything else they wanted to ignore. Retailers sold whatever products they wanted to. Whoever wanted to transport mail in any form could do so. Whoever wanted to provide judicial services could do so. Whoever wanted to provide police or defense services could do so. Whoever wanted to produce drugs could do so.

Unholiday Day. This day celebrates the day when people stopped celebrating official national holidays.

Uncensus Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped sending in their census forms and stopped answering doorbells and knocks at the door when census takers came around.

Untax Day. This is the day that a network of programmers launched software that enabled anyone to stop paying withholding tax. This is the day that people in great numbers vetoed the income tax by using software that disabled automatic tax deductions. This is the day that people gained the capacity to disable paying sales and excise taxes and did so in large numbers. This is the day that government was brought to a grinding halt.

Unlaw Day. On this day, people en masse ignored the drug laws. Because of Untax Day, the State authorities could no longer enforce the drug laws. All people charged with victimless crimes demanded jury trials, and the juries stopped convicting people of victimless crimes.

Airport Freedom Day. This comes under the rubric of uninspection day, but it is such a special annoyance that it is separated out here. This is the day when oodles of people refused to undergo any inspections at airports. They bulldozed past airport inspectors. They lifted them bodily and carried them outside the air terminals to the parking lots where they fed them with hot dogs, potato chips, and soft drinks. No one was hurt. Inside the terminal, all machinery for inspection was dismantled by scores of people with the appropriate tools and blowtorches.

Ridicule Day. This is the day when oodles of people showed up at the offices of elected officials and jeered at them. They carried them from their offices and unceremoniously tossed them into portable swimming pools before escorting them to their vehicles. They locked them out of their offices. The rest of the day was spent celebrating.

Ungovernment day a.k.a. Independence Day. This is the day when the State no longer forced anyone to be under its rule who did not want to be. Also known as Freedom Day.

New government fuel standards: Will they kill off US automakers or provide an excuse for more bailouts

2009-05-18T17:50:00.005-04:00

I am growing increasingly paranoid in my old age. Today the Obama administration announced new fuel standards to be in place by 2016. Of course this is an effort to control the horrid onslaught of global warming, which we all know is man-made and detrimental to all life on planet earth. These standards were originally to be put in place by 2020 but now are being rushed to 2016. I'm all for fuel efficiency and saving the human race from extinction and all, but I have some misgivings:

1. When did President Obama gain the expertise to pass such standards? Did his law school degree, time as a community organizer (whatever that is), and "vast experience" in the US Senate help him acquire this knowledge?
2. When did the executive branch gain the Constitutional authority to force automakers to apply these standards? (Don't say the "Commerce Clause" unless you've read the Federalist Papers.)
3. Won't these new regulations put the nail in the coffin of US automakers? How can they make these changes and do so efficiently when they can't even stay in business without government help? Ahhhhhhhhh...
4. Will these new standards be an excuse for further government bailouts? Me thinks so. How else to better prop up a failing industry with much liberal political clout than to tie its survival to the environment? I've got to hand it to our president, he's a smart dude if that's what he's got up his sleeve. What an example for our young people.

Inspiration for the Obama Youth

2009-05-14T22:57:00.001-04:00

Style, passion, lyrical depth, beat, easy to dance to ... the Germans win, hands down ... or hand raised ... oh never mind.

Laugh? Cry? Vomit?

2009-05-14T22:50:00.001-04:00

This video makes me long for the good old days of the Hilter Youth.

A great local commercial

2009-05-04T16:27:00.003-04:00

No words can express how funny this commercial really is ... and I'm not being sarcastic. Best of all, it's a High Point company.

What did the tea parties accomplish? Nothing!

2009-04-18T10:59:00.004-04:00

There are two reasons why I did not participate in this week's tea parties. First, I had a suspicion that they'd be seen as an arm of the GOP. I was right. Second, I knew they'd make no difference. If the federal government doesn't feel the bite they'll take no action. Sure, it's an exercise of our first amendment rights, but it changes nothing until we're actually willing to put our our lives, our property, and our future on the line. (How many parallels could I draw to the ineffectiveness of the church in America?)

Here's an article that I thought provides a good summation of what was accomplished:

Are You Kidding Me?
by Don Cooper

I watched closely all the tea parties all over the country Wednesday. What a showing of national pride and solidarity. What a showing of subservient compliance and casual indifference. What a joke.

In Lafayette Park, Washington D.C., of all places to protest, the plan was to dump one million tea bags in the park, but the brave dissidents never did it because they forgot to get the proper permits. Are you kidding me? What is civil disobedience without civil disobedience? They even went so far as to say that they were willing to put down plastic tarps and clean up after themselves.

That’s like saying we don’t agree with your oppressive, unconstitutional despotism of our nation and to show our ire in no uncertain terms we’re going to break public law and disrupt the peace so take that, nah- nah-ne-boo-boo. But don’t worry because we’ll put everything back when we’re done as if nothing happened cuz we don’t want any trouble!

Videos on the Internet of Lafayette Park show people standing around in their trendy turtlenecks and Tommy Hilfiger and North Face jackets, chatting, socializing, drinking coffee and talking on their cell phones. Some dressed in colonial garb (how cute) and waving flags. Others even break into a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner followed by a chant of "USA, USA, USA." What a terrific show of meaningless symbolism.

Who are they chanting to? The buildings in front of them? The birds in the trees? Themselves? What was this supposed to do, because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to surmise that it did NOTHING! All the politicians were inside, smugly and comfortably seated in their expensive leather chairs that we paid for. They were discussing their next round of special interest pandering and deficit spending at our expense while we mingled as if at a, well, tea party. But not the sort of 1773 but rather more like the sort at 4 p.m. in England that is served with crumpets.

The politicians could have cared less about the goings on outside and NO ONE took it to them. Shame on us. No one made sure they took notice. No one was put out one bit. No economic loss to the government whatsoever, as was the purpose of the original tea party, so why should they notice?

Is this like giving to a charity? You write a check to feed a starving child for 10 cents a day in some far off, nameless, faceless country and you feel better about yourself?

I attended a "tea party" in the Midwest on Wednesday and there were only about 200 people there. And it was literally a tea party: people came with their coffee mugs and sandwiches, holding signs and standing around and chatting and socializing and then everyone went home. No passion. No signs of real frustration or discontent. No real commitment to changing anything. You know why? Because nobody wants to fire the first shot! Everybody wants change, but only if they don’t have to pay for it. Only if their comfortable lives don’t have to be disrupted for their freedom. What a bunch of crap.

Then I see all these political pundits ( idiots ) on CNN talking about how the tea party movement is nothing more than a partisan, Republican, conservative movement against the Obama administration and how the majority of Americans agree with the taxing and borrowing and spending. Some numb-nuts CNN political (anal)yst named Jeff Toobin says that the Texas state legislative resolution to reaffirm their state’s sovereignty is a fantasy. Are you kidding me? State’s sovereignty is a fantasy? Well I guess that says it all. Come on everyone, down the rabbit hole.

[Background music]One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small…

Welcome to the other side of the looking glass everybody. My name’s Alice and I’ll be your host for the mad tea party today. Let me introduce some other guests: the Hatter, March Hare, Dormouse, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Rod Blagojevich, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton all the AIG executives and many, many more. Don’t worry you’ll have time to get to know them all since you can’t leave no matter what you do so might as well just get used to it. Resistance is futile.

No doubt the majority of Americans didn’t want to go to war against the British in 1776. But would anyone say now that it was the wrong thing to do? No doubt the majority of Americans didn’t want a civil war. Both those wars were, at their core, about state’s rights. About oppressive governments trying to overreach their authority and impose unlawful mandates on the states. It was about their freedom to do what they wish with their lives.

I think we have met the enemy and it is us. We’re a bunch of fast food nourished, MTV anesthetized, shopping mall, plug-in-drug (aka television) addicts who will do anything to preserve that way of life at least until we die. After that who cares?

We’re a clinically obese, socially disconnected, politically inept and intellectually bankrupt nation of douche bags who deserve everything they get.

The movement has no leader. When I listen to anyone other than Ron Paul, Peter Schiff or Lew Rockwell speak about the issues we discuss on LRC I might as well be listening to any other political party spokesperson. They sound just the same. They dress just the same. They say the same old tired things. Ron Paul has even mentioned at times that the Libertarian party has become just another political party interested more in their political posturing rather than liberty. They have all the same sorts of infighting and power struggles that are symptomatic of the fact that they have lost their way.

Rallying the troops to vote more like-minded individuals into office won’t work. That’s an old, failing strategy. When will someone step forward with the courage, character, wisdom and intelligence to lead our nation into the 21st century the way our forefathers led it into the 19th century?

Will it be Texas governor Rick Perry? Perry is using rhetoric about seceding from the union. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing we need. I believe, given the other states with similar resolutions in their legislatures, that it would begin a domino effect. It would give people a chance to actually have a clear reason to fight: their state’s rights of sovereignty and they would know that they have the state’s resources behind them. Unfortunately, even though it’s clear what a boost Texas seceding would be in uniting us, I have no doubt that Perry is not up to the task and is using the issue as nothing more than a rallying point for reelection.

Where have all the heroes gone? Where are all the pioneers? Where are the visionaries? Where are the true statesmen? Where are the defenders of freedom? What has happened to the American Spirit of life and liberty? I guess they’re all at the mall or Starbucks and are too fat to get up out of their chair and fight. Or they’re looking forward to retirement and the "good life" after spending their life being a good soldier and playing by the rules and saving for the "golden years" while their real golden years of youth were passing them by. Certainly they can’t be asked to risk all that for something as silly as their children’s futures. How selfish of me.

Or maybe we don’t want to risk our children’s well-being now, so we defer it until they’re adults and let them deal with the fact that they can’t afford college or health care or a home without going into enormous debt and we never teach them the importance of things like: character, honor, integrity, truth and freedom but rather teach them how to live in fear and how important it is to get a "good job" and play by the rules and to go along to get along and that will be safe.

We’re pathetic.

We need, somehow, to starve the government. I'm on the look out for real solutions and genuine movements for change. Let me know if you find any.

One of the all-time worst predictions

2009-04-16T12:46:00.003-04:00

"With government education and a hundred years, all streets will be safe. You will be able to walk anywhere. Men will love one another. It will be like the garden of God again."

Horace Mann 1796-1859

Christian entertainers take note!

2009-03-31T20:31:00.002-04:00

This post is dedicated to my friend Wally who introduced me to Sonseed and their YouTube hit, "Jesus Is a Friend of Mine." You'll sing this song for the next week.

Spanking the PM

2009-03-25T21:41:00.001-04:00

This guy gets it! Can we make him a US citizen?

One small step for Geithner, one giant leap for socialism

2009-03-24T11:20:00.003-04:00

The article below is chilling. President Obama wants to give the Treasury Secretary the power to seize businesses whose collapse "would damage the broader economy." Such vague language means that any business would be up for grabs. THIS IS SOCIALISM! Nationalization of businesses means that we've arrived.

If legislation like this passes Congress the Treasury Secretary will be able to buy shares of any business with tax payer funds. He'll also be able to legally break former contracts. We can also assume salaries will be under his authority. This is an unprecedented power grab by the executive branch. And remember, whatever power the government takes it never lets go.

Geithner is using the same old tyrannical power grab tactics: create a crisis and tell everyone it's for their own good. Here's what he said: "We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this..." In other words, "Hurry and give me power before you have time to think about what you're doing."

If I were a conspiracy-minded person I'd say that all of this is being orchestrated by the Obama regime. As I see more stupid bailouts and failing stimulus efforts along with attempts to grab power when they don't work, I'm starting to believe something sinister is afoot here.

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.

Obama's Special Olympics Hilarity

2009-03-20T15:59:00.003-04:00

You can really tell who a person is when they're off guard. It's the off-handed comments (and the words we speak when no one else is listening or when we think no one else is listening or when we think no one who matters is listening) that reveal much of our interior world. Jesus put it like this:

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks." Luke 6:45

In his official capacity, our president claims to care for the "least of these." When he's yucking it up with Jay Leno, this slips out ...

ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.
"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey (KO-lahn Mc-KAHNA-he) told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

The athletic-minded president made an offhand remark Thursday on "The Tonight Show" comparing his weak bowling to "the Special Olympics or something." He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some of its athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.

McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005.

The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day.

Who wants to bet the president will bowl against McConiughey as an act of public penance? I wonder how he's going to bowl and keep himself surrounded by teleprompters?

To tell the truth

2009-03-20T15:52:00.005-04:00

I am perplexed. How can President Obama make this claim?

President Barack Obama has told Jay Leno he was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that bailed-out insurance giant AIG was paying its employees.

And Senator Chris Dodd make this claim?

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Options:
A - Obama lied
B - Dodd lied
C - Neither lied and Obama is not in control of his administration
D - Both are lying and practicing political CYA

If your life depended on it, which one would you pick?

Peter Schiff at the Mises Institute

2009-03-17T18:33:00.002-04:00

This video is over an hour long, but well worth the time. If you want to understand why our economy is in the shape it's in and where we're headed, check it out. As an added bonus, Schiff speaks in language the average person can understand. This is the sign of true genius.

Why Christian entertainment is an oxymoron

2009-03-16T08:55:00.005-04:00

I've never really liked much Christian music. And Christian movies? Forget about it! Now I know that it's not merely because I'm carnally-minded. Most Christian entertainment really is terrible. Here's an article by Pastor Bill Barnwell entitled "Why Most Christian Music and Entertainment Stinks" that explains why it's so unappealing to so many. This will give you something to chew on my brethren. Here's a taste:

I agree that for the believer, Christ should be the center of all we do. But where Christian music falls short is that it rarely ever addresses the loss of a job, the heartache of a loss of love, a battle with addiction, depression, and any other sort of "real life" issues. Instead it's mostly a bunch of happy go lucky love songs towards God or "Jesus is my girlfriend/boyfriend" type stuff.

Kids like artists such as Eminem because they feel his music relates to "real life." It does sometimes speak to some people's version of "real life," but certainly not the one Christians want to encourage. But people will choose (1) a better produced product and (2) something that seems to be connected to real life over something that (1a) is a cheap and poorly produced product and (2a) seems totally disconnected and unconcerned with "real life." Rather than being an affront to God, I think it would be quite honoring to God if "Christian music" produced music that was Christocentric in flavor or values while dealing with the day-to-day issues beyond just "God is cool" type stuff.

Your thoughts?

Bailouts and Bull

2009-03-14T12:41:00.001-04:00

Here's a great 20/20 special devoted to private versus governmental effects on the economy.

Stimulus idiocy

Private roads

Medical marijuana

Universal pre-K

Border security

$25 and the American Dream?

What's wrong with this picture?

2009-03-06T13:19:00.004-05:00

This is Michelle Obama serving meals at a homeless shelter. Can you tell what's wrong with this picture? (No, it's not the concerned looking bald guy - probably Secret Service - looking over her shoulder.)

Stimulus stupidity

2009-03-05T17:13:00.005-05:00

The speaker is Thomas Woods, author of the NY Times bestseller, Meltdown. He's speaking to (spanking) conservatives at CPAC.

20 states are talking about secession

2009-02-23T08:59:00.002-05:00

My son Drake has been writing about this at his blog Drake's Drivel. Drake, you're not a nut. Keep up the good work!

A sermon on birth control

2009-02-12T21:28:00.002-05:00

You can tell when a sermon is really good because it convicts everyone - sinner to saint. The guy in the video is Pastor Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle. The sermon is long, but well worth the time. I found myself agreeing, repenting, and laughing. If the video is too long head to the website for an audio download.

By the way, the sermon is PG-13. I wish I could get away with this at my church.

Does this mean I have to write bible instead of Bible?

2009-02-03T23:05:00.004-05:00

In seminary they taught us that the Bible is God’s inspired word. My professors said that God would not inspire error or falsehood because He’s perfect, all-powerful, and totally truthful. I believe all of these things about God. I’ve always held to the position I was taught: that the Bible, in its original form, is true in all that it affirms.

Last week I hit a snag. While being a good Christian and diligently studying Genesis 35 in preparation for the Sunday sermon I discovered a problem. Verses 16 to 18 describe the birth of Jacob’s son Benjamin as having taken place in Canaan, the Promised Land. So far so good. Moving down to verses 23 through 26 I read the birth order of Jacob’s sons. All twelve are listed and the section ends with the statement: “These were the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram.” Do you see the problem? Benjamin wasn’t born in Paddan Aram (Mesopotamia). The previous text clearly places his birth in Canaan, not too far from Bethel.

I tried to make the passage true, but to no avail. There’s no textual variant indicating another way of reading it. The context gives no alternate meaning to the verse. It’s not a parable or allegory or poetry. It’s a genealogical table with a summary statement. It says Benjamin was born in Paddan Aram, but we know he was not. The author knows he was not. He didn’t make a mistake. There’s no error here. This passage affirms something that is simply not true.

My commentaries were of no help. The only suggestion that made sense was that the author was trying to draw an analogy between Jacob’s servitude with his uncle Laban and the nation of Israel’s servitude in Egypt. The narrator included Benjamin to make the analogy complete. Okay, I get it. But that answer is totally unsatisfying.

What do I do with my understanding of the Bible? Is it still true in all that it affirms? Your comments would be warmly welcomed.

Nancy Pelosi: House Speaker, Barbarian

2009-01-26T14:06:00.005-05:00

Read the following article and ask yourself, "What's not being said here?"

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

How will family planning services reduce state and federal budget costs? By killing babies. Liberals consider abortion to be birth control. She didn't mention the "a" word because of its barbarous implications. Translation: "Killing babies is good for the economy." Murder those pesky human beings before they're born and you reduce state and federal costs.

Now abortion is not only a woman's right, it can be considered a patriotic act because it helps the economy. Brilliant!

Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Spiritual

2009-01-22T21:44:00.005-05:00

I was wearing my best Sunday face. The new sound system was set up, connected, EQed and ready to roll. The music selections were perfect. The sermon was utterly God-focused. So what the heck happened?

This past Sunday was one of those days that I anticipated all week. The text for the sermon centered on Jacob's dramatic wrestling match with the Lord in Genesis 32 and, after much prayer, I felt strongly that God wanted to meet with the people of Antioch Baptist Church face to face. My heart told me that they were to wrestle with Him and we'd all cross the Jabbok River to a new level of spirituality. During our morning prayer time I asked God to give us an encounter with Himself and undeniable signs of His favor upon our church. We received signs, all right, but I'm not sure they were of His favor. Here's how it all went down (literally).

I kicked off the festivities by playing and singing the song, "Awesome in the Place." It felt great, but when I finished one of the deacons said, "Joel, you're cutting in an out." Blast it! A brand new sound system and the $50 microphone brings the whole thing to its knees!

Undaunted, I carried on, attempting to usher the congregation into the presence of God. I prayed the invocation, hearing the microphone switch on and off. It continued this pattern through our singing of "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "Breathe." The countenance of some of the members faces said, "Houston, we've got a problem."

What sweet relief washed over me as my lovely Laura approached to read Genesis 32. My confidence rallied as the flighty microphone worked perfectly for her. Hope of a truly spiritual and awesomely electric service revived as she flawlessly read the passage: Jacob met the angel armies; Jacob sent word to his estranged brother Esau that he was headed home; Jacob heard Esau was coming to meet him with a militia; Jacob feared, divided his caravan, and prayed to God; Jacob sent an extravagant gift to his brother ... goats ... cows ... bulls ... and monkeys. Monkeys? Did she say monkeys? Yes, Laura said monkeys instead of donkeys and, realizing her mistake, immediately fell victim to a giggling fit ... right there in the pulpit. She laughed so hard that she could not finish reading the chapter. I had to intervene and wrap it up.

As I nervously concluded Genesis 32 I saw the deacon who told me about the faulty microphone stepping forward. He was supposed to read Genesis 33 ... but not until after the next song. In an undignified way I had to ask him to go back to his seat until I called him up. The wind was out of my sails, but I pressed on, still seeking our collective God-moment.

As I played and sang the next song, "Give Us Clean Hands," all seemed to be well. That's when the stupid microphone started shorting in and out again. The annoyance factor could not have been higher.

(Oh, and I forgot to mention this: we actually had guests -- a rare treat at our little country church. To make the morning even more special, some of the guests were members of a church I pastored 10 years ago. Yep, old Joel has really gotten his act together in the past decade!)

As the deacon returned to read his portion of scripture I sat deflated. The microphone completely gave up the ghost. Still, in my heart of hearts, I believed we were in store for something more. I was right.

I preached probably the worst sermon of my entire life. The yawns multiplied. Eyes drowsily rolled. People checked their watches quite conspiciously. Even the most attentive attendee often looked away from me out the window where wisps of snow flurries held their imagination. My anticipated spiritual moment crashed like a train wreck and then limped away with a wimper.

I sat nearly comatose through the offering and announcements. We were going to try out a new musical benediction, but I shut it down, fearing more carnage.

What's the lesson in all this? My congregation may not have wrestled with God last Sunday morning, but I sure did. Maybe I was the only one who carried baggage to the Jabbok and He needed to shake it loose by shaking me. Perhaps the lesson was mine: spiritual "feeling" worship services are not the end all, be all. Maybe they don't matter at all. Maybe the ones that appear spiritual are mainly pious hype. To be honest, I don't know what was going on.

What to do now? Get up, dust myself off, contemplate resigning from the pastorate for a moment, have a good laugh, and keep following the Lord. Sunday's coming. Maybe this one will be spiritual.

Chinese test

2008-12-19T17:43:00.002-05:00

What do you see in this picture? A) Cute kittens dreaming of butterflies and saucers of fresh cream; B) The makings of a tasty buffet.

If you chose B, you are Chinese.

Truth, Grace, and Homosexuality

2008-12-12T17:51:00.003-05:00

I copied this post from a blog site I visit regularly, "Letters from Kamp Krusty." I kept waiting for the author to either bash the gay guy or cave in and condone his lifestyle. He did neither. He showed love and grace while gently sharing truth. If only all Christian would approach people trapped in homosexuality with this much humility and shrewdness. Brant Hanson, you're my hero!

This Doesn't Usually Happen After an Outdoor Gig

I picked up my home phone. I had no idea who this guy was, but he was pretty wound up.

Said his name was Rob, and he heard me singing with my band at an outdoor, on-campus gig a couple nights before. He heard us do a cover of a vintage Crowded House tune, and loves Crowded House, so he opened his apartment window and listened. We were pretty good. He heard some songs about Jesus, too. And then he heard something he didn't like:

I was singing about gays and lesbians.

So he called the house that booked the show -- a place I'd lived when I was a student, called Koinonia House at the University of Illinois. He'd asked for my name and number, and they'd given it to him. (Thanks, fellas!) And he was kinda steamed. Rob had had it with Christians going off on homosexuals, because he was a church-going Christian...and so was his husband.

And yes -- Rob had me. I had been singing about gays and lesbians...and demogogues and thespians, for that matter. And evolutionists, creationists, perverts, slumlords, deadbeats, athletes, Protestants and Catholics, Philistines, homophobes...everybody, everywhere.

He understood the context -- but wasn't satisfied. He wanted me to know how wrong Christians were on homosexuality, and maybe we should meet in person to discuss it. It'd have to be in the next two days, because he was moving to take a job in D.C.

The next day, I'm driving to a bagel place to meet Rob.

----------------

I asked God on the way: "PLEASE don't let me say something stupid. PLEASE don't let me be done with this conversation, and think 'I shoulda said' or 'Why did I say THAT?' PLEASE have mercy on me, and him. I don't know this guy, and I don't know what I'm doing."

----------------

He wasn't hard to spot. He wore a t-shirt that said, "HATE -- It's Not a Family Value". He explained that some friends of his told him he should wear it, since he was meeting with some "conservative Christian guy". I actually thought that was kind of funny, and laughed about it.

I listened to him for about an hour and a half.

He'd grown up in the church. He couldn't remember ever being terribly attracted to girls. He'd attended all the youth events. He now went to fairly conservative church, but they knew he was gay, and people were fine with it. He told me about his wedding ring, and that he wore one because he and his husband, while not legally married, were just as committed as anyone else.

He loved his husband, he said, and how could God object to that? God IS love, you know. How could God have a problem with that? And how could Christians be so hateful? And how can someone say his relationship with his husband is "sin"?

I did a lot of apologizing, I remember that.

----------------

I apologized for Christians, for those who genuinely hated him. I didn't doubt, for a moment, the pain he'd endured. I told him I didn't regard him as morally worse -- not a whit -- than I was. I told him I couldn't know what his relationship was really like, but I suspected much of it WAS good, that there were admirable aspects not only of his character, but of his lover, and of their relationship.

I told him no, I didn't think he'd chosen to be a homosexual. But -- humbly -- I didn't choose my brokenness, either. And yet here I am, broken.

----------------

We talked about how some church-folk want to define people who are homosexual strictly by their sex lives, as though that were the whole of their being -- and how some people who are homosexual actually define themselves the same way. But, I asked, couldn't we share interests in movies, art, culture, food, sense of humor, and a million other things...? Surely, there are more aspects to a person, and bases for legitimate friendship, even in the midst of our mutual fallenness.

We talked about the nature of hate: Was it "hate" for someone to say what I'd just said, about brokenness, about disorder? Must one hate an alcoholic by recognizing, and lamenting, the alcoholism? Is it "hate" when I object to my own behavior? Is it "love" to applaud another's march to pain? And we talked about the "short of the mark" nature of the term "sin".

We talked about Jesus, and how yes, He'd had very strong words for people who thought they, themselves, were without sin.

We talked about God's image -- male and female -- and what sex, and family, may represent.

We talked about the fact that I'd eaten five giant bagels, toasted, just sitting there. He was alarmed and amused.

We talked...and talked...at the bagel-place for three-and-a-half hours. I liked him.

----------------

I asked him if he thought I hated him. He said no, he didn't. He hadn't expected the conversation we'd had. He said he got the impression, actually, that I felt sorry for him. He said he understood that I was convinced that his homosexuality, ultimately, was not his plan, but was the result of brokenness, and that I was concerned for him. But no, I didn't hate him, that was apparent.

I told him I did feel sorry for him, I couldn't help it, and I kind of feel sorry for all of us.

We got ready to leave, realizing we'd talked a ridiculously long time, given our plastic-seated, bagel-themed environs. I told him -- and I believed and believe this -- I can always be wrong. Could he make the same statement?

He thought about it. I told him, "I think -- I don't know, but I think -- if we honestly asked God, cried out to God, begged Him, open-mindedly, to show us the right way, I think we'll wind up in agreement on this. It may be twenty years, but I honestly think he would honor our prayers."

I told him I'd earnestly ask. He agreed to do the same thing.

----------------

One more thing, I said: "And if I'm wrong, about anything, I want to know. I honestly do. I'm convinced on this, but if I'm shown otherwise, I will change my thinking on this. I want you to know that."

He said that was cool. He appreciated it. Ultimately, God's the authority, and we have to submit to Him.

I asked him if he would do the same thing. I told him I knew -- it would be much, much harder for him. But IF he were completely convinced that this was not what God wanted for his sexuality, that it was actually hindering him from being who God wants him to be, if he were somehow convinced...

Would he change? Would he submit that aspect of his life to God?

He paused and said...no.

"Honestly? No. I know this doesn't sound good, but honestly...no. I wouldn't."

----------------

We shook hands, and I told him I admired his honesty, but I think we were both kind of sad. And I told him I was glad he'd called me, and it would be cool to hang out again, but, he was moving to D.C. It's been several years, but I was thinking about him tonight.

Further proof that we're on the eve of destruction

2008-12-07T21:16:00.004-05:00

Repentance? You've got to be kidding! In America? No flippin' way!

A Detroit church, with SUVs at the altar prayed for the survival of the Big 3 automakers. Oh, and by the way, they didn't pray against fat cat CEOs or extortionist union bosses. They didn't pray that the companies become more efficient, productive, and competitive. No, no, no ... the prayer was that Congress bailout the Big 3.

How godly is that? Pray that the greedy get richer. Pray that the power abusers maintain their power. Pray that they're all rewarded with funds collected through legal plunder. I feel the urge to wretch.

Once again, history repeats itself. "My house will be called a house of prayer, but you have made it into a den of robbers."

The Wage Gap Myth

2008-12-03T08:18:00.003-05:00

We've been propagandized for years that women, due to gender discrimination, receive less pay than men for the same job. The statistic generally cited is that women receive $.75 to every $1.00 earned by men. This idea is unsustainable if one has a grasp of simple economic principles. Why would anyone hire a man if they could get the same work from a woman at lower pay? They wouldn't. Businesses always seek to maximize profit (except in the case of the Big 3 automakers). Making money is the issue, not gender, for producers.

How then do we account for the fact that statistically women earn less than men, even in our modern world? It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with choice. Dr. Tom DiLorenza offers several reasons for the difference in an article at LewRockwell.com:

• Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
• Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
• Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
• Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
• Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
• Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
• The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
• Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
• Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
• Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
• Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
• Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
• Men work more weeks per year than women.
• Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
• Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
• Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
• Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
• In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
• When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
• Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
• Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

Will feminist agitators NOW go away and get a real job?

Living Water

2008-11-18T22:33:00.004-05:00

While studying Genesis chapter 26 in preparation for my sermon on Sunday, verse 32 grabbed my attention. Isaac made a peace treaty with his Philistine neighbors and immediately afterward his slaves informed him that they’d found a water source. This wasn’t any ordinary well. The slaves literally said, “We’ve found living water!” (Don’t jump to New Testament imagery just yet.) I explored “living water” and discovered why they were so excited. Their enthusiasm derived from the find of an artesian well.

“What’s an artesian well?” you ask. Let me tell you. An artesian well spurts out water in a continuous flow. No dipping or pumping is required to retrieve it. After his slaves’ diligent digging, Isaac owned a labor-free source of water in a dried up wadi.

Now let’s take this idea to the New Testament and see how Jesus used it:

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:38-39

Jesus said that the human heart has the possibility of transforming into an artesian well. In this case, the living water is the person and power of the Holy Spirit. Here’s where the imagery gets really cool.

Artesian wells require no human effort for the water to flow. The Holy Spirit’s power depends on no muscle, talent, skill, or method of man. His presence should be a constantly flowing stream from the heart of each believer. Living water naturally gushes forth to restore a dry and barren land.

The source of an artesian well is higher than the outlet. Isaac’s well was located in a valley. That means rain water at a higher elevation flowed under a layer of impermeable rock and down under the valley floor below. The net effect of this height differential caused the water to shoot out when Isaac’s servants broke through the rock layer. Similarly, the Holy Spirit has His source from on high. When Jesus ascended to the heavenly realms and was seated at the right hand of the Father, the Spirit of God descended to human hearts.

How does one acquire living water from God? Faith in Jesus Christ, the Rock of our salvation, establishes His presence in the heart of every believer. There’s no work in getting the living water to flow, but diligent seeking is required to find its presence.

This leads to an interesting dilemma. If our hearts are supposed to be artesian wells gushing forth with living water, how do we account for the Spirit’s absence in our daily lives? Ephesians 5:8 commands Christians to “be filled with the Spirit.” Strangely, the verb is passive. In the Greek it looks something like this: “Be being filled with the Spirit.” In other words, we are to let ourselves be filled. How is this accomplished? Take away anything that obstructs the influence of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Like the artesian wells of old, we can choose to cap the living water of God or let Him flow.

Forget about the stupid Mayan calendar; here's my predicition for 2012

2008-11-17T20:10:00.005-05:00

I just started reading Jim Powell’s 2003 book, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, and was hit with the desire to make a prediction. Rather than hail FDR as the hero who solved the Great Depression, Powell examines what was happening economically during his terms as president. Despite years of acclaim as a national treasure who healed the nation Powell demonstrates that Roosevelt and his policies actually made the depression worse. This is surprising considering FDR’s intelligence, likeability, management skills, and oratory flair. Take a look at the book’s description of FDR’s administration and think about what’s happening right now:

“… many of the brightest minds were recruited to Washington. FDR, who graduated from Harvard College, filled many of his top positions with graduates of Harvard Law School. They had clerked with the most respected judges of the era. These and other New Dealers were hailed for their compassion and their so-called progressive thinking. They were widely viewed as more noble than the greedy businessmen and reckless speculators who were thought to have brought on the depression. New Dealers wanted to eliminate poverty, abolish child labor, and right other social wrongs. Many New Dealers saw themselves as trying to make the world over. How could such bright, compassionate people have gone so wrong?”

Frightening isn’t it? Barack Obama is intelligent. He graduated from Harvard Law School. He’s immensely liked by most Americans. He managed a terrific campaign. Obama is perhaps one of the best communicators we’ve seen in a long time. He is even now surrounding himself with the best and the brightest our country has to offer. My prediction: He will fail like FDR, make our economy much worse – turning a recession into an economic depression – and the media will portray him as a hero nonetheless. His compassionate, progressive, intelligentsia administration will repress with reforms and bring business to a grinding halt. Employment will rise. Investments will decline. And either businessmen or conservatives will be blamed. Obama will win by a landslide in 2012 despite the economic misery of the country.

Write it down. That’s my prediction. Check back in 4 years so I can say I told you so.

Normal Christianity or My journey to the lunatic fringe

2008-11-17T11:02:00.003-05:00

If you keep up with this blog you probably know that I’m rereading a book called Christianity with Power by Dr. Charles H. Kraft. The book is listed as one of my paradigm shifters mainly because Kraft convinced me that the supernatural aspects of the New Testament are supposed to be the norm for Christians today. In other words, the Bible is not meant to be taken as a book of exceptions, but as illustrations of what a life of faith in Jesus Christ should entail. Kraft advocates restoring “power ministries” such as healing and deliverance to the church as a means of demonstrating God’s love for His broken creatures.

I’ve decided to take Kraft up on his challenge in the book. He says to attempt healing prayer fifty times. If you don’t see any evidence of God’s power fifty times in a row abandon this type of ministry. But, if you see God bring healing on some level, reset at fifty and start over again. At the risk of being labeled a whack-job, I’m taking up this challenge.

One difference Kraft notes between typical healing prayer today and the biblical model is our methodology. If we pray for definite healing (and we usually don’t) it’s often asking God to do it. Kraft notes that, in the Bible, Jesus and His disciples took authority and commanded what they expected to happen. Their previous seeking of the Father authorized and empowered their healing prayer.

To flesh this out, I typed up the following list of steps. I’m going to keep it folded up in my Bible for, I hope, regular use. I invite any of my readers to take the plunge as well. I’d also love to read your comments about this approach.

Healing Ministry Sequence

1. Invite the Holy Spirit to come, reveal His will, and lead the entire time of ministry.

“Holy Spirit, please come and take charge of this session. Show us what you want us to do and help us to cooperate with you in accomplishing your purposes here.”

2. Bless the person being ministered to with peace, grace, forgiveness, confidence, joy, presence of God, patience with self, patience with God, the ability to forgive someone else, protection from Satan and his forces, release for worry, fear, or guilt or some combination of these.

3. Interview the person being ministered to.

“What would you like us to pray for?” “When did the condition start?” What else was going on in your life when this condition started?”

4. Form a tentative diagnosis.

5. Formulate a tentative prayer strategy.

a. Ask God for certain things such as guidance, receptivity on the part of the prayee, and power and authority to deal with the issues.

b. Determine what things to take authority over and command to leave.

6. Authoritatively command specific healing and that certain things depart (disease, demons, etc.).

Keep your eyes open during this time so that you can look for signs (sweating, grimacing, weeping, and other indications when you mention items determined from your diagnosis) of what God is doing. Remember that it’s okay to interrupt this prayer time and circle back to previous steps.

7. Offer post prayer counseling and follow up.

Charles H. Kraft, Christianity with Power: Your Worldview and Your Experience of the Supernatural (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Vine Books, 1989), 150 to 157

How McCain and Bush destroyed the Republican Party

2008-11-15T20:46:00.005-05:00

I'm glad to finally hear a republican tell the truth about this year's election. Sen. Jim DeMint, from South Carolina, set the record straight on Friday. His basic argument criticized McCain and Bush for demoralizing conservatives by opposing the very principles for which they stand. Below are some of DeMint's points:

McCain:

1. Sponsored campaign finance reform which weakened party organizations, made the campaign twice as long, and put rich lefties like George Soros in the driver's seat

2. Proposed amnesty for illegal aliens

3. Supported global warming, cap-and-trade policies

4. Embraced the bailout bill

5. Opposed drilling in ANWR

Bush

1. Expanded the size of government

2. Wasted taxpayer dollars by increasing government spending more than any president in US history

If the GOP wishes to survive, the party needs to return to its core principles. If not, true conservatives should abandon ship and start a new one.

If the GOP adopts its previous libertarian perspective I will return my support. Until that time call me an independent.

Another reason to abandon government schools

2008-11-13T23:20:00.004-05:00

What's that old saying? "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." According to this article the hand of govenment schools has succeeded in raising a generation of socialists who are also political-idiots. (I believe Lenin used the term "useful idiots.") This certainly explains why record numbers of young voters, many of whom were Christians, unflinchingly cast their ballots for Obama. (Not that McCain was a real alternative.)

This article put the blame in it's proper place. Enjoy ... and go rebuke your pastor if he doesn't endorse private education and homeschool.

A Spectre is Haunting America. Don't Let it
by Dr. Richard A. Jones
11/12/08

Now that what some might call the “unthinkable” has actually happened, it’s certain that a vital remnant in the Church will wake up and realize that, “It’s time to start paying attention.” Had McCain won, the Christian Right likely would have given another overconfident sigh of relief, hoping that the other side would somehow not be able to advance its anti-Christian offensive in 2012. (It would have advanced anyway.) Either way, it’s folly to forget that the difference between the American Dream-killing, wealth-redistributing leftist, Obama, and the RINO McCain is negligible. A tip-off that both are operative socialists was made clear last primary season when mainstream media palmed off these two inexplicable “choices” onto us. Values voters never had a say. But that’s all spilled milk. It’s time to explore how it was that what was once essentially a Christian-leaning, U.S. voting populace was so easily set up for passive acceptance of a clear-cut socialist candidate in each party. Don’t be surprised by the major cause.

Dedication to Marxism by East Coast political, academic and media types goes back to the days of FDR and even before. But, it neared max toxicity in the 1960s with Viet Nam. By 1989 and 1990, Marxist devotion in the U.S. had not weakened in the least even though the Cold War had ended and the USSR folded. That’s because, as we’ve argued here, true socialism at its core is an intense, life-dedicated hatred of God and the Christian family. And hatred of God is ever-present. This passion is what keeps the fires of nihilism and Marxism burning on campuses nationwide (and eventually in the public schools) even though it waned (for a season) in the Soviet Motherland. Viet Nam era zealots like Bill Ayers never stopped pushing radicalism at ever-lower grade levels in the schools. So it’s no surprise that mind-programmed young voters (and plenty of church goers, per Barna polling) have slowly fallen for Washington’s “equality, compassion (and vote-buying) plan;” i.e., socialism. How did this catastrophe come to pass with nary a whimper?

Many think that a deceived Protestant Church in America was the key. It abetted the slippery slope to socialism via a century-long bad habit of effeminate pietism and its cave-in to an “it’s just about over,” irrelevance-guaranteeing, dispensationalism. (Both of which developed mainly because due to loss of the best U.S. men during the cynically contrived Civil War.) Once the shroud of pessimistic end-times resignation had smothered what de Tocqueville experienced as “pulpits aflame,” the soft undermining effect of passive church irrelevance in a fast-changing society was assured. By election time 2008, scores of feminized, liberal-leaning pulpits had been taken in by the Left’s vague slogan of “change;” a change that a “truly loving God” supposedly desires.

As 1960’s radicals like Ayers and company wormed their way into the teacher colleges, the plan was that children…especially Dr. Benjamin Spock’s permissively trained and spoiled victims…would be progressively dumbed down to accept humanistic, anti-Christian socialism. The zeitgeist of the age was one of busy Baby Boomer parents marching resolutely to the beat of “me, mine and materialism.” While both parents took two salaries in order to pay their taxes and feed a consumption mentality, the planners knew that schools would be the perfect holding tank by day for “open minded” (read “gullible”) children who were getting, if any, only minimal moral guidance at home. What was being surreptitiously taught in the mega-compliant government schools was less critical to parents than the convenience of the handy babysitting. A passive Church, meanwhile, yawned. Only Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, virtually alone through the 1970s and 1980s, warned about the grave threat on the near horizon should government-controlled education be allowed to prevail. Has it prevailed? Having to ask the question gives the answer.

It was during this pivotal and still feasible-for-action time frame that others besides Rushdoony should have perked up and given the alert. Pro-active response conditions were still favorable. Post-Viet Nam, as socialist fruit began growing apace in the schools, pastors and young parents alive in the 1980s and 1990s (who would have been born at a time when the Cold War’s lessons about communism’s threat were still vivid) should have paid attention. And communism, as is well known, is merely the freedom-hating socialism of Obama and McCain worked out to its inevitable conclusion. With the facts so clearly visible, why didn’t those Boomer parents and their pastors figure it out?

It wasn’t just Dr. Spock. It wasn’t just end-times misinterpretations that led to irrelevance within church leadership. Post-Viet Nam pastors had other concerns stopping them from storming pulpits and with rhetorical swords drawn, proclaiming; “Parents: Remove God’s children from the humanist schools.” With Christianity under attack on all fronts, especially media, academia, and the entertainment sectors, humanistically-deceived moderns began leaving church. With tithing and giving down, pastors had worries other than the pesky socialism threat. They caved in to financial “reality,” very often using the wholly unjustified “salt and light in the schools” pretext. Instead of “taking a chance on God” and declaring truth, they ignored the get-them-out warning. They feared backlash from parents and public school teachers among the congregants. It was and is that simple.

But there’s plenty of blame to go around. All of the best known national power ministries on radio and TV happily followed suit. They too feared jeopardizing their donations and product-sales base. True, these national voices gave occasional, random attention to the school problem, but were quick to say, as a covering mantra, that the two alternatives, home education and private schools “are not for everyone.” Result: Only a few previously pro-materialism-leaning parents were sufficiently aroused to change gears, even for their own children. From pew to pulpit to the big production ministries, the ball was dropped, and the youth contingent response in the 2008 election reflects this failure. Millions of younger voters from churched homes (and often joined by their parents) had, in fact, succumbed to school socialism-based, pro-permissive, pro-class envy, pro-homosexual, pro-green, anti-defense and anti-capitalism deception. Twenty-first-century parents and leaders must wake up. “If you forebear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain…. If you say, behold, we knew it not, does not he that ponders the heart consider it? And he that keeps the soul, does he not know it? And shall he not render to every man according to his works” (Proverbs 24:10-11).

“Children of the State” in World Magazine for November 1, 2008, unintentionally revealed the degree of American reluctance to grasp 40 years of brutal truth…years at least somewhat reminiscent of 1930s Germany. It stated: “If you want a classic example of how fast a whole culture can be turned on a dime, redirected by 180 degrees, try this: Just when it seemed, through the 1980s, 1990s, and even well into the past decade, that a socialist mindset had been successfully put down in the United States, back it comes- with a vengeance.” No! 2008 was not a “here it comes back,” inexplicable surprise. Exactly the opposite! Since the 1970s, youth socialism-indoctrination has been like a freight train coming. And in 2008 it arrived-with a vengeance, right on schedule and just as planned. If not addressed now, 2010 will be worse. Today’s younger voters are politically illiterate, socialist-leaning, damaged goods and much of this because of a church-wide, millstone-risking refusal to protect Christ’s “little ones” (Matt. 18:6). “For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are led of them are destroyed”(Isa. 9:16).

Wiser heads in the Church; in some rare pockets of government, and we here at American Vision, know that this trend to socialism and, with it, the soon loss of our freedoms, must end. That pitiable throng of those taken in by this fairy tale must decline. Those adults-to-be of tomorrow (and already-adults of today) who would help lead us out of the trap must increase. American Vision’s specialty in the culture wars has always been to supply God-honoring materials for Christians who want to enhance their Kingdom-advancing skills. But AV’s offerings will fall increasingly on deaf ears if the adult readers of tomorrow continue “learning” in the other side’s youth training camps. Why not tell your pastor to think over the challenge? Tell him that an obedience-respecting God will honor his leadership. This is a transformational hour in history and the hour is late. As Cliff May wrote last week in National Review; “The Democrats, i.e., the Left, now have the White House, control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governors’ mansions, a majority of state legislatures, the entertainment media, the elite news media, the unions, the educational establishment, the lion’s share of the philanthropic community, and increasing power over the courts.” ACORN is on its way to OAK status. Christians need to grow trees of influence of their own, their own forests, and fast. Failure to act now guarantees that things will all only get worse, and not just in the political realm but in all of them. We ask you to join us by removing your own children and encouraging others to do the same. Set January, 2009 as your target date. We don’t have forever. Thank you.

Is this why churches aren't making disciples?

2008-11-11T13:59:00.005-05:00

As I read the following article, my mind automatically jumped to the modern American church in general and pastors in particular. Have a look and then read my analysis below.

Serving Customers or Making Cars?
By Dan Miller

There seems to be a subtle shift that takes place in the history of most businesses. Let’s say Barney was a cave man who made great wagons. But there are only 20 people who live in his known world so as soon as he makes 20 wagons he’s out of business. If he can’t imagine using his skills for anything but wagon-making we might then see him sneaking around at night burning the wagons to rekindle demand. Or the town witch doctor knows he would not be needed if everyone were healthy. So he “creates” illnesses to keep his patients coming back rather than attempting to help them find ultimate health.

Now fast forward to 2008 in America – same deal. We have auto manufacturers who can’t risk making a car that really lasts – they need 5-year obsolescence. Parts that wear out and systems that malfunction are a necessary component of keeping the machine of making cars in place. It would be self-defeating to make a car that semi-permanently met the customer’s needs. You have to hope the customer doesn’t stay happy with their purchase for too long.

Do you really think we aren’t smart enough to make a lightbulb that would last essentially forever? But what would that do to the sales of lightbulbs?

What if a counselor or chiropractor really helped every client they saw? Got them to a point of healthy functioning on their own? How would he/she pay the mortgage the next month? Keeping people dependent on their services may become more important than seeing them get better.

If you realize your “work” is more dependent on keeping a system in place than on meeting the real needs of your customers, you are indeed vulnerable. Real estate developers, publishing houses, record labels, auto manufacturing and “investment” firms are all suffering in their attempts to keep systems in place rather than responding to the changes in demand of the marketplace.

What we need are new ways to engage our creative skills; not government support to allow us to keep doing what no longer works.

I happen to be a car enthusiast, but I think it’s a joke that someone “decided” we needed new models every calendar year? My primary car is a 1991 Mercedes 500SL – it’s 18 years old! It looks great, has great styling and is fun to drive. I’d love to see a 5-year car – where nothing changed for at least 5 years, or even 10. Can you imagine the streamlining of parts and service, and the reduced waste from excessive manufacturing?

Now – what are you doing in your work or business to make sure you are serving your customer’s needs, even if those needs change?

Maybe King James only preachers stick to that translation so that they're needed to interpret it.

Maybe pastors do the work of ministry in an exclusive manner because such an approach provides great job security?

Maybe ministry professionals convince us that their expertise is essential so that others won't begin to do the work themselves and take their territory away.

Maybe the churches produce consumers rather than disciples simply to maintain the institution.

Want fries with that?

Jesus' Worldview

2008-11-10T09:32:00.003-05:00

In his controversial, but excellent book, Christianity with Power, author Charles Kraft sets forth Jesus’ perspective on life in the kingdom of God. I have copied that list below. Compare Jesus’ beliefs and practice to your own. Then ask yourself, “Am I truly operating from a Christian paradigm?”

1. Jesus assumed the existence of God. He also had very definite assumptions concerning the nature and activities of God.

a. A Father with absolute authority over his children but who always remains favorably disposed toward them, though demanding obedience and faithfulness.

b. One who is actively involved with his creation.

c. One who stands against oppressors but who is tender and gentle toward victims, and even toward recalcitrant disciples.

d. One who values people with agape love.

e. One who understands and relates to people on the basis of their motives rather than their surface level-behavior or condition.

2. Jesus also assumed the existence of the spirit world.

3. Jesus believed in two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.

4. Jesus also seems to assume that this is a power confrontation [between the two kingdoms].

5. It is assumed, I believe, that both Jesus and his followers receive all their power from the Holy Spirit.

6. Jesus only does God’s works as he sees and does what the Father is doing.

7. To Jesus believing is seeing.

8. Obedience to God brings knowledge.

9. Agape love is the appropriate human response both to God and to humans.

10. Jesus assumed that forgiving others enables God to forgive us, while unforgiveness of others blocks God’s forgiveness of us.

11. If we acknowledge our sin, God will forgive us.

12. We are not to fight back.

13. Concern for the kingdom and faithfulness to God is the only worthwhile goal to aim at.

14. As God’s stewards, we are to risk with God rather than to preserve for God.

15. To be great in the kingdom, become like a child.

16. One who would lead should seek to serve.

Charles H. Kraft, Christianity with Power: Your Worldview and Your Experience of the Supernatural (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Vine Books, 1989), 108-114

The Great Conservative Hypocrisy

2008-11-06T16:55:00.002-05:00

If the article is too long, just skip down to the third paragraph, comrade. I've highlighted socialist programs that most Christians take as a given. We're all socialists now. Where's my government check?

The Great Conservative Hypocrisy
by Joel McDurmon
11/6/08

We say that conservatives suffered a great defeat in this election. I strongly disagree: this country has not seen a genuine conservative candidate in the major parties for several decades (no, not even Regan in practice). The problem is this: at the heart of conservativism lies a great compromise with the nastiest of moral enemies: covetousness and theft. These sins permeate every human heart, and they cross political every boundary. If the commandments of God Himself do not slow their spread into human choices (read: votes), then no stated principles of a political party will have much effect either.

Let’s face the truth: both major political parties are inherently socialist.[1] Both believe in the creation of wealth via fiat money (created out of nothing by the federal reserve) and the control of the vast majority of these created reserves by government decision. Even when the people oppose the creation of billions-and it is a rare event to get a near-unanimous voice as we recently did-the parties do not. Both Senate and House ignored the flood of calls and emails of vast and vehement opposition to the “bailout” (later re-dubbed “rescue”), and they voted it through. This was a fundamental failure of democracy (and yet Obama had the nerve to praise the “power of democracy” in his victory speech, after he himself voted for the bailout against the democratic voice). Both parties were partners in crime in this disaster and this was only one of many.

Conservative Christians oppose liberals in general. We pretend we have the moral high ground. We oppose abortion, the homosexual lobby, etc. And yet Christians accept, almost across the board, socialist wealth-redistribution schemes. We accept, and through our practices and choices approve, the principle that money can be taken from someone else by force in order to pay for a cause we believe is good. The most glaring example of this is education. Christians, almost to the person, accept and fight for the institution of public education funded by other people’s wealth. Christians will employ every intellectual artifice imaginable in order to justify public education. And yet what is government education based on except a wealth-redistribution scheme? Likewise, what is Social Security except a gargantuan behemoth of a wealth-redistribution scheme? What is the authorization of billions to prosecute unnecessary war except a wealth redistribution scheme? Christians will fight to the end for these things as morally right, and yet the funding for these things is based on institutionalized theft. Oh hear the justifications and rationalizations roll in against this claim! But there is no good rebuttal. Face it: most Christians believe in theft under the cover of a majority vote. Face it: most Christians (and most conservatives in general) are Socialists. Christians and conservatives condemn Obama for wanting to “spread the wealth around,” and yet most base their lives and their children’s lives on the same principle.

And since Socialism is the accepted norm across and between the two major parties, not conservatives but really liberals and progressives have the moral high ground. With the exception of abortion and gay rights, conservatives cannot claim the moral high ground on the most widely pressing issues. Liberals claim to believe in taking care of the poor, caring for the elderly, caring for the oppressed, caring for medical expenses, care, care, care, care, care. Granted, there are many practical problems with the implementation of liberal programs, but details are largely irrelevant to public motivations. As long as our government is going to print billions (even trillions) and then distribute that cash around, why not send it down to the most needy, why not subsidize health care, instead of funneling the hoards of cash solely to the biggest of banks (who had a great hand in causing the financial problems), big international business, and foreign destruction and reconstruction projects (given to big-companies without any public bid)? Why not? Why not, please tell me, if are going to accept the principle of socialism anyway, why not have the fiat money go to our kids, our health, and our grandmas instead of bankers and bombs? Instead of cliques and cartels? Why not distribute the money evenly to all for common needs instead of selectively? There is no good answer.

That government welfare and socialism are the accepted terms of the debate, the status quo, the accepted means to the end, eliminates the moral high ground for anyone who dares to not promise government “care” in some form or another. Until we stand opposed to fiat money and wealth-redistribution absolutely, we legitimize the liberals’ method.

Christians, you give up your claim to the moral high ground when you accept public education. You send you children to learn about socialism, from socialists, on a socialized buck. You are teaching your kids that you are socialists, they will be too, and socialism is morally acceptable. Don’t complain when the liberals push for more consistent socialism: you have complied with it, practiced it, and fought for it thus far. The same is true for caring for the elderly, insurance, etc.

If the next two years (at least) involve a steam-rolling of the liberal legislation through this nation, we will be justified in calling it the judgment of God that we have brought on ourselves.

Until conservatives grow a moral backbone and deny the federal treasury’s right to demand created billions, deny the principle that government should care for the people, deny that it is acceptable to vote based on the cash benefits and services government can provide, and in general, promote individual responsibility and accountability, America will decline. It will “change” into the tyranny that we fear most, yet have brought on through our own institutionalized covetousness and theft.

Until we remove the wickedness at the core of the system, we Christians can preach all we want, but we will prove that we have no better answers to covetousness and theft than the secular world around us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Thank you to Michelle Malkin for boldly arguing this, too; http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/11/05/peggy_the_moocher, accessed November 5, 2008.

The Myth of the Bullhorn Guy (or Christians Have Become Silent Wusses)

2008-10-26T21:51:00.006-04:00

Before you read the following article ask yourself this question: How effective has tolerance, PC language, and soft-sale evangelism been for my church? It's time to get bold again and turn the world upside down like those intolerant, bigoted apostles.

The Naked Truth about the Lie Running around the Church

by Kevin Harney

Most of us have heard the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. It is a memorable tale with a powerful message. The Emperor was arrogant and wanted the finest clothes possible. He hired some great and renowned fashion experts, and they got to work on his new wardrobe.

But the fashion experts were scoundrels. They knew nothing about making clothes, but they knew a great deal about deceit and thievery. So, they worked and worked and worked. When the king’s patience was beginning to wear out, they allowed him to see the fine clothes that were still in the process of being made. They assured the arrogant monarch that only the truly noble, wise, and best of people could see and appreciate the fine clothes.

When the king looked at the material being fashioned on the loom, he saw nothing. When the charlatan tailors held up the “clothes,” the king saw only air. But, everyone else was declaring how beautiful and elegant the clothes looked. Even the king’s counselors agreed that the clothes were exceptional, because they did not want to look unwise.

Too embarrassed to say he could not see the clothes, the king entered into the ruse and agreed that the clothes were beautiful. This process of deceit continued until the clothes were finished, the money was in the pockets of the “tailors,” and the king was marching down Main Street in great pomp, circumstance, and nothing else!

Finally, someone blew the whistle. A little boy exclaimed, “The Emperor has no clothes!” At this moment, when the truth was spoken, everyone knew what was happening. The veil was lifted. The kingdom-wide denial and deceit was replaced with clarity and truth. The Emperor indeed was buck-naked.

The Naked Truth

This story reflects a painful and present reality when it comes to evangelism in our day and age. There is a lie, a deceitful ruse, that has been sold to the church and Christians all over the world. It has been said enough times, by enough people who seem to know what they are talking about, so that the subjects of the kingdom are fearful to say, “The Emperor has no clothes.” I believe most of us see it. We know that what we are hearing about evangelism is wrong. But who are we to disagree with the conventional wisdom? Who are we to blow the whistle and say, “This is a lie”? Who are we to declare that the king is naked?

What is this deceitful message that is being paraded all over the Western Church? What is the lie so many followers of Jesus are hearing and accepting? What is being said about evangelism that is so wrong, destructive, and harmful to the cause of Jesus?

Here it is: “Christians are too forceful and blunt with their faith and we need to settle down, back off, and be more subtle.”

Over and over in the past decade we have heard speakers, read articles, and received this message with repeated clarity. Christians are scaring people off with our bold and pushy evangelism tactics. The best thing we could do is calm down, back off, and cool our jets. We are offending the world and driving people away from Jesus. Our blunt and blatant tactics are counter-productive. Our words are too direct. The only way we will reach this generation is by backing off.

It is time for someone to stand up and declare, “This is a lie.”

I don’t believe, in most cases, that this is intentional or malicious. But it is having a profound impact on the church. People read articles and hear seminar speakers talk about all the damage being done by over-zealous Christians. They sit and watch a video that portrays the idea that believers are in the habit of coming up to people with a bull horn and screaming religious slogans at them—scaring, offending, and driving people away from faith. They say, “That’s right, we should not be like the bull horn guy. We should back off and quiet down. The last thing we ever want to do is offend anyone.”

The dilemma is, the bull horn guy is a myth, a caricature that does not exist in reality. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m sure there are a few people out there that use this kind of bludgeon-like approach. In New York, Chicago, and L.A. there might be a person or two who scares people away by this very loud and invasive approach. But, is that really what most followers of Christ are like? Does the average Christian need a warning to back off from their over-zealous commitment to evangelism?

An Honest Picture

I began doing an informal survey of church leaders as I traveled and spoke around the United States. I asked over a thousand leaders a couple of simple questions. “Is the presenting problem with the people in your church that they are over zealous and too forceful in bringing the Gospel to their friends, neighbors and community?” I then ask, “How many of you feel that what your church members need is a warning to back off and be a little tamer when it comes to sharing Jesus with others?” Take a wild guess at how many of these leaders raised their hand and affirmed that the people in their Christian community need to back off, settle down, and dial back on the intensity of their outreach. The answer: none! Not one!

Then I asked, “How many of you would say that the greater need is for the people in your congregation to be more impassioned, more committed, and more zealous about sharing their faith?” The best count I have to date is about one thousand out of one thousand. As far as I could tell, not a single leader raised their hand to indicate that their church was filled with people who are pushing too hard in the area of outreach. These were leaders from across the country, from various denominational backgrounds and from every walk of church-life. Also, the gatherings where I asked for input on these important questions were not “evangelism” events. They were leadership training seminars and small group ministry events.

What is my point? The Emperor has no clothes! We have believed the lie for too long, and the results have been tragic. Church leaders are fearful and embarrassed to call the believers in their congregation to step out and do the work of evangelism. In the gospel of Matthew we read:

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field." (Matthew 9:35-38)

What Jesus spoke two thousand years ago is just as true today. The harvest is still plentiful. People are hungry for spiritual truth. The problem is not with the world; it is with the church. We have far too many believers who are not willing to become workers in God’s harvest fields. It is time that we agree with Jesus and speak the truth when it comes to reaching out with the love and message of grace.

No more encouraging believers to back off and settle down. Let’s not kid ourselves. For every “bull horn” Christian out there scaring people away, there are a couple of thousand believers sitting passively in church and never opening their mouth to share the amazing grace of Jesus.

It is time for the church to rise up, and followers of Christ must enter into the harvest. And, the next time you hear someone talk about how we Christians need to back off and settle down when it comes to the work of evangelism look at them politely and tell them that the Emperor has no clothes.

American Idolatry

2008-10-17T13:30:00.005-04:00

"If man is by nature a creature who gives praise, and if he does not know the true God, he will give his heart, and perhaps his sweat and blood, to something big within his vision. The two biggest candidates for false gods are Nature and the State. He will drown his imagination in the swamp of natural processes, birth and growth and sex and death, or he will enslave himself to power, most clearly manifest in an emperor-god, a deified city, or an all-competent State. Often, as in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and in today's American Left, he'll do both at once."

Anthony Esolen, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Washington DC: Regency Pub., Inc., 2008), 74

Welcome back Franklin and Lyndon! We've missed you comrades

2008-10-17T10:12:00.003-04:00

Get ready for the liberal supermajority. Not only does it seem likely that Barak Obama will win the presidency, but the Senate Republicans will lose so many seats that they will be unable to filibuster and block seriously flawed bills. An op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal says that this occurred two other times in our nation’s history: 1933 and 1965. The article speculates that Democrats will vastly expand the government to achieve the welfare-state liberals now can only dream of. Once in place, such legislation will be nearly impossible to repeal just as happened in the past.

Here’s a partial list of previously blocked legislation that you can expect the liberal supermajority to pass and the liberal president to sign into law:

1. Government run healthcare for all

2. Greater investigation and regulation of private industry

3. Empowering of labor unions through the elimination of secret ballot voting

4. Lifting the cap on payroll tax to increase funding for Social Security and Medicare

5. Expanding the tax rate on top wage earnings, thereby decreasing investment and job creation

6. Increased regulation to control climate change

7. Election day voter registration

8. Granting felons (most of whom are liberal) the right to vote

9. Re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine, effectively squelching conservative talk radio

10. Government regulation of the internet

Is this the change Americans have been hoping for? Get ready for more government and less liberty. Be prepared for an economic depression extended further than FDR could have imagined. If you want it, you’ve got it!

Neither the Maverick nor the Messiah matter all that much

2008-10-15T17:11:00.003-04:00

Here's a quote from a great new book I just finished reading. Keep this in mind as you consider the upcoming presidential election.

No doubt the race for the presidency matters. It just doesn’t matter nearly as much as the media’s obsessive coverage suggests. Whoever moves into the White House on January 20, 2009, the fundamental problem facing the country – a yawning disparity between what Americans expect and what they are willing to pay – will remain stubbornly in place. Any presidential initiatives aimed at alleviating the crisis of profligacy, reforming our political system, or devising a more realistic military policy are likely, at best, to have a marginal effect.

Paradoxically, the belief that all (or even much) will be well, if only the right person assumes the reins as president and commander in chief serves to underwrite the status quo. Counting on the next president to fix whatever is broken promotes expectations of easy, no-cost cures, permitting ordinary citizens to absolve themselves of responsibility for the nation’s predicament. The same Americans who profess to despise all that Washington represents look to – depending on the partisan affiliation – a new John F. Kennedy or a new Ronald Reagan to set things right again. Rather than seeing the imperial presidency as part of the problem, they persist in the fantasy that a chief executive, given a clear mandate, will “change” the way Washington works and restore the nation to good health. Yet to judge by the performance of presidents over the past half century, including both Kennedy and Reagan (whose legacies are far more mixed than their supporters will acknowledge), a citizenry that looks to the White House for deliverance is assured of disappointment.

Andrew J. Bacevich, The Limits of Power (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008), 171-172.

Barnyard dilemma

2008-10-14T10:29:00.004-04:00

Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). The commentaries I've consulted say this means that some people are so resistant to the truth that we shouldn't waste our time with them.

Luke 15:1-7 seems to say that we should make every effort to find God's lost sheep. The lost sheep is the sinner who is perilously straying from the Lord.

How do you distinguish between a pig and a sheep?

Does Bill Clinton have brain damage?

2008-10-13T15:08:00.002-04:00

This is not a political statement or a demeaning remark about our former president. He may actually have brain damage. Dr. John McDougall speculates that Clinton's weird behavior and angry outbursts may be due to brain damage caused by his heart bypass surgery a while back. If it's true, it's sad.

According to the article in the link, MRI scans reveal that 51% of patients who have bypass surgery suffer some brain damage from the procedure. That's more than half! Even worse, most doctors won't warn patients of the risk.

Eat your vegetables, exercise, get plenty of sleep, get rid of that gut, and watch your stress. Take that Lipitor or, if you're poor like me, chew an aspirin every day. If you're not careful that surgical procedure could alter your personality.

Why price gouging laws are idiotic

2008-10-08T21:02:00.003-04:00

Gas Shortage: Irrational Herding or Economics?
by Robert Prechter
Posted on 10/8/2008

The gasoline shortage in parts of the Southeast is nationwide news. Everyone has an opinion: It's hurricane Ike. It's refineries being off-line. It's dumb car owners "topping off." It's gas companies restricting supply. It's the media spreading the story. It's crowd behavior. It's irrational panic. Robert Prechter answers some questions about the gas shortage.

Q: Is the gas shortage in the Southeast due to recent hurricanes?

A: No. There have been a thousand hurricanes, not to mention earthquakes and tornados, over the past hundred years and they don't tend to cause gasoline shortages.

Q: Are greedy gas companies restricting supply?

A: If they're greedy, they're selling as much as they can.

Q: How about this quote in USA Today (9/29, p.3A) saying that the panic has been "fueled by media coverage of the shortage"?

A: If there were no newspapers, radio or TV, drivers would still see the "No Gas" signs all down the highway. It's not exactly something you can hide or would want to hide, for that matter.

Q: Isn't "topping off" contributing to the gas shortage?

A: For a day or two, maybe, but continued topping thereafter uses no more gas than would be used otherwise.

Q: What about other types of hoarding?

A: Most people don't have much capacity for hoarding. Maybe they've filled up a 10-gallon gas can. But that's a tiny amount compared to overall gas usage. Hoarding is not a fundamental cause of the gas shortage; the shortage is the cause of hoarding behavior. You can prove this point: If you could somehow stop hoarding, it would not relieve the gas shortage, but if you could relieve the gas shortage, hoarding would stop immediately.

Q: So what's our problem?

A: The shortage is due to the disruption of the free market by the state.

Q: You mean such as the EPA's mandates that distributors can bring only a certain type of gasoline to some of those areas, or the government's regulations that prevent oil companies from building new refineries?

A: Both of these decrees reduce available supplies of gas. But they are insufficient by themselves to cause a shortage.

Q: Doesn't reduced supply — scarcity — create shortages?

A: No. In a free market, shortages are impossible; there is only a price. Rubies and Picassos are scarce, but there's never a shortage of them. You can buy all you want any day of the week. Just pay the price.

Q: So how is the state causing a shortage?

A: The overriding cause of the shortage in the Southeast is state legislatures' mandates that anyone selling gasoline at market prices will be labeled a "gouger" and fined $10,000 to $25,000.

Q: That's it? That's the reason?

A: That's all there is to it. Only government can create shortages. If the price for gasoline had been allowed to fluctuate freely and rise to $5 a gallon locally, it would have provided plenty of incentive for truckers to siphon gas from other states and haul it to Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama. But as it stands, every one of these states has an "anti-gouging" law, and every one of their governors stood up to announce that he would vigorously enforce it. They may as well have said, "I demand a gas shortage."

Q: What should they have said instead?

A: It depends. If the governors want votes, they should threaten retailers, just as they've been doing. But if they want plenty of available gas, they should encourage retailers to sell gas at the highest price they can get.

Q: Would that help the supply and demand pictures?

A: Yes, both. On the demand side, high prices for goods and services curb consumption in an orderly way. If gas were more expensive, some people would postpone that trip to the country club for dinner. People who really needed gas to get to work or close a $50 million real-estate deal in Atlanta would pay the price. A higher price would also help supply. People wouldn't be burning gas waiting a half hour in line to buy it. And no one would be "topping off." On the contrary, people would hoard as little as possible and wait for the price to come back down.

Q: Would the price come down?

A: Of course. As wholesalers realized they could make an extra dollar a gallon in Georgia, they would burn rubber hauling gasoline there. Pretty soon, there would be lots of gas, and the price would drift back down. Other areas, from which the gas came, would experience a slight rise in the price. Prices would equalize across states, and there would be no shortage and no outsized high prices.

Q: How long would it take to get ample supplies to the stations?

A: With a sufficient profit incentive, probably about 48 hours. Certainly no more than a week.

Q: But don't some other states with anti-gouging laws have plenty of gas?

A: Sure. Suppose you're a wholesaler stationed in Texas. You're not allowed to get any more for your limited supply of gasoline in north Georgia than you can in the Florida panhandle. Where are you going to ship it? To the easiest, closest destination. Under price controls, gasoline gets allocated not by price but by other market factors — whatever reduces the cost of delivery — so the sellers can maximize profits. In the severest cases, price controls create a black market.

Q: It seems that gasoline isn't the only shortage.

A: Oh, no. There's health care, another area where the state caps prices. Sometimes the state creates surpluses, such as in housing, where government programs encourage massive mortgage indebtedness. Either way, it ends up a mess.

Q: You study crowd behavior. Aren't the public's recent actions — lining up at the pump, topping off and so on — due to irrational panic?

A: Not at all. People have good reason to line up and to hoard, which is that the state has decreed a price below the market rate. And they have a good reason to fear, too, because when the state controls a price, there is no basis upon which a person can rely on future supplies. Topping off is simply a rational reaction to disrupted supplies. So it is incorrect to charge everyday people with thoughtless anxiety in this case.

Q: You attribute many social trends to unconscious herding. But you're saying it's not the main factor in this case?

A: It would be the main factor if people were treating gas as a financial market — speculating on the direction of prices — but the current problem is economic. If some people can't get to work next week, maybe they can't afford food. So fears about the gas shortage are inherently individual, not inherently social. If the government closed all grocery stores but one, you would see huge lines. But that's not herding; it's politics and economics. People definitely are receiving information by watching others line up at the pump, but it is accurate information about the availability of gasoline, not uninformed mimicking behavior. People in Atlanta understand why cars are lined up: there's a gas shortage.

Q: Well, other people who study human behavior seem to disagree. I just read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ("Why We Ran out of Gas," 9/24) that a local professor says the panic at the pumps is all just "herd behavior: they see other people afraid and it snowballs." He says they're "sheep."

A: I see.

Q: He says the clamor for gasoline is simple to fix. For one thing, all we have to do to is "mandate a minimum of say, 10 gallons."

A: What does he want government to do? Put a policeman at every station to enforce this mandate? Jail people who misjudge and buy 8½ gallons? Administration would cost way more than simply letting the market function. And it will function, anyway, ban or no ban: People would start paying retailers to fudge sales receipts, buying gas from the back of a tanker at midnight, bribing the cops, and who knows what else.

Q: He says, "That would prevent topping off."

A: Right. Just as drug laws prevent drug use and blue laws prevent prostitution.

Q: He says, "You ban that and the problem will go away."

A: Bans do not fix problems. They exacerbate old problems and create new problems. For example, people down eight gallons would drive around furiously burning up two more gallons so they could top off. And where did the "10 gallons" amount come from? This sounds like ad hoc political interference, the kind politicians dream up every day.

Q: There's more. He suggests we must "have people stand up and socially ostracize people who are topping off."

A: Get people yelling at each other? That'll bring peace in the valley. Besides, the idea is inconsistent. If the herd is topping off due to irrational panic, how is the same herd going to start calmly ostracizing its members? Who's going to begin this movement, anyway?

Q: Well, according to him, "You need a leader to stand up and say that this is bad behavior, you are being bad citizens."

A: Public blaming is how McCarthy got started. I don't think we need to see leaders who caused the problem bashing people for behavior that their own actions induced. If our leaders weren't pandering to the crowd, we wouldn't have a gas shortage to begin with.

Q: Doesn't it look like herding when we watch the cars line up?

A: It sure does. But appearances can be deceiving. A specialist must be careful not to attribute every aspect of crowds to one theory of behavior.

Q: Don't you advocate that in many situations unconscious social mood is fundamentally causal to behavior?

A: Absolutely. Under socionomic causality, unconscious social mood trends are a powerful motivator of social behavior, but they pertain only in contexts of uncertainty. For example, social mood regulates trends in the stock market, macroeconomics, the social environment for peace or war, and trends in fashion and entertainment. It can even lead to expansions and contractions in supplies of commodities. But it doesn't make the commodities unavailable. The theory also allows for collective behavior aside from unconscious herding. Much crowd behavior is nonrational, but some of it is perfectly sensible.

Q: For example?

A: Such as going to the store when it has a big sale.

Q: How about when fear is a factor?

A: You mean like leaving the World Trade Center when it was burning to the ground? That's group fear, and it was rational. If you acted contrarily, you died.

Q: But this professor says that in the case of gas lines, "reality is irrelevant."

A: Reality is entirely relevant.

Q: So there is a difference between rational fear and nonrational fear?

A: Exactly.

Q: Some people think the ivory tower is to blame for antimarket thinking.

A: Academia makes room for all kinds of views. Matt Zwolinski of the University of San Diego has just posted a paper called "The Ethics of Price Gouging," which is due to be published in Business Ethics Quarterly. He concludes that so-called gouging — selling at market rates — is practical and serves "morally ethical goals."

Q: Will the gas shortage go away?

A: Sure. It'll be off the front pages when supplies catch up to the artificially low price or when the market is freed up.

Q: Politicians try to please voters. Wouldn't this imply that voters are ultimately at fault for wanting politicians to ban high profits?

A: Many people are envious of those who receive a windfall. If a retailer were smart enough or lucky enough to order gasoline before supplies contracted, he might make some extra money. I'm perfectly fine with that, but many people can't stand the idea. So they appeal to politicians to make sure it doesn't happen. These are the same people, by the way, who would not want anyone to get in the way of their seeking a higher income for their labor. Ironically, by banning so-called excess profits, they insure higher prices later, because the marketplace isn't allowed to communicate to producers the need for more gasoline, pipelines, and refineries.

Q: You sound as if this has happened before.

A: There were price controls on gas in 1973 under Richard "we're all Keynesians now" Nixon. The state mandated something called "odd/even rationing." Don't ask. I was there, and it was monumentally annoying. If you want details, Google "1973 gasoline shortage." It happened again in 1979. There were caps on "old" and "new" gas, another unnecessary restriction. There was a "windfall profits" tax. Carter told us to wear sweaters.

Q: So what's the solution?

A: Get out of the way. Let the market work.

My letter to the editor

2008-10-08T09:18:00.006-04:00

The following letter to the editor appeared in The Dispatch, a Lexington, NC newspaper last week.

Separate politics, religion

David Smith
Lexington

Published: Friday, October 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, October 3, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Editor: I'm writing in regard to the recent trend of local churches voicing support for one presidential candidate or another. This is not only deeply troubling but clearly illegal.

The concept of the separation of church and state exists to protect both entities from each other. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to a group of Baptists in 1802, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

The message that Jefferson is attempting to convey is that government has no business interfering with religion, and religion should not interfere with government. To that end, IRS tax code provides tax-exempt status for houses of worship - with the understanding that the tax-exempt houses of worship (specifically the clergy) will abstain from partisan politics and outright endorsement of political candidates. To be perfectly clear, the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 was changed to prohibit all nonprofits - religious or secular - from endorsing or opposing any candidate for public office.

If members of the clergy are steadfast in their desire to either endorse or oppose a given political candidate, they are more than welcome to give up their tax-exempt status. It seems to me that it is not in the best interests of churches to go down this path (an integration of church and state), as it is antithetical to their own teachings; in the Gospels, Jesus states: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." It puts one in a precarious situation to engage in activities that are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the Savior of one's own religious beliefs.

Here's my reply which was published this morning.

Religion, politics do mix
Joel Drake Smith
Thomasville

Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 11:40 p.m.

Editor: This response is addressed to David Smith's letter to the editor titled "Separate politics, religion." Mr. Smith's overall argument rests upon a misapplication of the First Amendment, misinterpretation of Jesus Christ, and a disregard of the biblical call to serve as a prophetic voice to government.

Mr. Smith shrewdly chose Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than simply quote the First Amendment. At no place does the U.S. Constitution employ the phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson created it as a reminder that the federal legislature is precluded from establishing a national denomination. The First Amendment only states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It guarantees the right of all citizens to worship freely. If worship of one's God includes speaking out about political issues, surely it's protected by the Constitution.

Mr. Smith's quotation of Jesus' statement "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" is an outright misinterpretation of the point. The statement is not advocating separation of church and state. Jesus affirmed that citizens should pay their taxes but also give God what he deserves. Caesar requires the coin because his image is on it. God requires the totality of every human being because his image is stamped on each. Jesus implied that one's faith should be extended to every area of life and be separated from none. Doesn't this include bringing faith to one's politics?

If Jesus intended his followers not to mix their religion with politics, he would need to erase vast pages of the Bible. Joseph and Moses mixed their religion with Egyptian politics. The Old Testament prophets thundered judgment of their government leaders from their pulpits. Jesus denounced Herod and spoke bold truth to Pilate. Paul demanded his rights after abuse in a Philippian jail. In Romans 13 the Apostle described the relationship between Christians and their government, and at no place did he advise them not to mix their religion with politics.

So what do you think? Did I make the case that we should mix religion and politics? What's your take on this subject?

Congressional tarts

2008-10-07T13:58:00.005-04:00

Have you wondered why our representatives in the House flip-flopped on the bailout bill? The folks at Taxpayers for Common Sense found that the revised Senate version sweetened the deal. They added enough pork to the bill to entice the House members to come running back and vote "yea."

Here's a list of sweeteners added to the bailout bill which have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill.

1.) Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children ($2 million)

2.) Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility ($100 million)

3.) Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ($192 million)

4.) Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit ($19 billion)

5.) Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation ($49 million)

6.) Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program ($3.3 billion)

7.) Sec. 201. Deduction for state and local sales taxes ($3.3 billion)

8.) Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions ($478 million)

9.) Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds ($148 million)

10.) Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa ($33 million)

What's it called when a person sells their integrity for money? Let's run the prostitutes in Congress out of town.

It's time to throw the bums out of office

2008-10-06T09:53:00.005-04:00

Here's an idea: let's collectively flex our political muscle and clean house. Polls indicated that 93% of Americans were against the bailout bill. What would happen if those 93% voted the bums out of office who arrogantly thwarted the will of the people? We could overthrow this corrupt government peacefully and send a message to the Washington establishment that we're not going to take it anymore. We're done having our liberties trampled, our money squandered, and our economic freedom kidnapped by the so-called elite.

Here's a link to see how your senators voted on the bailout bill. Here's a link to see how your congressman voted. If they voted "yea" withhold your support from them in November.

I realize that this could be painful. You might find yourself voting for a candidate who does not reflect your political ideology. Either hold your nose and vote for them anyway or cast your support for a third party candidate. Let's send a clear message to those who sold us out.

The point of no return

2008-10-06T09:14:00.002-04:00

The Political Class Crosses the Rubicon

by James Ostrowski

Many of us are at a loss for words to describe the significance of the billionaire banker bailout. We wish Murray Rothbard was still here to paint a vivid picture for us.

My father would teach us that swearing is what people do when they lack the ability to express themselves clearly. I plead guilty as I have been swearing like a sailor at Congress the last few days.

I can't help but think back to Caesar and the Rubicon. I think this bailout is the modern Rubicon of the political class. This is the point of no return. As Mises taught us, this massive intervention will accelerate the amazing growth of the power, size and scope of the federal government which will soon lead to escalating and cascading crises that could bring down the regime.

One consequence of the bailout has been overlooked. It will now be impossible to argue against any new spending program that favors non-billionaires and non-millionaires. "If we bailed out Wall Street, why can't we help __________." You will hear that line ad nauseum until the kleptocracy collapses under the own weight of its own greed.

So, objectively, the corporate state regime has set in motion its own destruction. The subjective conditions for radical change have also been established. The radical libertarian view of the state as a gang of criminals will no longer be a hard sell. It is now apparent to any honest and thinking person not blinded by being on the dole that the corporate state is a bunch of criminals, degenerates, and hoodlums. They just pulled off the biggest armed robbery in human history right before our eyes. Worse yet, it can no longer be denied that these thugs steal from the poor and give to the rich! Since the libertarians have led the opposition to the bailout, we have in one week erased the lie that we are apologists for the rich.

The corporate state's false god, democracy, has also suffered a mortal wound. We all know that the crooks in Congress were besieged by calls, emails, faxes and personal visits against the billionaire banker bailout. These were ignored.

Let's be clear about what happened here. This was the greatest single outpouring of populist feeling against a bill in living memory and the Congress last week said to the American people: screw you! The people beseeched Congress not to make this mistake and the Congress responded like Caesar:

"I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament."

~ Julius Caesar (III, i, 60–62)

The message is clear. If we play by their rules, we will lose. If we "win," they will just replay the game again and again until they win.

We have learned other valuable lessons this week. Both parties are useless. Both parties are enemies of the people. The MSM is useless. They were in the tank for the bailout throughout.

This week, the political class, drunk with hubris, crossed their own Rubicon. They had been tempted by a vision of hundreds of millions of sheep on the other side waiting to be sheared and slaughtered.

In this chess game, it’s the "sheep’s" move. I have played a little chess in my time so I suggest this move: render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Brutus said:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

~ Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

October 6, 2008
James Ostrowski is an attorney in Buffalo, New York and author of Political Class Dismissed: Essays Against Politics, Including "What’s Wrong With Buffalo."

My man Howard ... dropped the ball

2008-10-05T22:39:00.003-04:00

Well, I tried. I contacted my congressman as they always instructed me to do in government school, but he wimped out. I emailed Howard Coble a total of four times this week. The first time I urged him vote down the fed bailout. He followed the will of the people. The second time I thanked him for his courage in confronting the power elite of Washington and Wall Street. The third time I encouraged him to also vote against the Senate's version of the same ridiculous bill. Howard voted "yea." I guess he lost his nerve. My fourth email was a promise to do my best to remove Mr. Coble from office in the coming election cycle. I invite any other member of NC's 6th Congressional District to do the same. Feel free to skewer Senator Richard Burr as well when he's up for re-election in a few years. He approved of the Senate's bill too.

Ah ... democracy in action. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. New definition: "the people" = Wall Street fat cats, well-financed special interest groups, and irresponsible consumers who make up an ever increasing voter block in the US.

Are Christians really this gullible?

2008-10-05T22:29:00.004-04:00

Wow! I should no longer be surprised by this, but I am. Christian spokesmen, some of whom I've respected for years, are actually in support of the bailout. The following article provides a hard-hitting look at how some of them have responded to the current economic "crisis." Are they idiots, gullible, or co-conspirators? Read and you be the judge.

Elmer Gantry Economics
by William Norman Grigg

A vast potential for infernal mischief can be found in some otherwise harmless adverbs. Let us examine the specific case of the seemingly inoffensive modifier "normally."

Incorrigible cynic that I am, I've long believed that any sentence that begins with the word "normally" is an exercise in deception, generally taking the form of special pleading. Whatever follows the word "normally" is something morally objectionable that I should summarily reject, but am being asked to countenance just this one time. Or so I'm being told to believe.

In a radio commentary for Focus on the Family broadcast yesterday before the congressional vote on the Economic Dictatorship Enabling Act, Gary Bauer quite generously vindicated my belief.

"Normally, we would not want to bail out people that made wrong decisions," Bauer began in his familiar tone of adenoidal sanctimony. In terms of making his case, Bauer lost me at "normally" – but I listened anyway, as my enraged disgust took control of my jaw and put two very expensive dental crowns at risk.

"This crisis, if left unattended, could hurt people that made right decisions," Bauer simpered. "This [bailout] is not rewarding bad decisions. This is an attempt to prevent those bad decisions from hurting people that had no part in them."

Actually, those of us who had no part in those "bad decisions" are already being hurt. And we're in for much greater pain in the future. That much is out of our hands. The Über-Bailout would do nothing to protect the relatively innocent and powerless. However, it would greatly palliate the deserved pain of those who are powerful and guilty. And it would end – "temporarily," which in the lexicon of government power is a functional synonym for "forever" – the ability of the common people to compel elected representatives to combat the schemes of the Bankster Elite.

The FED's counterfeiting press (or its digital analog) has been tirelessly churning wealth siphoned from our paychecks and savings into the butter it slathers on the bread of the corporate elite. This pilferage will continue whether or not Congress actually passes a bailout measure, as it probably will (most likely in a post-election lame duck session).

The Paulson Plan simply proposed to sever the one thin, fraying thread of accountability still connecting the economic elite to the people it is plundering. That thread is Congress's constitutional role in appropriating funds and overseeing the executive branch personnel who spend them.

Paulson, acting on behalf of the corporatist plunderbund, wanted to snip that thread decisively, albeit with a grave sense of agonized reluctance amid a unique financial crisis.

Bear in mind, of course, that this is something Paulson would not normally propose. Heh.

Bauer's moral reasoning, such as it is, dictates that while it's a sin to steal a hundred dollars to feed your family, stealing $700 billion to salve the bank accounts of wealthy criminals is an act of Christian statecraft. Both of those acts are sins and crimes, of course. And it's important to remember that the Christian Gospels – regarded as the truth, or merely an interesting collection of moral teachings – make it clear that Jesus didn't define sin on a sliding scale favoring the rich and powerful.

The remedy for sin, in all circumstances, is repentance – acknowledgement of the evil one has done, an attempt to make restitution, and an earnest effort fully to turn away from the sin. None of this would be accomplished by the Über-Bailout whose purported necessity provided Gary Bauer with an opportunity to display his utter moral idiocy.

Joining Gary Bauer in offering a sermon on the supposed virtue of shaking down the poor to comfort the rich was Christian financial advisor Rob West.

"I really believe that we will see most of this money returned to the taxpayer," West began in the unctuous tone of a practiced con-man, "because as they buy up these loans at a discount the government will use their balance sheet to hold these loans and then sell them once market prices recover and stabilize.... There really is good evidence that the government can get most of this back." (Emphasis added.)

This is an exquisite example of a multi-layered lie – a veritable Napoleon pastry of prevarication, in fact.

Let's begin with the italicized words "taxpayer" and "government." When West began this exercise in artful dishonesty, he assured the anxious listener that the money spent to provide a cushion for corrupt financial institutions would be returned to the taxpayers from whom it would be taken. By the end, we're told that the money would actually be "returned" to the government. Obviously, this not the same thing as returning it to those from whom the money would be stolen.

In the middle of this noxious confection we find a blend of two related and thoroughly toxic untruths. The first is that government, through coercive redistribution of wealth, can inject "value" into something innately worthless, such as a pile of irredeemably corrupt mortgage securities. The second is that the inflated prices that we saw during the housing bubble were normal, and that the ongoing decline is an aberration.

What West doesn't explain is this: If these feculent mortgage bonds are such a spectacular bargain, why aren't they being snapped up by contrarian investors?

Behind West's assurances we can find the tacit understanding that the purpose of the Über-Bailout is to continue the process of inflation, the ongoing theft of the value of what we earn and save through adulteration of the currency. Yet West – whose advice is worth at least as much as, but no more than, a Zimbabwean dollar – maintains that the Bailout would have no inflationary impact:

"Certainly the American family has already felt increased prices at the gas pump and the grocery store. And I don't think necessarily that we'll see a marked increase in that just based on this proposal alone[.]"

Here we see West taking refuge in another mischievous adverb – "necessarily" – while pretending that "this [$700 billion] proposal alone" would be the sole and final act of larceny.

Like so many other sycophants in saintly guise, West couples his solicitude for the powerful with stern advice for the weak. It may be a moral duty to relieve the super-rich of their self-inflicted burdens, but the poor and struggling are owed no similar succor.

"One of the messages for the American Christian is that we have to heed the counsel of scripture," cooed West. "Take the opportunity now to make sure you live within your means. Take the opportunity to start paying off your debt and shoring up your financial foundation. Make sure you have some long-term plans."

All of this is impeccably sound advice, but it is difficult to see how any of us can reinforce our financial foundation when the FED and its accomplices can fatally undermine it through inflation. West is demanding that people support a policy that will bring their conscientious efforts to nought, and nullify any long-term plans they make.

The ever-deepening financial crisis presents us with an opportunity and necessity to do something that is no fun at all: Repent.

To repent, once again, is to turn completely away from one's present course. As individuals and as a nation we cannot continue to live on debt (or on "credit," as it's commonly called). There are already plentiful indications that American households are reining in their spending, foregoing luxuries of various kinds, and "hoarding cash." Banks are engaging in the same behavior. All of this is good and necessary – and, admittedly, painful. In other words, it is a species of repentance, one the Big Bailout (and the subsequent interventions) would be intended to discourage, if not reverse.

Economic repentance, to be effective, can't be merely the private affair of the public. The government ruling us cannot continue the imperial foreign policy that has received the conspicuous benediction of Palace Prophets like James Dobson and Gary Bauer – the latter being Dobson's representative in the neo-"conservative" warmaking network.

Why would a Christian political spokesman such as Gary Bauer miss such an obvious opportunity to preach repentance? Why would he choose to placate the powerful at the expense of the poor?

I suspect the answer may have something to do with Bauer's other affiliations.

Bauer was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century, the Beltway camarilla that was the womb in which the Iraq war gestated for several years. He is on the board of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a group that wishes to organize the entire world around the nucleus of U.S.-Israeli military domination.

A similar ambition animates the Jerusalem Summit, an organization on whose international advisory board sits the same Gary Bauer. The Jerusalem Summit's chief objective is to create an Israel-centered, armed "League of Democracies." That proposal that has been taken up by John McCain, the deranged, senescent, foul-mouthed adulterer who won the endorsement of James Dobson – the country's foremost self-appointed Christian family counselor – by convincing a mother of five children, including a newborn infant with a serious handicap, to forsake home and hearth for the vice presidential hustings.

Like too many "Christian" Right leaders, Dobson and Bauer are devout servants of the War Machine, which cannot operate without the fiat money system inflicted on our nation in 1913. They profess to worship Christ, while serving Mars and Mammon. That may explain the double-mindedness displayed by Bauer and West in their homily in support of the post-Housing Bubble Heist.

Bailout round 2

2008-10-01T10:35:00.004-04:00

If at first you don't succeed (to reward bad CEO behavior, to save malinvestments in an obvious housing bubble, to saddle American taxpayers with a generational debt burden, to further erode the value of the dollar, to avoid a sharp, short recession in exchange for a deeper, wider one, to thwart the Constitution, to implement the advice of the former CEO of a failed bank whose now the most powerful bureaucrat in the country, to prop up the flagging legacy of a lame duck president), try, try again. That's exactly what the Senate is about to do. Yet another knee jerk bailout bill is being strung together as you read.

Take action friends. They will listen if we make enough noise. Contact your senators and tell them to vote against the bailout. The Senate may be a lost cause, however. Thankfully, there's still the House of Representatives. They're closer to their constituencies and actually listen. (My man Howard Coble voted against the first bill because of opinion against it.) Definitely contact your congressman. To find contact information or to figure out who your representative is, click here.

An open letter to the bailout cowards in Congress

2008-09-28T23:02:00.004-04:00

I haven't heard of this guy until today. I don't know him, but I like him. He opposes the bailout unlike most of the sheep now bleating in Congress as they mindlessly follow the chief shepherd, Henry Paulson. I hope and I pray that there are more representatives like Mike Pence of Indiana. Perhaps there's still a chance that the financial markets won't be nationalized. Pence and Paul make two votes against the bailout. Well, it's a start.

Here's Pence's letter to Congress:

From Congressman Pence's Office
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Mike Pence sent the following letter to his colleagues today in opposition to the deal struck last night on the bailout of the financial services sector:

Dear Colleagues:

Our nation has been confronted by a serious crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis.

We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?

Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy.

Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it.

Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principals.

If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.

Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God.

We have fought the good fight. Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour.

And if you do this I promise you, I will stand with you and, I believe with all my heart, the American people will stand with you as well.

MIKE PENCE

Bailout? Just do nothing!

2008-09-27T08:07:00.002-04:00

Here's the clearest and most reasonable advice I've read so far concerning our forthcoming government bailout. I'm not sure who this guy is, but he's right on target and has a way cool first name.

Bailout? Just do nothing
No matter what, it's going to be ugly. So let's just save the $700 billion.
Joel Stein September 26, 2008

I am a huge proponent, at all times, of doing nothing. Remember when everyone was filling bunkers with millet because computers wouldn't be able to handle a year with three zeros in it? I stayed Calvin Coolidge cool. After America was attacked on 9/11, I suggested keeping our armies home. When John McCain responded to the economic crisis he'd have to deal with as president by suspending his campaign, I started to think that maybe he's my guy after all.

Even though I understand so little about economics that much of my long-term investments are tied up in Costco products, I feel pretty sure that letting Congress give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $700 billion to buy super-crappy mortgages is not the right call.

Sure, like any American, when I see a photo on the Internet of an adorable little investment bank and find out it's at risk of being put to sleep, I want to throw in $2,000 to $3,000 of my own money to adopt it. But instead of jacking up inflation, letting the dollar sink further and paying higher taxes so we can keep up cheap borrowing -- which is what this plan amounts to -- I think we need to let those who made bad loans get burned. We need to accept that credit will dry up and that maybe -- for just a bit -- we'll have to stop buying more than we can afford.

Because it's not just the Wall Street bankers who over-leveraged their companies who are to blame. Do you have credit card debt? Did you buy a house with less than 20% down, or with an adjustable-rate mortgage, assuming that skyrocketing equity would let you refinance or flip it? Of course you didn't, because you're a super-intelligent reader of my column. But don't you think every single Rosa Brooks reader did?

Americans have been living beyond our means, and we should have recognized that fact the moment we saw those glass Voss water bottles. But we can recover from our misbehavior through a little austerity, like having only one house -- perhaps one NBA players couldn't play chicken in. More than the mistakes made along the way, however, I fear the overreaction to them, a lesson I learned from chief economist Wyle E. Coyote.

So let's not stop the short-selling of financial stocks -- the only brake on overindulgence -- as Paulson did last week. Let's not strip Congress of yet another power by giving the Treasury secretary the right to decide where to dole out a large portion of our budget. Let's not encourage more risky loans by making profits private and losses public. And let's not create some bastardized form of communism in which the new rule is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to the size of the investment bank he owns shares in."

And if we really are going to give money to the rich, let's at least follow the rules we demand other countries adopt when the International Monetary Fund bails them out: slash spending, balance budgets and eliminate trade restrictions and subsidies. We also sometimes force them to come here and clean our houses, do our gardening and watch our kids. I foresee a not-too-distant future when Chinese guys complain about how every time their cheap Google phone breaks, they can't understand the tech-support guy because his Mandarin has a thick Minnesotan accent.

More than 100 of the nation's top economists -- from the left and right as well as other countries -- signed a letter to Congress warning it not to let Paulson have his way. We can't panic at a dropping Dow Jones industrial average, rising interest rates or companies going under; capitalism means that our over-excitement will lead to some down years after a lot of good ones. But the best economic system is still one in which $700 billion of decisions are spread among all of us, not one guy who used to run Goldman Sachs and who, just this summer, said that the economy was fine.

We've got a basically sound banking system that got a little under-regulated during the Clinton administration. We just have some unsound banks that I hope will be replaced by ones with much more exciting names, such as Citi :) or the Bank of OMG. This recession is going to be ugly no matter what we do. Which is why I suggest doing nothing.

Great quotes from the RNC

2008-09-04T17:24:00.003-04:00

Thanks to my buddy Mike for compiling this list. (As if he had a choice. I stole it from him.) I'm not sure if he copied this quotes while listening or downloaded them from another site. Whatever the case, I hope you enjoy these and cheer as much as I did last night.

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all." -- Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in speech to the convention.

"I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country." -- Excerpt from Palin's speech.

"There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state Senate," -- Palin's speech.

"But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger, take more of your money, give you more orders from Washington and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy, our opponent is against producing it." -- Palin's speech.

"This is not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything." -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in a speech to the convention.

"He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years." -- Giuliani's speech

"I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that her home town isn't cosmopolitan enough. I'm sorry Barack that it isn't flashy enough. Maybe they cling to religion there." -- Giuliani's speech.

“I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing,” -- Giuliani's speech

“John has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on the job training.” -- Giuliani's speech

“"In the Illinois Senate, he voted ‘present’ nearly 130 times. He couldn’t figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough, I didn’t know about this vote ‘present’ when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn’t have this vote ‘present’ when she was mayor or governor. It doesn’t work in an executive job. The president of the United States is not good enough to be ‘present.’ You have to make big decisions.” -- Giuliani's speech

“His rise is remarkable in its own right — it’s the kind of thing that could happen only in America, but he’s never run a city, he’s never run a state, he’s never run a business, he’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis." -- Giuliani's speech

“I am so tired of hearing about her lack of experience, I want to tell you folks something. She got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” -- Mike Huckabee

“John McCain doesn’t want the kind of change that allows the government to reach deeper into your paycheck and pick your doctor, your child’s school or even the kind of car you drive or how much you inflate the tires." -- Mike Huckabee

“He doesn’t want to change the very definition of marriage from what it has always meant throughout recorded human history. It is not above John McCain’s pay grade to grasp the simple fact that human life begins at conception, and he is committed to protecting it." -- Mike Huckabee

What's the big deal about Sarah?

2008-09-04T10:06:00.006-04:00

It didn't take the dogs very long to start rummaging through the trash when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate. The attempts to discredit started within 24 hours. Have you wondered why they're so vicious? Colson nails it in the article below.

Clashing Worldviews
by Chuck Colson

Last week, 40 million TV viewers watched Barack Obama become the first African-American nominee of a major political party.

And 24 hours later, Republican candidate John McCain set the political world on its ear by selecting a little-known woman governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his running mate.

Either way the election turns out, history will be made.

Social conservatives reacted to Palin’s election with near euphoria. Social liberals reacted with fury. Why? How could a governor from a politically small state spark such strong emotions?

I believe it is this: In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now . . . and somehow, they touch her personally. Start with the most obvious: abortion.

Palin, a mother of five, is staunchly pro-life. And, as you know by now, her fifth child, Trig, has Down syndrome. Knowing full well the challenges such a baby would become, Mrs. Palin chose to bring the baby to term. Then, over the weekend, the Palin family announced that their oldest daughter was pregnant out-of-wedlock—and that the daughter would have the baby.

Both sides of the life issue reacted swiftly. The pro-abortion crowd mocked Palin for her support of abstinence-only sex education, which, they say, failed her own daughter. Some commentators took the ad hominem approach, claiming that it is fine for Mrs. Palin and her daughter to bring their babies to term; after all, they’ve got money and a supportive family.

At the same time, the pro-life side hailed Palin and her daughter as heroes for living out what they believe. I think, however, that we ought to look at this as a test for ourselves. Would your belief in the sanctity of life have stood the test if you had found yourself in the Palins’ situation? Either as a middle-aged working mom, or as the father of a pregnant teenage girl? How supportive is your church of young, unwed mothers?

Next, let’s take the war in Iraq. Mrs. Palin’s oldest son enlisted in the Army and is preparing to deploy. Critics of the war have not said much about this young man’s love of country. But his actions, like those of his mother, should cause those who support the war to reflect for a moment: How would you react to your son’s enlisting? For putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak?

Pick any other issue . . . homosexual “marriage”: She is against it. But her first act as governor of Alaska was to veto legislation that would have denied state-funded health benefits for gay partners.

Or oil drilling: She is for it—even in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and even though she loves the great outdoors as a hunter. Earmarks? She helped scuttle the infamous bridge to nowhere. But it also seems that as a small-town mayor, she hired lobbyists to help secure millions in federal dollars to benefit her community.

Like all of us, she wrestles with her own convictions. Every flashpoint in American politics and culture seems to come together in this woman from Alaska. I am not telling you how to vote, but for once, I will urge you to watch the news and the political commentaries. Because if you can see through the smoke, you will be able to witness the clash of worldviews in real time.

Back to school ... losers

2008-08-18T12:10:00.003-04:00

Sorry about the title of this post. It's loosely based on the following article, but mainly for shock effect so that every student viewing this blog will read it. The following is by Mike Adams, a professor at UNC Wilmington. I wish I'd been educated by teachers like this.

*Added bonus: Click here for a funny, but totally unrelated story about the image above

Welcome back UNCW Students!

If you have not yet heard (or read) about me, I am an outspoken Christian professor who has, at times, been critical of certain aspects of evolution. I mention this because it affects the way I see you and the way I will treat you this semester.

Rather than seeing you as the mere product of random mutation, I see you as a unique individual who is of infinite worth to his Creator. Each one of you has unique and special talents and along with that a distinct purpose in life that makes you not just unique but irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, I sometimes have students who resist fulfilling their God-given potential. Often, they do things in college that hurt their chances of success in life. One good example is a fellow named Davidson Myers whom I first taught in the fall of 1999.

Davidson, who aspired to be a lawyer, came into my class late on several occasions. He was also prone to turning around in his seat and yapping in class with another student by the name of Paula Tyndall. This went on for weeks until Davidson the aspiring lawyer got back his first test grade. It was a “C” in a class called “Criminal Law and Procedure” that was central to his career aspirations. He was devastated so he came by the office to see me.

When Davidson came by he told me he could not afford to be getting “Cs” because he was going to be a lawyer. My response to Davidson was simple: “No, you’re never going to be a lawyer. Not until you get your (offensive term deleted) together.”

A truly bizarre thing happened to Davidson after I told him to get to class on time and pay attention or he would never amount to anything. He actually did what I told him to do. In other words, he took responsibility for his actions like a man, not a victim. (Author’s Note: The terms “victim” and “man” are as incompatible as “compassionate” and “Marxist”).

In addition to getting an “A” on my next exam he took another of my courses the next semester. He got an “A.” Today, he is a lawyer married to another lawyer. He and his wife have a successful practice here in North Carolina. When I called him to ask permission to share his story he laughed uncontrollably. I consider him a friend and someone I would hire were I to get into trouble with the law.

By the way, here is the (threefold) reason I am sharing Davidson’s story with you today:

1. Every time you enter my class late – even one second late as you should be in your chair before the class begins – I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

2. Every time you flap your jaws with one of your classmates while I am lecturing I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

3. Every time I see or hear your cell phone in my class I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

My approach to teaching is very different than the approach of those who teach in the victim producing disciplines like sociology and social work. Those professors seek a nation populated by dependent losers because they value job security more than they value you.

I, on the other hand love my God very much. And I know that he loves each and every one of you. That is why I consider it my duty to make sure you act responsibly and that you become all that you were intended to be. If you find that offensive then you are probably enrolled in the wrong class.

I look forward to our first class on Wednesday!

Sincerely,

Mike S. Adams

An Olympic question

2008-08-14T22:27:00.005-04:00

A question has been haunting me this week as I've taken note of American swimmer Michael Phelps. As you probably know, he's beating the daylights out of the competition. Phelps is so good that the completely open and unbiased Chinese press won't talk about him. Sure he's fast and everything, but here's what I want to know: Does he have to wear his freaking swim suit so low? Does it make him go faster? Is he intimidating the competition with his haunches? Is there some chafing issue he's attempting to resolve?

Michael, you're a great swimmer, but please pull up your britches. It makes me very uncomfortable. Shut up Freud!

Why I Am Not a Liberal by Dennis Prager

2008-08-12T22:53:00.003-04:00

This is one of those articles that is so good I just had to post it. Dennis Prager expresses the truth with clarity and passion. Although I don't agree with every jot and tittle stated here, I think he's on the money.

Why I Am Not a Liberal
by Dennis Prager

The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.

Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.

I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.

I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.

I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.

I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.

I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.

Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal."

I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

The Spanish rice controversy

2008-08-12T17:46:00.004-04:00

How dare they? The Spanish Olympic basketball team had the audacity to pose for a picture while slanting their eyes. It was a nasty joke aimed at the Chinese company who sponsors the team. O the humanity ...!

This is terrible. Now Chinese people might have their feelings hurt. This could result in all sorts of self-esteem problems as they realize that their eyes are not shaped like every other race in the world. Where's the equality, the fairness, the tolerance in that?

Think what this could lead to. Hispanics may discover that their hair is black. Caucasians might discern that their skin is pale to beige. Blacks may see their Afros. Jews could learn that their noses are prominent. Indians may find that their skin is a lovely shade of light brown. Someone save us from the horror that we're not all exactly alike!

Obama Jokes

2008-08-10T18:23:00.002-04:00

Craig Ferguson: "Barack Obama was in Germany" today, and "he did this speech and 100,000 people showed up. There were so many Germans shouting and screaming that France...surrendered just in case."

Jimmy Kimmel: "They really love Barack Obama in Germany. He's like a rock star over there. Impressive until you realize that David Hasselhoff is also like a rock star over there."

David Letterman: Signs Barack Obama Is Overconfident.

Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to 'Oklabama.'

Offered Bush 20 bucks for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner.

Asked guy at Staples, 'Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?'

Having head measured for Mount Rushmore.

Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library.

Jay Leno: "Of course, Obama's supporters got him his usual birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

Jay Leno: "Obama's people are trying to portray McCain as cranky, and McCain is trying to portray Obama as arrogant, you see. And when Obama was asked what he thought about being called arrogant, well, he said he was 'above having to answer that question.'"

Jay Leno: "See Barack Obama on the news? He's becoming a workout fanatic. He's at the gym, like, twice a day, sometimes three times a day at the gym, yeah, according to his staff. Well, he has to stay in shape to do those flip-flops."

Jay Leno: "Barack Obama back from his big European tour. Did you see him in Europe? People were cheering him, holding up signs, blowing him kisses. And that was just the American media covering the story."

More wisdom from the little Albanian nun

2008-08-09T10:36:00.002-04:00

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"

"And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14

Islam's incompatibility with democracy

2008-08-06T14:28:00.005-04:00

The following is an interview with Hirsi Ali, author of the book Infidel. The interviewer is trying to make the point that perhaps Islam can evolve as Christianity did (Actually Christianity did not evolve, it simply returned to its roots after the Bible was pried from the fingers of the Roman Catholic Church) to become a peaceful, freedom loving religion.

I hope, I hope, I hope my friends at the Dispatch forums will read this. Your PC ideas about Islam do not reflect reality.

(To Ayaan Hirsi Ali) Is Islam the problem or is fundamentalist Islam the problem?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Islam, as a creed, is the problem, depending on how you define the problem and I define it as the ideas of Mohammed are incompatible with the ideas that liberal secular democracies are based on.

And I also want to emphasise that it's not Muslims as in individuals, because they're varied, they're very diverse. Some Muslims are a problem, some Muslims are not, some Muslims are apathetic, but Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas.

MARK COLVIN: And yet here in Australia we live next to an enormous, mainly Islamic country, which is slowly moving towards democracy which would seem to indicate that Islam itself is not necessarily a complete barrier to doing that.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Islam is a barrier to doing that, but your next door neighbour, which is the world's probably largest Muslim country, started out after the decolonisation process as a secular democratic country, and right now we see two trends.

We see Indonesians who are evolving in their understanding and practice of democracy, but we also see Indonesians who are affected by the Middle East, and especially by the Islamic Radical Movement and who are choosing to introduce Sharia, or parts of Sharia, into Indonesia, and I think it's that trend that Australia should not ignore. And it's that trend that Indonesia itself should not ignore.

...

MARK COLVIN: But the point I'm making, I suppose, is that there was a time when Christianity didn't allow it either. Is Islam permanently incapable of reformation or change in that way?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: It's very important to make a distinction between Islam as a set of ideals, Christianity as a set of ideas and so on. And human beings, individuals, Muslims, are capable of change. They're capable of forming their religion, they're capable of thinking differently about different things.

Islam as creed as incapable of change in the sense that … for instance there's a read-only lock on the Koran. Anyone who proposes to change anything in the Koran is considered an apostate, and is immediately killed or threatened with death.

Muslims hold that the Prophet Mohammed is infallible. In fact, it's a claim he did not make, but that is accorded to him. So that Muslims must in the 21st century, emulate the example of the Prophet Mohammed. And I think Islam will change, will be reformed, if a fair amount of Muslims abandon those dogmas.

MARK COLVIN: The Enlightenment, which you're here to talk about, only really came about after a very long period, a couple of 100 years, of extreme violence between Christian sects, notably the 30 years war, and the Peasant Wars, and so forth.

Is it necessary for Islam to have to go through that kind of thing, or is there a short cut?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well, that depends on the people. If you have, as we have right now, people who want to practice Islam in its most pure form, and impose it on not just Muslims, but everyone else, then you're going to see a resistance both from within Islam and outside of Islam.

And that resistance, if that doesn't lead to a dialogue, a peaceful dialogue with a peaceful outcome, will lead to bloodshed. And if you look, if you listen to the rhetoric of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, these are people who say we can't compromise unless everyone becomes a Muslim. Now, everyone is not going to become a Muslim, and so then you set the stage for violence, and that violence is then caused by the zealots, by the puritans.

If freedom of expression is limited as it is in Muslim countries, and as large numbers of minorities in Western societies are demanding, then that means the free exchange of ideas. And the stages for that diminish and people get frustrated and that could lead to violence.

MARK COLVIN: When you say, "Large numbers of people in Western societies are demanding", what are you referring to?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Everyone followed the cartoon crisis, or the crisis about the cartoon drawings of Mohammed in Denmark. That led to an explosion of violence because large groups of Muslims still will not accept criticism of their religion.

Over and over again, when in the name of Islam, human blood is shed, Muslims are very quiet. When drawings are made or some perceived slight or offences given by writing a book, or making a drawing, or in some way criticising the dogmas of Islam, people take to the streets. We have all these leaders of the organisation of Islam, the countries who oppressed on people, coming to demand the people apologise.

And I think it's this discrepancy that more and more people see as violence and intolerance and the lack of freedom inherent in the creed of Islam.

Let It Rise! - Part 3

2008-08-04T22:08:00.006-04:00

Here's more good news. There is a solution to our energy problem and addiction. The answer won't come from the government, but from enterprising entrepreneurs. The following article is not the most interesting that I've ever read, still it provides some insight concerning the future.

Change is on the way because someone can cash in on it.

How We Get to Gas Free Autos and A Smog Free Sky
by Doug Wilson

If there’s one priority we can all agree to in this country, it’s getting us free from the use of gasoline in our automobiles. But how do we get there? What do real experts say is going to happen?

I had the privilege of interviewing Professor Scott Samuelsen, the head of the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California, Irvine. Scott is doing work with the leading car companies in the world who are developing alternatives we can use. He knows the direction these car makers are moving and the investments they are making in alternative energies. UCI is also located in Orange County, which is the hub of automobile designs for the future.

I asked Scott to keep the explanations simple and to assume I don’t know much…..so in a way, you can think of this interview as transportation fuels for dummies. I’ll start with the basics and go through the transportation transformation that is going to take place in America over the next twenty years.

The alternative technology most prevalent today is the hybrid vehicle. A good example is the Toyota Prius. It has an electric battery that supplements a normal gas fired engine. The battery is charged by the breaking of the car as well as by the engine. It is not charged by plugging the battery into anything. It is called a hybrid vehicle.

The next step in this evolution is the PHEV - the plug in hybrid electric vehicle – where batteries on board can be recharged by electricity at home or at work. Here is where electrical transmission into our home and work places becomes very important. Without adequate electricity, we will not be able to recharge the PHEV. Late at night and early in the morning, electrical grid capacity is available for recharging…to a point. Improving the electric grid over the next 20 years to both handle millions of vehicles and minimize emissions from power plants are critical to our future. Yes, many people will recharge their vehicles at night when the rates are low, but we need to anticipate growing demand and find ways to meet it. The way we can do this is through wind, solar, and nuclear power.

The average person drives less than 35 miles per day. The average all electric range for a PHEV is projected to be between 40 and 60 miles, depending on the weight of the vehicle and battery technology. This means that for many cars, they would never require gasoline. However, the car will still come with the ability to automatically convert to the gas fed engines if the driver needs extra distance.

This leads us to the next step in the process. We need a gas free alternative when the plug in electric vehicle runs out of power. What is it? Dr. Samuelsen sees the car companies moving over time to hydrogen as the best alternative to power a fuel cell under the hood. At this point, there are challenges with hydrogen, but these problems are being worked out and after all, we are looking at least 10 years into the future before the hydrogen car needs to be ready for mass distribution.

Hydrogen can be produced cheaply from a variety of sources. Orange County California will soon be producing the first hydrogen plant made from the digestive gases of a waste water treatment plant. Hydrogen can also be made from the gas that escapes from landfills. The requirements for hydrogen to power vehicles will drop significantly as the electric vehicle takes over most of the day to day requirements for daily trips. Filling stations will add hydrogen dispensing if the energy companies are confident this is going to be the future.

Some people say the pounds per square inch (psi) required for hydrogen vehicles is too dangerous. Dr. Samuelsen believes the psi will come down below 3600 in the future, which is about what a natural gas vehicle runs on today. Honda already is producing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that runs on 5000 psi with acceptable range.

So we have a three step process. First, the move we are making to affordable hybrid vehicles that recharge using brakes and an on-board gas engine. Second, the move to plug in hybrid electric vehicles that provide a generous all-electric range and convert to gas for longer trips. Third, the move to hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles that will replace the gas powered engine with the same plug in attributes introduced by the PHEV.

Sure, this is one smart engineers opinion. He is connected and knows the facts. Will it come true? It could, if we will exercise the leadership and foresight to keep moving as a country to oil free automobiles. Customers are ready to make changes. Admittedly, there are many competing technologies today and we will evolve over time. I found it refreshing to speak with an expert who sees a way out of our mess and knows we can get the job done if we stay focused first on the end game of oil independence and then it’s by-product – a smog free sky!

(To learn more about Professor Scott Samuelsen, you can visit http://www.apep.uci.edu/samuelsen/)

A pretty dang cool poem that hung on the wall of a pretty dang cool woman

2008-08-04T11:20:00.003-04:00

I found this incredible poem at Bob Carder's website. I need to reread stuff like this every day.

ANYWAY

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Be good anyway.

Honesty and frankness will make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People need help but will attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God.
It was never between you and them anyway.

~ Kent Keith, made famous by Mother Teresa*

* Kent Keith originated this poem in 1968, and Mother Teresa placed it on her children’s home in Calcutta in a slightly different version. As a result, many have attributed it to Mother Teresa.

More fun with forums

2008-08-03T22:22:00.005-04:00

In case you haven’t noticed there’s an odd little subculture out there. Cyberspace communities are situated around newspaper websites where folks can express their opinions, attempt to influence, or generally make a nuisance of themselves. They go by the name forums, and, man, have I learned a lot about human nature and myself through them.

If you are mentally stable, in control of your emotions, and want to establish cyber-community or perhaps even share your faith, forums are an excellent avenue to pursue. The latter was my purpose, but I am such a slow learner and, I think, so bizarre in my approach and writing that I largely discredited myself within a couple of weeks. I’m incredibly skilled at that. I’ve written this post in case you have a hankering for the land of forums. Keep these helpful hints in mind as you head out on your journey.

Don’t go there if you have OCD and/or are a people pleaser. If you are obsessive, you will be consumed by the forums. There’s a genuine rush that occurs when you post and defend your ideas in a public format. But beware because the adrenaline can hook you. I found myself off task at work and lying awake at night thinking about how to overcome poster’s logical fallacies and irritating habits. My obsession would inevitably lead to a post. The post would inevitably be too harsh. I would inevitably apologize and then the process would repeat itself. If you are as mentally and emotionally unstable as me, stay away!

Be on your best behavior for at least a month. If you really want to establish yourself, don’t mouth off or try to intellectually blow someone out of the water or criticize for several weeks. Forum folks are a sort of dysfunctional family who have a quasi-love for one another. It is community. If you go after a family member you will be taken out.

I made the mistake of criticizing a much beloved citizen of this cyber-community for his unfair treatment of posters with whom he disagreed. I felt that he was bullying, so I sent a humorous poke in his direction. It was as if I’d said the “N” word at an NAACP meeting (Which I would never do in any circumstance, by the way). Suddenly, I was whipping boy, target numero uno, Benedict Arnold, George Wallace, and Pee Wee Herman all rolled into one. Posters appeared on the spot to cleanse the cyber-earth of my pollution. I never recovered. Watch your Ps and Qs.

Give up as little information as possible. If you have a blog or website, don’t reveal it. If you have a degree or area of specialty, keep it to yourself. Remember, whatever information you give up will be used against you. I foolishly put the address to this blog on my profile. I though it might be fun if forum folks visited and we continued our interaction. It didn’t quite work out that way.

One poster apparently visited this blog and formed the opinion that I was an intolerant Neanderthal. (On subsequent review of some of my articles I could see why.) The sensitive, lady poster apparently simmered on my supposed bigotry and used an article I’d written to skewer me when I issued an intolerant sounding post. From there on out she slammed me at any opportunity, but for the most part was coldly silent. I’m sure she’s a nice person with good motives, but she no like Enik (my screen name) anymore.

Satire is not welcome. If you truly want to be reviled, use cynicism and sarcasm. Though it may work on Saturday Night Live and Monty Python, satire does not translate to forums. Posters over 55 won’t get it, even if they like you. Liberals seem to be satire-deaf too, unless you’re criticizing the president, of course. For the most part people will just think you’re an immature, pain in the butt if you use it.

Always remember that those who oppose your point of view don’t care about the facts. For me this was THE most frustrating thing about forums. People don’t care about content anymore. It’s all opinion and feeling. Cuteness and cleverness win the day, not sound reasoning.

What I’m about to say is not true of all forum folks, but it is of many. Posting for some is a form of intellectual auto-erotica. There’s no real thought of influencing or being influenced, just showing off. If you’re into that sort of thing go for it. You won’t go blind, but it is rather empty.

Posting is a lot like road rage. Road rage occurs because people are alone in their vehicle with no accountability for their actions. They don’t see other drivers as human beings, but as objects like BMWs, Jeeps, and Gremlins. As a result, they feel justified in violently striking out. Posting is similar because you’re alone at a computer and looking at avatars with funny names. You’ll be tempted to verbally go postal. Keep in mind that Rag Top Dave is a person, created in the image of God, just like you. (I never had any quarrels with Rag Top Dave. I’m just using his name as an example.)

It’s not blood sport (but it sure feels like it). A poster named Zardoz made the point that the forums are not a competition where the winner is the last post standing. He’s right, but it sure feels like a fight. There’s something stimulating about beating the brains out of an adversary. It’s probably just the intolerant Neanderthal in me, but I quite enjoyed reducing foes to silence. Keep in mind that it’s not about winning, except when it is.

Posting too much makes you a know-it-all or a loser with too much time on his hands. Be cool. Chill out on the posting for a day or two. If you dominate the threads, even genial participants will start calling you pompous. Lay off and let others have the last word every once in a while. Similarly, if you’re there all the time, every day, people begin to suspect that you have no life or friends and really need to crawl out of your cave and into the sunlight. It may be true, but you certainly don’t want to let on that you’re a genuine loser.

Beware the secret police. Unbelievably, the forum at which I participated has an unseen hit squad waiting to pounce if they think you’re a spammer or if they just don’t like you. I made the mistake of allowing Drake to sign up for the forums. I thought it would be great fun for him to test out his beliefs in the market place of ideas. I told him not to let on that he was related to me because he might come under fire just as I had. Loyal son that he is, Drake defended me in some of his posts. In the cyber-shadows, a silent gargoyle named BossHawk2008 waited and watched. He didn’t like the content of my posts and concluded (as a convenient excuse) that Drake and I were up to something nefarious (that means wicked if you’re a liberal or attended a public school). BossHawg2008 sent me a pleasant little email calling Drake and me idiots and promising that both my blog and the forum were “dead.” I didn’t really know what that meant. When I checked my blog that same night, however, I couldn’t get Internet Explorer to open it. I figured BossHawg2008 would find a way to get us bumped from the forums as well. (This is another good reason not to give out any personal information.)

Keep in mind that I’m a techno-idiot. I don’t really know if BossHawg2008 or one of his associates has the power to mess with my blog. The timing was freaky, though. Later he sent me an email telling me that he didn’t tamper with my blog and, wouldn’t you know it, I could pull it up again. Whatever happened, my point is this: What business is it of his what I post? This ain’t Hazzard County.

Never impugn poster’s motives or make assumptions. Always attribute good motives to everyone. Most people do have good intentions, but may suffer from bad ideas. Stick to the issues and don’t go personal if at all possible. Also, fully read what others post. Try to understand their meaning rather than jump to conclusions.

I made faulty assumptions about some of the posters and totally blew any remaining credibility. Most of my arguments occurred with folks I’d term the tolerance crowd. When the secret police came after me, I figured BossHawg2008 was a member of the tolerance crowd posse. I posted several times decrying the terrible injustice perpetrated against me at the hands of the tolerance crowd only to find out that BossHawg2008 is a loose canon acting alone, not as a part of the PC elite (in fact they made fun of the poor guy). Don’t make assumptions except for assuming the best about people.

I’m taking a long break from forum writing. Strangely, I already miss the frustrating interaction. After just a couple of weeks those folks do begin to feel like family. Nugene, you’re one more laid back fellow and a credit to left-leaning folks. Zardoz, keep ‘em straight with that intellect, but play fair. Owl Lady and Scoutson, maybe one day we’ll be friends. Shrinking Violet, don’t let the bitterness eat you up inside. Sky Soldier, Gipper, and H.E. Pennypacker, I’ve enjoyed the trip with you brothers. Thanks for the encouragement. Matt the Critic, keep up the sardonic one-liners. You’re a talented young man and I’m praying for you. Heck, BossHawg2008, I’m even going to miss you. Drop me a (friendly) note sometime.

Adultery 101

2008-08-03T22:18:00.002-04:00

It’s only in our oh-so-sophisticated, shame-free, sin-denying, self-serving, neo-platonic, overly-hyphenated culture that the following question could arise: Should it be considered adultery if a man dates other women while separated, but not yet divorced, from his wife who had an extramarital affair and vice versa? We personally know Christians who are practicing this very thing. Are they sinning or not?

I say it’s adultery. God expects us to honor our covenants, contracts, and commitments. As His image bearers we should exude faithfulness because He is faithful. God always does what He says He’s going to do.

In addition to this, the agreements that we make on earth we are obligated to fulfill. We live in a moral universe where nothing is spiritually neutral. The marriage contract is legally and morally binding upon both parties. The method of legitimizing marriage matters to God because He authorized the authority structure that we live under (see Romans13:1ff). If the state still recognizes a legitimate marriage as binding, so does God.

That’s my opinion. What do you say?

The Hate That Tolerates

2008-08-02T21:16:00.004-04:00

By Dr. Ted Baehr

Tolerating self-destructive or socially destructive behavior in our children is not a sign of love, but hate, as well as parental neglect. If a child has a propensity to beat themselves or beat other children, the parents are required by love to intervene and help the child get over such abhorrent, intolerable behavior. To do anything less is a sign of child abuse!

Our narcissistic society is on the brink of stewing in the vile juice of its own self-destructive behavior. Consequently, it seems to have forgotten what love entails.

God calls us all to love our neighbor as ourselves, both Jew and Gentile. That entails helping ourselves and our neighbors get over intolerable destructive behavior, such as violence against the innocent, alcoholic stupors and perverting our children's innocent hearts and minds by frankly intervening and correcting such behavior in a manner that brings about significant change or repentance (see Leviticus 19:17,18).

Distracted by the cruel shibboleth of tolerance, even our judicial system seems confused about some very basic values.

For instance, in Germany recently, a man put an ad in the paper asking if anyone wanted to be killed and cannibalized. Surprisingly, several people answered his ad. He chose one, slaughtered and ate him. The court in Germany was hard-pressed to find a reason to convict him since both men were "mutually consenting adults."

What kind of moral idiots and mental midgets are we breeding here? How do these people even get high school diplomas, much less college degrees? There, but for the grace of God, go we!

This case and many others show how low a culture can sink when it rejects the love of God and the love of its neighbor.

True love refuses to tolerate such evil. True love affirms life. True love gives. True love shares. True love does not tolerate evil or sinful behavior, including extra-marital lust. Lust, on the other hand, consumes. It takes without permission. And, it is never satisfied.

We have moved from a society of love to a society of lust where we tolerate evil in the name of self-gratification, or in the name of trying not to "offend" another person. This is exactly what is happening when many of our leaders, including church leaders, are asking us to tolerate rampant gang crime in our inner cities, rampant illegal immigration that flouts the nation's laws, and rampant prostitution and perverse lust on our public streets.

As a result, our culture faces economic, moral and spiritual collapse, and God is warning us to turn back from the brink of self-destruction by removing His blessing and allowing the alarms of natural and social disasters to sound to wake us from this nightmare. Sadly, like Pharaoh at the time of Moses, the warning alarms of a series of plagues screaming out "let my people go" may be falling on such hardened hearts and tone deaf ears that our current governing powers will not heed the warnings, but will persist in America and Western Civilization's continued self-destruction.

To stop this descent into the personal hell of an intolerable evil and lustful narcissism that destroys body, mind, soul and spirit, those who still love their neighbor must take a stand. That stand includes:

Praying for an awakening, for the gift of a fear of judgment, and for a knowledge of the love of God as manifested in the free gift of new life offered by God Himself, Jesus Christ, the prophesied messiah for both Jews and Gentiles.

Reclaiming the role of the church and the family, not the state, in the rule of all matters of faith and values, including godly education and marriage.

Exposing the fruitless works of darkness and excommunicating those in the church who pretend to be faithful while espousing a politics of "I don't care what you do" tolerance instead of love. Because they are leading others astray, these callous pretenders need to be reprimanded by a new 95 theses nailed on their doors declaring them unfit for preaching, teaching, discipling, or fellowship.

Excommunicating those in the church and government who tolerate evil. If they persist, legal action must be brought against them in the church and against government leaders in the courts for violating the inalienable rights of people, for distorting God's Truth and for violating the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to stand for God's Law in the face of the abuse of power to inflict harm by those in civil authority who know no restraints. Doing anything less is a form of secular, if not demonic, tyranny.

The vast majority of people have faith and values. Now, they need to exercise love by refusing to tolerate the evils destroying our culture and jeopardizing the future of our children and grandchildren.

It's time to love others enough to stop tolerating evil!

Now Comment Without A Google Account

2008-08-02T17:54:00.004-04:00

I just realized yesterday, thanks to Drake, that I had set my comments for Google accounts only. This is because a year ago I didn't know what I was doing when I set it up. Now I have seen the error of my ways and it is open to anyone. No profanity please. I'm still moderating the comments so you have to be nice and compliment my literary skill at least once.

Now Post Without

2008-08-02T17:54:00.001-04:00

Christian smack down

2008-08-01T17:16:00.002-04:00

How far can a Christian go in derision? Is there a limit in how far we can go in criticizing, satirizing or otherwise smacking down false prophets, sinners, and all-around chumps? You would think that would be an easy question to answer because Jesus said, “Judge not that you be not judged.” Any time Christians point out the wrongs of individuals or society this one is smashed in our faces. How then, do we account for these biblical instances of criticism?

Elijah to the prophets of Ba’al during their contest at the altar:

About noontime Elijah began mocking them. “You’ll have to shout louder,” he scoffed, “for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!” 1 Kings 18:27

Nehemiah’s recollection of his response to compromising Israelites:

So I confronted them and called down curses on them. I beat some of them and pulled out their hair. I made them swear in the name of God that they would not let their children intermarry with the pagan people of the land. Nehemiah 13:25

Paul to the church members at Galatia who were turning from grace back to the law:

You foolish Galatians! Galatians 3:1

O YOU poor and silly and thoughtless and unreflecting and senseless Galatians! (Amplified Bible proves he was calling them stupid.) Galatians 3:1

Paul speaking about those who taught Christians must be circumcised:

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Galatians 5:12 (Jesse Jackson's favorite)

Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees:

“For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” Matthew 23:27

“You brood of snakes!” Matthew 12:34 (Isn’t this worse than S.O.B.?)

I bring this to your attention because I’ve been accused of using hateful language and being judgmental lately. In light of the biblical examples, is provocative language okay? How far should we go?

I’d love to hear your opinions.

Fickle Faith

2008-07-31T15:48:00.002-04:00

In the midst of criticism, despair, and fatigue God sent this nice little gift. I hope you enjoy it too.

"Beyond a Fickle Faith"

“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not lose heart.”
~ Galatians 6:9 (ESV)

One year during a Thanksgiving Eve service, the congregation of the church I was pastoring took some time to hear spontaneous testimonies of God’s work in individual lives of the people. The stories were so encouraging and we clearly needed it.

One such testimony was from Jean Smith. The essence of her gratitude was that she had crossed her 55th anniversary as a member of the church, and wanted to give God all the glory for His working over these years.
Sadly, Jean is a stark contrast to what we commonly see today in the American church. I remember the wise words of an old mentor, Woody Phillips, Sr. He said, with sadness, “Never forget that most people leave a church because it does not feel the same anymore.” At the time, I thought it a strange comment. Now, after 25 years of pastoring, I’ve concluded that Woody’s wisdom was correct.

Emotions are important. God has certainly given them to us for a reason. We all face hurt, disappointment, and setbacks that affect our feelings among any gathering of Christians. That is the nature of imperfect Christ-followers behaving in imperfect ways. The real issue is not if we have these feelings but what we do with them.

We are faced with a choice. We can fuel the negative emotions, and allow them to drive our decisions. Or we can subject these feelings to real faith. When we subject them to real faith, the result is faithfulness to Christ, His church, and His people.

Recently, I was reading The Taste of Joy by Calvin Miller. In the first chapter he openly shares his own struggle with this issue: “In recent years I have learned the difference between faith and the moody obsession I once thought it to be. I once drove furiously to be happy and in my confusion I called this mad urge the pilgrimage of faith. How slowly I learned that faith is not a hunger to be happy.”

Miller continues: “So much sour Christianity has resulted from this happiness drive. It is often this compulsion which lures the frustrated to Christ for the first time. And the same drive continues in Christians as an insatiable appetite for ever higher and higher plateaus of mood.”

Applying this idea to our church attending habits, he says, “This damnable lust to titillate not only makes us miserable with what we have, it causes us to indict Christian worship. Most of us view church as an ‘experience center,’ where believers seek to ‘feel’ together in their pilgrimage… This glandular approach to joy assumes that God exists in his fullness to make Christians feel good. Church, however, does not exist to make us happy… While happiness may result from worship, joy is not the goal of great worship. Indeed it may precede it.”

Here is the concern of every pastor. We long for our people to turn from the idol of “feeling” and to bow in persevering faith before the Holy One who is absolutely faithful in all of His character and dealings. This is spiritual maturity and health. And it is always good for the advancement of the kingdom.

We must remember that our heroes of the faith did not always “feel good” about their calling, their relationships, or the non-support of other people (just review Hebrews chapter 11). I am sure Paul did not have “good vibes” about his constant rejection from the Jews. I doubt he felt good about being beaten and imprisoned for his message. His entire life of suffering, perseverance, and faithfulness is a testament of the power of his words, “the just shall live by faith.”

Clearly, Jesus did not feel like leaving the glories of heaven to risk the vulnerability of humanity. He did not feel like confronting the Pharisaical hypocrisies of the religion of His day. He did not feel like being beaten, crucified, and murdered. And we do not worship Him because He is the author and finisher of our feelings.

You are probably aware of the illustration that is often presented to a new convert. It depicts a train where the engine is “fact”, the middle car is “faith,” and the caboose is “feeling.” We encourage new Christians to rest in the facts of God’s Word and to live by a real and consistent faith. We tell them the caboose of feeling is incidental. It may come and go, but is not the basis of our Christian life.

Somehow, “established” Christians forget this. Maybe it is one of the devil’s preferred deceptions. Somehow that caboose slips to the front of the train in our interactions and decisions. As expected, the result is a train wreck of our faithfulness, our friendships, and our fruitfulness for Christ.

From my perception, Jean Smith has discovered the joy of enduring the good and the bad. She has remained steady under many imperfect church leaders. I am sure she’s even had her feelings hurt a time or two. But no one will be calling her a “church hopper” anytime soon.

Copyright © 2008 Daniel Henderson. All rights reserved.

Leadership turned upside down

2008-07-30T09:47:00.004-04:00

I'm currently reading Spiritual Leadership by Henry and Richard Blackaby. Although I'm only a little way into it, I'm finding a dramatic difference between Jesus' way of influencing people and man's. Maybe I'll post more fully about it in the future.

Instead I want to give you a challenging quote from the book. Read it several times and meditate on it throughout the day. Here tis:

If Christians around the world were to suddenly renounce their personal agendas, their life goals and their aspirations, and begin responding in radical obedience to everything God showed them, the world would be turned upside down. How do we know? Because that's what first century Christians did, and the world is still talking about it. (p. 29)

The 10 commandments of forum posting

2008-07-29T22:10:00.007-04:00

I am a slow learner and it gets me into heap big trouble. A little more than a week ago I began posting comments at a local newspaper called The Dispatch of Lexington. I've become addicted to it. The comments range from sweet to sarcastic (okay those are mine). I have already been called names like pompous, bigot, self-righteous, and Kool-Aid drinker. Maybe it's deserved.

Here are some lessons learned from my week of posting.

1. Thou shalt post no more than three paragraphs. Four or more are an abomination to the thy short attention span brethren.

2. Thou shalt use a well-worn thesaurus to color thy language. If there be no thesaurus at hand, thou mayest consulteth thy Word toolbar.

3. Thou shalt not admit error, for in the day that thou do so thy brethren shall cast thee forth from the thread. Neither shalt thou request forgiveness from thy fellow poster for thou hast transgressed a grave transgression.

4. Thou shalt ignore perplexing questions. In the hour that vexing inquiries arrive, thou shalt feign indifference, absence, or contempt.

5. Thou shalt not overtly criticize thy fellow posters. Thy criticism shalt be veiled lest thy brethren discover thereof and shall surely skewer thee.

6. Thou shalt smite, stab, and slay the transgressor among thee who holds to any absolute. It is an unclean thing. Cast it from thy midst.

7. Thou shalt permit no laughter directed at popes, Dalai Lamas or Al Gore. Thou shalt direct thy mirth unto George W. Bush, yea, let him be thy whipping boy.

8. If thou posteth a harsh word toward thy brethren, thou shalt surely include thy smiley. For thy sacred smiley covereth a multitude of trespasses.

9. Thou shalt utterly refuse to have thine opinion changed. Let no fact, no logical conclusion, no common sense alter thy course. Be not swayed by thy adversary. Set thy face like flint toward thine own opinion.

10. Thou shalt vehemently deny bias. Grievous is the man or woman who admits prejudice, preconceived notions, or strongly held opinions. Thou shalt confess unbiased fact alone. Let there be no suspicion that thou art only human.

When science becomes faith

2008-07-23T21:30:00.004-04:00

Isn’t it ironic that modern science, which excludes the supernatural from its worldview, has now become a faith system? Faith in untested and unobserved evolution started the shift toward religion. Global warming hysteria firmly established scientific faith. Now federal policy demonstrates the practical application of science as religion.

The July 2008 issue of Townhall magazine reports that the following:

U.S. government has named the thriving polar bear population a “threatened species”… This decision comes as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates polar bear populations are at their highest rates ever. There are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears, up from a record-low population of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s.

Did you catch that? Polar bears are considered “threatened” though they’re flourishing. The reason is because “computer models predict sea ice is likely to recede in the future” which will deprive polar bears of much of their habitat.

Federal policy is now being dictated by what would classically be deemed faith. Compare the definition of faith from the Bible to our society’s full frontal embrace of the all things science. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Scientific computer models are accepted as doctrine. Clearly the god of this age is science; researchers the bishops; university professors the preachers; inventors and medical personnel the cloistered communities. Maybe it’s unfair to enlist politicians as this faith’s Inquisition. Perhaps useful idiots is a better designation.

I sincerely hope someone is writing all these prognostications down. Perhaps future generations will learn not to bow this incomplete worldview after God has made it a footstool under the feet of our all-sufficient Christ.

God is not silent

2008-07-14T21:58:00.002-04:00

Last week was a frustrating one. I mean abnormally frustrating because I’m generally in a state of at least mild angst. I felt myself slipping into a bit of despair because things weren’t falling into place at church as I had hoped. My sermons seemed to belly-flop. Attendance remains stagnant. And the real kicker – the deacons didn’t immediately enthusiastically, go gaga over my ideas and jump on board. I channeled the feelings of despair into apathy to cope, but that never works for very long.

In the midst of it all I started asking God the same old questions. Where are You? Why do You have me here? Why aren’t you speaking to me? How am I supposed to lead this church? Is there another line of work I should be in? (If you’re a pastor, you know the drill.) The answer: silence. The heavens appeared as brass over my head.

But God in His love for me never remains silent. He spoke, but He did it though other people and in various contexts. My heavenly Father always finds a way and always makes His voice clear.

First, it was through Laura. She listened intently as I shared my plan to initiate some evangelistic training efforts at the church. After my spiel she as-a-matter-of-factly said, “I don’t think they’re ready for that yet. They need to have a deeper relationship with God first.” Then she went on to tell me how the evangelism training she’d taken several years ago yielded little fruit because she didn’t have a great passion for Christ at the time. Through Laura, God was telling me to deepen before widening. They won’t invite people to Christ (effectively) if they have nothing more than a past experience to invite them to.

Second, was Irene. She’s a transplant from up north and serves as our church pianist. As I spoke with her after our Bible study Wednesday night about how she and her husband had successfully assimilated into Southern culture, she said, “They accepted us because we didn’t try to change them.” Boom! God speaking! Our conversation was unrelated to my efforts at the church, but spoke perfectly to the situation. I and my leadership will not be accepted if it is perceived that my goal is to change the church. Yes, I am there to make changes, but I shouldn’t make that my pastoral banner. (Now I’ve got to throw away all those tee-shirts that read: “Change we can believe in.”) I’ve already experienced that truth in small ways. My first priority, as a pastor, is to love the people I lead.

Third, came Alan on Sunday. He pointed me to an online sermon he thought I might enjoy. It was about seeking God’s face and not His hand (a subject which I’ve spoken on, but generally fail to implement personally). I downloaded the sermon, was blown away by the preacher, and found a ministry website dedicated to genuine church renewal (as opposed to mere church growth). The content is much deeper than the tips and techniques typically promoted by church marketing gurus.

God is not silent. He has spoken. I don’t need to push or pull my church. Right now my Father is calling me to love them, lead them to a closer walk with Him, and set the example I want to see repeated. Sometimes I can’t fathom how good God is to whiney, arrogant me.

The genius of the Iranian military

2008-07-12T12:30:00.003-04:00

Look out Israel! They're coming for you. They're going to drive you into the sea ... unless they fall off a cliff or an anvil hits them on the head or something like that.

Let it rise! - Part 2

2008-07-06T23:29:00.003-04:00

Nearly a year ago I wrote that high gas prices will eventually have positive results for our economy. If the government will keep its arrogant, meddling hands out of the economy, I predicted, some entrepreneur will solve the fuel price problem. There are signs that it's happening, as you'll see in the article below.

It works like this: leave the economy alone and entrepreneurs will meet the need. Why? Because they want to make money. A free market economy spurs innovation. Government neither stimulates the economy nor invents quality goods (except those used for killing people which is actually what government IS supposed to do).

I found the following article encouraging, especially the concluding comment. It reaffirms the idea that private citizens will find a way to solve problems with the right incentive. I hope you enjoy it!

Mechanic Claims Car Gets 110 Miles Per Gallon

To find the future of the auto industry, Doug Pelmear looked to the past. He says he's perfected an engine developed by his grandfather 60 years ago. An engine that gives his 1987 mustang 110 miles to the gallon.

Doug Pelmear says "my grandfather had the idea back in the 40's that he can make a difference then. There was quite a need at that time also with the war going on and everything, there was quite the need then."

And quite the need now. So, Pelmear, a mechanic in Napoleon, has been tweaking this engine for the past 10 years, squeezing out the maximum amount of power for a minimum amount of gas.

Doug says "this'll bring back the automotive industry when they can sell trucks and suv's and the models that are almost dead at this time."

The designer says, this car is no slacker either. It goes well over 100-miles per hour.

Doug says "it's 400 horse and has 500 foot pounds of torque off the line, zero to 60 in three seconds."

Developer Mark Schnitkey says "even those of us who grew up in the muscle car age, this will pretty much blow your muscle car away."

Pelmear won't show us under the hood. Some of his gizmos are still awaiting patents. But the secret lies in making engines more efficient. And with a little more work, developers believe they'll be getting 500 miles to the gallon and revolutionizing the auto industry.

Mark says "I think it's time. I think it's time that we start telling the world what we're going to pay for a gallon of gas instead of the world telling us what we're going to pay for a gallon of gas."

The Myth of Overpopulation

2008-07-02T16:15:00.003-04:00

I love Walter Williams. I don't know if he's a Christian, but he is an economist with integrity. His research indirectly affirms God's dominion mandate in Genesis 2:28. His basic point is that there's plenty of room on planet earth and that corrupt governments, not too many people, cause poverty. Enjoy!

We need more people on Earth, not less
by Walter Williams
Posted: July 02, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008

Why is it that mankind enjoys cell phones, computers and airplanes today but not when King Louis XIV was alive? The necessary physical resources to make cell phones, computers and airplanes have always been around, even when caveman walked the Earth. There is only one answer to why we enjoy these goodies today and not yesteryear. It's the growth in human knowledge, ingenuity along with specialization and trade that led to the industrialization, coupled with personal liberty and private property rights.

For most of mankind's existence, he has been self-sufficient and spent most of his time simply eking out a living. In pre-industrial societies, and in some places today, the most optimistic scenario for the ordinary person was to be able to eke out enough to meet his physical needs for another day. With the rise of industrialization and development of markets, and the concomitant rise in human productivity that yielded seemingly ceaseless economic progress, it was no longer necessary for mankind to spend his entire day to meet his physical needs. People became able to satisfy these needs with less and less time. This made it possible for more people to have the time to read, become educated in the sciences and liberal arts, gain more knowledge and become more productive. The resulting wealth also enabled them the opportunity to develop spiritually and culturally through attending the arts and participate in other life activities that were formerly within the purview of the rich.

Contrary to the myths we hear about how overpopulation causes poverty, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition and overcrowding, human beings are the most valuable resource and the more of them the better. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations and economic despair. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire, has a meager population density of 22 people per square kilometer, while Hong Kong has a massive population density of 6,571 people per square kilometer. Hong Kong is 300 times more crowded than the Congo. If there were any merit to the population control crowd's hysteria, Hong Kong would be in abject poverty while the Congo flourishes. Yet Hong Kong's annual per capita income is $28,000 while the Congo's is $309, making it the world's poorest country.

What are the chances for the United States to become overpopulated? The population census has us at 304 million. How many more people could we handle? I don't have an answer, but here are a couple of facts that suggest we have a ways to go before we have to worry about overpopulation. All urban areas, any community of at least 2,500 people, cover less than 3 percent of the U.S.'s 2.3 billion acre land mass. The world's population is 6.7 billion. That means if the entire world's population were put into the U.S., each person would have about a third of an acre. Nobody is talking about putting the world's population in the U.S. It is merely to suggest that neither the U.S. nor the world is running out of space.

Population controllers have a Malthusian vision of the world that sees population growth as outpacing the means for people to care for themselves. Mankind's ingenuity has proven the Malthusians dead wrong. As a result of mankind's ingenuity, we can grow increasingly larger quantities of food on less and less land. The energy used, per dollar of GDP, has been in steep decline, again getting more with less, and that applies to most other inputs we use for goods and services.

The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government. A recent example is Zimbabwe's increasing misery. Like our country, Zimbabwe had a flourishing agriculture sector, so much so it was called the breadbasket of southern Africa. Today, its people are on the brink of starvation as a result of its government. It's the same story in many countries – government interference with mankind's natural tendency to engage in wealth-producing activities. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook; it encourages the enactment of harmful policies.

20 Suggestions for Church Growth and Health

2008-07-02T09:12:00.004-04:00

I'm breaking with tradition today. Rather than rant and rave, moan and complain, I've decided to be helpful. How magnanimous of me!

The church that I'm now leading is in serious decline. The people are loving and godly, but the fellowship has dwindled over the past several years. I don't have the know-how to initiate recovery, so in an effort to turn the tide I read George Barna's book Turn-Around Churches for advice.

I've noticed a pattern in Barna's books. He begins with lots of statistics and details to convince the reader of his position and then, typically in a single chapter, he distills some incredibly useful application. Rather than have you read the whole book I have compiled Barna's suggestions into a list. Some of the following 20 pointers are directly from the book, while others have received my interpretation. (After all, a blogger knows much more about writing and editing than a best-selling author.)

I hope you find these helpful. May God be glorified in your church's health.

The Pastor

1. Hire, follow, and protect (from burnout) a true leader as pastor.

2. The pastor must determine, own, articulate, and unfailingly pursue God’s vision for the church’s ministry.

3. The pastor must model genuine Christianity.

4. The pastor must create and champion a strategic plan for the church’s growth. (Must map out spiritual, numerical, and community outreach growth)

5. The people must feel loved and be loved by the pastor.

The Congregation’s Attitude

6. The congregation must be open to change.

7. The congregation must want to grow.

8. A few quality ministries must be maintained rather than many mediocre ministries.

9. The church’s ministries must provoke a spiritual passion in its people.

The Congregation’s Lifestyle

10. The congregation must seek new relationships with those outside the faith.

11. The church must anticipate the future rather than react to the present.

12. The laity must be meaningfully motivated and equipped for ministry.

13. When people perform true ministry, they should be applauded.

14. The church must emphasize outreach.

The Church’s Faith and Resources

15. Prayer must permeate the ministry.

16. The church staff must be superb.

17. The church must learn from objective (outside) sources.

18. The church must develop a way to evaluate the effectiveness of its ministries.

19. The church must enter into building campaigns with extreme caution. (Interestingly, a church can expect to lose its pastor within 5 years after the campaign.)

20. The church must maintain a standard of strong, practical Bible teaching.