Happy New Year

May the Lord bless & keep you in the New Year!

Golden Compass not Pointing to Gold

Not only did the Christian community want to avoid The Golden Compass, so did the secularist community. In less than a month, the movie has dropped off the top ten movie list. By the last account I read, revenue is woefully behind the production cost. Most movie critic reviews have been unfavorable. On the day of its release, Ms. Christy Lemire, AP movie critic, rated it one and a half stars out of four. I have not seen a television ad for the movie for quite some time. Looks like this movie is on the fast track to DVD land.

So much for meaningful discussion about it. Not even secularists are interested in discussing it, except to comment about how they wasted their money to see it.

I will be interested to see if there will still be sequels regardless of the results of The Golden Compass. It will be quite telling if there are more movies based on Pullman’s trilogy. It would certainly confirm the director’s intent: "Whereas The Golden Compass had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. ... I will not be involved with any 'watering down' of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films." —The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz, on his plans for preserving the strong anti-Christian messages found in the second and third installments of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, should they make it to the big screen. (PluggedIn online) More of his comments can be found here.

It is a shame that so much talent goes toward insulting the loving God who provides us our talents to begin with. And it is a shame that so many fail to grasp the lesson.

As for me, I’m waiting for the release of the new Veggie Tales movie, The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. I imagine that it will be a hoot.

Merry Christmas!

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." – Luke 2:1-7


May you have a joyous Christmas!

December 7, 1941 – A Day of Infamy

Today is December 7th. It is the day to remember the devastating unprovoked attack on American forces at Pearl Harbor by the nation of Imperial Japan. It is the day to remember that Japan’s action plunged America into all-out military war with the evil forces of Imperialism, Fascism, and Nazism. It is the day to remember mournfully the tremendous sacrifice in lives that had to go into defeating these evil regimes. America confronted Pearl Harbor not with retreat, but with a determination to overcome totalitarian threats faced by the entire world. It is a day to remember that.

Oh, how I wish that the history of that day and the subsequent years would be remembered today. For America, and the world, once more faces the serious threat of murderous totalitarianism. For more than six years now, we have engaged deadly forces that would seek to place the world under their particular rule. Reality demonstrates the brutality that our current enemies use to maintain their control of regions under their domain. They are every bit as brutal, cruel, murderous, and dangerous as their Imperialist and Fascist predecessors.

On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress requesting declaration of war against Japan. In a short time, America also declared war on Germany and Italy because of their declarations of war against America. Americans waged unlimited warfare around the world – even in places that did not declare war on us – that would not end without the unconditional surrender of the enemy.

Today, we have a President who comprehends the threat to both America and the world. He is doing everything in his power to defeat that threat, but he is besieged with enemies within who seek to derail the necessary war efforts for the sake of playing partisan politics. In my opinion, there is a very good chance that the “war in Iraq” would be over by now if it were not for the continual interference and harassment from American fifth columnists (“Fifth Columnists Strike Again”)who hold out hope to an enemy that cannot win on the battlefield. They continue to sell their souls to our enemies.

Before the end of World War II, similar politics reared its ugly head. However, America was fortunate enough then to have a hero who chose to place the needs of his nation ahead of partisan politics and the political power it may have given him. I have written of Thomas E. Dewey before, and I still commend him to my readers as a true American hero. It would be encouraging to see similar heroism today.

Today is December 7, 2007, sixty-six years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. May Americans never forget that day in history, and may we always remember with honor those who responded to the call to keep our great nation free from the deadly tyrants who sought to subjugate the whole world. God Bless America!

(Photo: The USS Arizona succumbs to the lethal Japanese bombers during the Pearl Harbor surprise attack)

Golden Compass Rhetoric

As the day has drawn nearer for the release of “The Golden Compass,” I watched the film’s ads for clues confirming or rejecting the warnings about it. I have found confirmation. One ad featured an authority figure in the film declaring something to be “heresy.” Combined with other observations already made about the movie and novels, I believe this to be an indication that the “evil” in this film will be religious authority and the “good” will be those opposing the religious oppression.

Dare I draw such a conclusion from so little evidence? Might I not be wrong? I might be; however, as “V for Vendetta” was being released, I noticed the apparent religious (specifically Christian) symbols displayed in the previews and commented to my son that my belief was that religion would be portrayed negatively in the movie. He disagreed with me until he saw the movie; afterwards, he admitted that I was right.

Being well aware of world history, I know that oppression has been the result of and/or perpetuated by religious authority throughout some periods. Christianity has not been exempt from being so abused. Subsequently, I am not entirely opposed to literature and entertainment that tell of the “little guys” struggling against the oppression of even so-called “Christian” religious authority.

What disturbs me about the way it is being done these days is the deceitful manner of those telling the tales. In every instance I have noticed lately, they ignore completely the historical context in which real people have struggled. They like to create and extend an exaggeration that all Christian moral and ethical viewpoints are oppressive. They likewise ignore the historical reality that those opposing oppression from Christian religious authorities did not seek to obliterate Christian faith. Instead, they sought to reform it and return it to its proper biblical application. This is a significant distinction between reality and the fiction being paraded as forms of reality.

A reason that Philip Pullman, author of the trilogy of children’s books that include “The Golden Compass,” can pull off this charade is that our culture no longer takes the time to investigate historical context anymore. As a result, those who seek to create moral equivalency between religions, religious oppression, and the truth of the Christian faith are able to do so with impunity because of their audience’s lack of knowledge and their deceitful tactics.

As the rhetoric concerning “The Golden Compass” has heated up, more light has been shed on the backgrounds of both the movie and the novels. The more the light shines, the more the deceitful tactics are illuminated. A number of reviewers have taken Pullman to task for obscuring his true intent in the first book or two so as to draw young readers into his atheistic reasoning without their awareness. Janie Cheaney writes, “This writer has read Pullman’s trilogy and has written about it for WORLD (Jan. 27, 2001). The first two installments throw some anti-religious darts, but the third crosses from literature to propaganda and leaves no doubt that the author had God in his sights all along.” (Janie B. Cheaney, “Broken Compass,” WORLD, December 8, 2007, p. 11)

Perhaps even more alarming are the film director’s stated purpose: “"Whereas The Golden Compass had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. ... I will not be involved with any 'watering down' of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films." —The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz, on his plans for preserving the strong anti-Christian messages found in the second and third installments of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, should they make it to the big screen. (PluggedIn online) Read more of his comments here.

I will conclude this post with a couple more links to reviews and comments about the movie. Not all are negative. It is my intent to leave the reader with information to make his/her own judgment. As for me, I am not going to support the errors of either the movie or the trilogy with my personal resources.

And, if anyone finds me in error concerning my observations and conclusions, I welcome any comments demonstrating my mistakes.

“Sympathy for the Devil” (a discussion of Pullman’s works & how he creates a rip-off of the C. S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia series)
“Nicole Kidman's 'Compass' Points to Success” (a review of the movie by Roger Friedman of FOX news)

Hugo Chavez

What is it with this guy? What have we done to him?

“CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez urged supporters to approve constitutional changes that he said could keep him in power for life and threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States if it tries to meddle in Sunday's vote. (FOX news)”

“Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, facing a close vote in a referendum tomorrow to change the constitution, stepped up attacks against the U.S., Spanish banks and the media in an offensive aimed at winning over voters. Chavez told tens of thousands of supporters in Caracas he is prepared to stay in power until 2050 if voters pass his proposal, which includes eliminating presidential term limits. He vowed to seize Spanish banks and expel journalists from the country to defend his goal of turning Venezuela into a socialist state.”

Oh, I get it. He’s another two-bit thug tyrant who needs someone else to put the blame on for all the trouble and misery he brings his people.

I wonder if this means that New England won’t get their free heating oil from Venezuelan Citgo this year. Oh well.

The Remarkable Sources of the Pilgrims' Successful Survival

In spite of the historical dilution added over the years, every American raised in our school system no doubt believes he/she knows the story of the Pilgrims’ struggle and success in the New World. Images of that first Thanksgiving, similar to the picture here, flood our minds when we bother to think of it at all. In reality, most Americans probably know very little about this band of colonists who risked all for their freedom to simply obediently worship God.

The primary source of their successful survival was their reliance upon God. Regardless of their circumstance, the Pilgrims gave thanks to God. In his journal, William Bradford writes, "What could now sustain them but the spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and he heard their voice and looked on their adversity, etc. Let them therefore praise the Lord, because he is good and his mercies endure forever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord show how he hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonderful works before the sons of men." (The Heritage of America, Henry S. Commager & Allan Nevins, editors, p. 34)

The second source of their successful survival was the colony leaders’ change of course from a communal economy to a market economy of private ownership. Destitute and on the brink of starvation even after receiving assistance from the natives, colony leaders identified the source of their problem as a particularly vile form of what Bradford called “communism.” Michael Franc, vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, writes about the fruitful results of the Pilgrim’s shift in 1623 from a failed, socialist agricultural system to a free-market system of private ownership of property. This is the story of the Pilgrims that, for whatever reason, fails to make it into our curriculum. Had they not shed the system of “taking away property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth” (Bradford), we would not have a legacy of the Pilgrims to tell. Concerning the market economy that the Pilgrims implemented, Bradford reported, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious... much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” The famine of 1623 gave way to abundance.

America has been blessed with much abundance over the years. This is truly a reality worthy of our most humble thanks-giving.

(Photo: Depiction of Thanksgiving)

The Golden Compass

Shortly before posting a blog about the upcoming movie The Golden Compass, I received an interesting article presenting an alternative view. Since my intent is to base my decisions and opinions on the factual evidence available, I want my readers to be aware of this as well.

The background of the emerging controversy surrounding The Golden Compass is documented on both the Truth or Fiction and Snopes websites. The movie is based on the novel Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in the United States) by English author Phillip Pullman, an overt atheist who reviles, among other things, The Chronicles of Narnia series of children’s stories written by C. S. Lewis. Lewis clearly intended his series to be an allegory of the Christian faith. The Truth or Fiction article reveals that “many view Pullman's books as a response to ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ but with an emphasis on ‘scientific materialism’ over religion. Pullman has criticized ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ as ‘religious propaganda.’ In 2001 he told Guardian Unlimited ‘I hate the Narnia books, and I hate them with deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away.’”

The Golden Compass, scheduled for release on December 7, 2007, is considered by critics and observers to be a “watered down” version of Pullman’s novel, meaning that the film itself is an “innocent and interesting” children’s adventure story. The concern being raised is that this “innocent” cinematic introduction to Pullman’s novels will lead to increased exposure of the unadulterated hatreds he expresses toward the Christian faith with no regard for any alternative exposure to the truth of Jesus Christ’s righteous purpose of saving love. The e-mails currently circulating offer a warning about both this motion picture and Pullman’s novels.

To be fair, however, not all professing Christians are encouraging a boycott of the movie. In one article I received, Yvon Prehn writes, “Rather than boycotting it, I think the movie provides a challenging opportunity for Christian communicators to explain and engage.” Her article goes on to explain some mischaracterizations about Pullman’s novels that are circulating in the e-mail messages. Providing correctives to some of the mischaracterizations is the reason why I include the reference to her article in this blog.

I retain the conclusion, though, that Christians will be better served to not attend this movie or purchase Pullman’s books. In theory, I concur with Prehn’s challenge for Christians to use this release as an opportunity to engage in thoughtful dialogue with those who watch the movie or read the books. I agree that thoughtful dialogue must be rooted in first-hand reflections of the messages of the movie and books. To the extent practicable, this is exactly what I attempt in my approach to Christian apologetics on any topic.

In practice, though, I sincerely doubt that such engaging, thoughtful dialogue will occur on any significant scale. Christians have tried recently to engage secular society through motion pictures such as The Passion of the Christ, The Nativity, and The Witch, the Lion, and the Wardrobe. Personally, I appreciate the efforts of those who have brought these monumental works to life on the “big screen” and do not mind supporting them. In spite of all the good intentions, though, I have not observed any significant thoughtful dialogue resulting from these productions. Similarly, I have not observed any significant thoughtful dialogue resulting from media that overtly or covertly carry an anti-Christian bias and message. I certainly have no intention of using my limited resources to provide financial support to those producers and authors who want to eradicate Christian expressions of faith from our culture. I am willing to read the Pullman trilogy if the novels are available from a library or similar source that incurs no additional revenue to the author, but even that represents a use of my limited resource of time that could be better applied to positively engaging in ministry that pleases Jesus.

While I thank those like Yvon Prehn who provide further factual insight into this particular controversy, my conclusion remains unchanged: I think that Christians will be better served to not attend the motion picture or purchase Pullman’s novels. I think that we will be better served to use our resources of money and time to support and/or engage in some ministry that pleases our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Oh, one bit of good news I did discover in all of this: A second Narnia film, Prince Caspian, is scheduled for release in 2008.

(Illustration: Aslan, the allegorical Christ figure from The Chronicles of Narnia series)

We Still Serve

I attended a Veteran’s Day ceremony today. I have done so pretty regularly for a few years now. As I looked around those gathered at the county courthouse, I saw people I recognize from past gatherings. About a half dozen World War II era veterans present were recognized.

I also saw some younger faces. Some gathered still serve on active reserve or active duty. A few have not been in very long. I began thinking to myself, “Why are young American men and women still entering military service? Almost any member of our Armed Forces can be mobilized to Afghanistan or Iraq these days. Military service is all voluntary; there is no draft. Why are these young people still entering military service?”

I listened to the speakers remind us of the origin of Veteran’s Day – formerly Armistice Day – and I listened to them speak of the sacrifices made in order preserve our liberties. I was reminded of the oath that every member of the United States Armed Forces takes to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” In those moments, I reflected what those words have meant to me and countless others who have sworn this allegiance.

I did not swear to merely defend a piece of paper, no matter how historic this document is. It is the nation formed by that piece of paper. It is the power which that old document gives to all citizens of this nation to determine their government and, within boundaries of legal and moral obligations, to determine the course of their own lives. It is the belief that all Americans should enjoy the privilege of liberty and freedom. It is the unwavering truth that all of these principles of freedom are worth defending even to the very death. It is on this basis that all of the speakers talked about the honor of sacrifice that veterans have made. It is on this basis that young Americans continue to take up the mantle of sacrifice in order to preserve these vital liberties.

There are some today who scoff at this notion of honorable sacrifice. They make America and, hence, American servicemen and servicewomen out to be a conquering force bent on subjugating other less fortunate nations. Some are bent on spotlighting every mistake and failure made at every level of leadership during a war and making those out to be the defining nature of American military forces.

Why do young American men and women continue to serve? Because they know that suffering through the nonsense of those who denigrate their service and sacrifice, the mistakes and failures of our political leadership, and even the confusing sequences of orders issued by their senior military personnel is worth the real reason for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They know that in spite of every adversity thrown at them, that they want their parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, and sons and daughters to continue to live in the greatest, freest nation in the history of the world.

Thank you, each and every veteran who has served or is serving in defense of America!

Spooky

In “Anti-Halloween attacks are downright ghastly,” columnist Ellis Henican bemoans all the assaults on this “greatest kids’ holiday of the year.” Mr. Henican does list a surprising number of Halloween critics: “Fundamentalist Christians warn the celebration promotes devil worship. Prudes and feminists say the costumes have gotten too risqué. Civil-rights groups complain that too many Halloween ghosts resemble lynching victims. Even the witches feel aggrieved - and you probably thought Halloween was the witches' big night!” I was quite amused that those frightening “fundamentalist Christians” are no longer the only antagonists of Halloween as the ubiquitous political correctness continues to run amuck. Trick or treat!

What caught my attention, though, was Mr. Henican’s failure to include today’s primary criticism of Halloween celebration. With rising alarms over childhood obesity and diabetes, how can we possibly justify celebrating a holiday that has as its major component the doling out of mountains of candy to little trick or treaters? Certainly this is nothing short of child abuse perpetuated by big candy!

Since Mr. Henican missed this obvious worry (is he, perhaps, in league with big candy?), I offer my suggestions to rectify this critical concern. (1) Give only tofu bar and rice cake treats. (2) Give these treats only after the overweight little munchkins do wind sprints from door to door. (3) Implore the ACLU to bring a suit against big candy and adult co-conspirators who insist on perpetuating this form of child abuse. There has to be a Constitutional violation in here someplace.



Spooky, isn’t it?

House Fails to Override S-CHIP Veto

House Democrats were unable to muster enough votes to override the President’s veto of their expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) in spite of their emotional appeals using two children, Graeme Frost and Bethany Wilkerson, to front for their deceptions. This does not end the debate on the program, of course, as the confusing exaggerations continue.

I am confused, for instance, by the Associated Press coverage of the veto. “…The State Children's Health Insurance Program now subsidizes health care insurance coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most of them from low-income families, to the program at an added cost of $7 billion annually…. But Democrats said the bill's original focus remained intact. States would be given bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled. ‘Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits,’ said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. ‘Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty.’”

Democrats continue to act as if the failure of their expansion plans for the program amounts to an elimination of the current benefits, which fails all truth detector tests. From the same AP article: “Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase in the program, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion -- half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.” Does that sound like someone intent on eliminating the S-CHIP program? Only if you live in the land of left-believe.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) typifies the confusing gobbledy-gook of the Democrat’s rationalizations to muster the votes needed to override the veto: “…But that does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for this program, I hope you know intellectually that it is not a reason to vote against SCHIP. They are currently no children enrolled in SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the federal poverty level, $83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200 percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent of them are in families under 300 percent of poverty…” (Use the Bethany Wilkerson link to view the transcript of Rep. Pelosi’s remarks).

As far as I can make out from her remarks, the current S-CHIP program already covers the families who Democrats imply will not be covered unless their expansion is approved. Only in the land of left-believe.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(Photo: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, meets with Dara Wilkerson and her daughter Bethany.)

Democrats Parade New S-CHIP Poster Child

Recognizing at last that the family of Graeme Frost has not evoked the sympathy they hoped for (perhaps due to the family’s two properties, three vehicles, private school, and reticence to validate their reported income), Democrats have once again paraded a new State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) poster child for public consumption. Bethany Wilkerson is a two-year-old with a heart defect. Her mother is a waitress, and her father works at the restaurant doing minor repairs and odd jobs. Their employer does not provide health insurance. They rent, drive one beat-up car, and have a combined income of $34,000. This sounds like a family with genuine need worthy of good, old-fashioned American compassion and worthy S-CHIP recipients. Writing for National Review Online, Mark Hemingway offers some further thoughts on this new S-CHIP family.

Whether or not Mr. Hemingway’s interview insights are accurate or not is not my main interest. It does seem that the Wilkerson’s, like great numbers of Americans today, expect their fellow citizens to pony up when their choices don’t pan out. What is more troublesome is that Democrats and their liberal cronies insist on using children to forward their deceptions. Whose heart isn’t going to melt with two-year-old Bethany holding up a crayon sign reading, “Don’t Veto Me”? The image is too cute and criticism would just have to be too mean-spirited.

Except that little Bethany has not been vetoed! Nor have any of the other little Bethanys or little Graemes. They are covered under the S-CHIP program today – before the veto and after the veto!

Only in the land of left-believe does one call not expanding a social program a “cut” or an “elimination” of benefits. President Bush told Congress plainly enough that he would accept a more modest expansion of the S-CHIP program, but would veto the full Democrat-proposed expansion which includes eligibility for families earning up to $83,000 and “children” up to age 25. When that bill reached his desk, he vetoed it.

Guess what, Democrats and liberals. The S-CHIP program is still out there covering little Bethanys and Graemes and anyone else you want to enlist to parade your falsehoods.

And guess what else, Democrats and liberals. Productive conservatives are still demonstrating their compassion on a daily basis. We are, after all, still paying for Graeme Frost’s and Bethany Wilkerson’s health care.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(image: Conservatives confront Democrats & liberals... again & again & again.)

Democrats Enlist Child to Espouse Falsehoods

Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, columnists – well, conservatives – are being assaulted across the board for openly criticizing the use of a twelve year old by the Democrat Party to espouse their falsehoods about the S-CHIP program. Democrat politicians recoil “in horror” that conservative “vindictiveness” would single out Graeme Frost to point out the discrepancies of the Democrats’ hyperbole.

Graeme Frost is the twelve year old who Democrats used to respond to President Bush’s veto of the children’s health care program expansion. The Democrats trot out anyone they please to be the mouthpiece for their falsehoods, then act oh-so self-righteous when their claims are challenged. Democrat liberals still fail to comprehend the difference between debating issues and assaulting character. They consistently fail at the former and make the latter their practiced art.

The fact is that young Master Frost is the recipient of the S-CHIP program as it is currently crafted. The Democrat message that he was coached to parrot – that the President’s veto prevents other children like him from receiving health care through the program – is patently false. The program works! He received health care coverage under the S-CHIP program! (Interestingly, Master Frost’s self-employed father opts to not purchase health care coverage. I suppose I can understand his decision. Why give up family vacations and such for some inconvenient necessity like health care coverage? After all, someone else can be coerced to pick up the tab). The President’s veto does not eliminate the current program. Indeed, the President would not have vetoed a bill calling for a more limited expansion. But Democrat leadership insists on expanding it to families who can afford health care coverage as well as to adult “children” as old as 25 years of age. Can we say “expanded entitlements” boys and girls?

Because of this veto, Democrats and their liberal cronies are howling their heads off about the lack of compassion among conservatives. Of course, this, too, is a falsehood. Productive conservatives demonstrate their compassion on a daily basis. We are, after all, paying for Graeme Frost’s health care.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(image: Conservatives confront Democrats & liberals... again.)

Terrorists Endorse Democrat Candidates

Once again, Democrats find themselves in a touchy debacle as the election season proceeds. They may not have been actively seeking this endorsement, but they have received it: terrorists are endorsing Democrats.

“In Schmoozing, every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of [Sen. Hillary] Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them. ‘All Americans must vote Democrat,’ stated Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.”
(www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970)

Democrats and liberals are quick to cry “Foul!” when charged with being unpatriotic, yet the enemies of America love their messages and policies! So let us get this straight: anyone who advocates policies that America’s enemies endorse is a patriot. Does this seem even remotely logical? The leaders of the North Vietnamese army were given hope through the actions of liberals and their political party in the 1960s & 1970s. Obviously nothing has changed, except our new enemies have declared war on us and attacked us. I have asked before: when armed militant enemies of the United States endorse the campaign promises of one of America’s major political policies, don’t you think it might be time for that political party to review and reconsider their messages?

War Is War

I have not been watching the new Ken Burns production about the Second World War in its entirety. I have read and watched World War Two histories and documentaries before I was even a teenager; I doubt that there is anything too startlingly new even in this major series. Still, I have stopped to watch parts of it during breaks in other programs. So far I am right.

The portions I did see from the episode entitled “A Necessary War” caused me to reflect once more on the miraculous accomplishment of American forces in this war. I continue to be amazed at the results of the American military even when they faced a better equipped, better experienced, and numerically superior enemy. On both the European and Pacific Theaters, the German and the Japanese military were the most developed “fighting machines” in their day. The German Army slashed across the Polish and European frontiers with hardly a pause. The Japanese forces were victorious against Russia, China, and the Pacific forces of Great Britain and France. They had been actively engaged in military action for years. None of them believed that Americans had any willpower or resolve necessary to mount a major threat against them.

Yet, engage them we did. Undermanned, undersupplied, and undertrained, American military forces stood up to the best that the world could muster in the 1940s, and we beat them. We beat them with essentially civilian soldiers, not professional military forces. We beat them soundly. How?

First, our military forces and civilians on the home front knew we were right. We knew who was on the side of liberty and who was on the side of tyranny. Lest anyone be confused, I clarify: Allied forces (America, Great Britain, France, and some others) were fighting for liberty and freedom; Axis forces (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were fighting for tyranny. There was no significant debate about this.

Second, our forces were allowed to prosecute the war to its successful conclusion. No armies of silly lawyers and liberals running around whining about whose rights had been violated. The portion of “A Necessary War” episode I saw featured the Rangers in the Pacific. These elite members of the Army were sent into enemy occupied areas to harass them. The Rangers lived off the land and killed Japanese. They did not shout “Throw down your weapons!” before attacking. They did not take prisoners. They were there for one reason: kill the enemy.

War is war. In some ways, militants can conduct the war as civilly and humanely as possible, but if ethical behavior is really the main issue, then do not go to war. Accept defeat and take whatever comes – which will be immoral behavior, by the way. Our military personnel today are engaged in war just like the Rangers and other World War Two forces. But today, liberals condemn our military men and women for killing the enemy. At the same time, liberals try to convince me that they honor the legacy of our Armed Forces from World War Two. Puh-lease. As I wrote in my last post, liberals would no more support our military men and women in World War Two any more than they do today. Liberals are either pathetically ignorant of the historical reality of warfare or they are attempting to be cunningly deceptive in order to convince some that they exhibit any American patriotism. Take your pick. This is certain: no rational human being can claim to support our victorious military forces of World War Two and, at the same time, protest the conduct of war today. They do not mix.

War is war.

(Photo: an American G.I. using a flamethrower in WWII)

A Necessary War

Ken Burns has produced another monolithic historical series being aired on PBS stations. The WAR is a story about the Second World War told through the “personal accounts of men and women from four American towns.” The first episode of the series is entitled “A Necessary War.”

I am all for remembering and honoring the great struggles and sacrifices of World War II veterans and families. What confuses me is that the same politicians, entertainers, and media personalities who rush to honor the legacies of sacrifice and courage among World War II veterans turn around and vehemently protest American involvement in war now. What makes the Second World War “a necessary war” and today’s global war on terror (GWOT) an illegal?

I submit that American prosecution of the GWOT is more necessary than WWII. From the vantage of historical hindsight, it is doubtful that any of the Axis powers could have sustained any credible military operations on American territory. Today, however, the combination of weapons and tactics provides the enemy with plenty of capability to inflict enormous damage within American territory. A few box cutters and commercial airliners filled the bill in 2001. The deadly, dangerous fanaticism of the current enemy exceeds even that of the WWII Japanese Imperial Army and their military code of Bushido.

Yet, today, the same personalities who stumble over one another to salute the necessity of WWII likewise stumble over themselves to be at the front of today’s anti-war parades. What do they do with the historical reality that every one of their points of protest against today’s involvement in armed conflict occurred during the war they honor? There were times in combat when surrendering enemies were killed both unintentionally and intentionally. Non-combatant civilians of allied and enemy nations died from artillery barrages and bombing sorties. Nations were invaded even though they were not Axis powers. Specific civil liberties were curtailed at home, and citizens’ activities were subject to monitoring by various federal and state agencies. The President of the United States of America and other political leaders invoked the name of God and encouraged Americans to pray and worship repeatedly during the war.

In WWII, these realities are honored as necessary. In the GWOT, the same realities are protested as illegal. Even though I agree that every survivor of WWII, both military and civilian, deserve the honor they receive, it appears to me that those who honor the past conflict and revile the present conflict are not genuine in their intention. They are either outright dishonest or incredibly ignorant. If they were somehow translated back in time to the 1930s and 1940s, these same politicians, entertainers, and media personalities of the American left would attempt to obstruct the successful prosecution of war against the Axis powers and lead America to defeat just as they are doing with the GWOT today. Those who would call the Second World War “a necessary war” yet disparage the Global War on Terror today as illegal do not demonstrate their patriotism; instead, they expose their hypocrisy.

(Photos: Left, American troops land on Saipan. Right, American troops in combat, Iraqi Freedom)

No More False Pretense

During the week that many Americans remembered the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and General Petraeus provided his report of the progress in Iraq to Congress, the left found real reason to celebrate. They dropped what little pretense they had remaining about “supporting the troops.” Moveon.org placed a full page ad in the New York Times that accused the four star general of betrayal.

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp

Liberals no longer have to live the lie that they “support the troops.” They never have, and they never will. Oh, there may have been some who made an honest effort or actually mistook their leadership’s false façade for sincerity, but “supporting the troops” and “supporting America” have never been who liberals are. It is not part of their nature. In fact, it is antithetical to their nature. Their ideology does not support the foundational ideologies of America. Their ideology does not support a strong national defense of America.

At least they can now be honest in this area. They no longer have to wallow in their pitiful attempt to pretend that they “support the troops” – at least, not American troops. Of course, they can still openly express support for all the “freedom fighters” and tyrants seeking to harm American citizens. Only in the land of left-believe are terrorists the good guys. My tip of the hat goes to all those liberals who can now take a sigh of relief and make an honest return once again to their loathing condemnation of American heritage, ideology, and patriotism.

How do you anger a conservative? Tell her a lie.
How do you anger a liberal? Tell him the truth.

Six Years

I bet this will come as a surprise to most Americans: “I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing ‘God Bless America.’” President George W. Bush, addressing the nation and a joint session of Congress from the United States Capitol nine days after 9/11/2001 also declared, “My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong.”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)

Those were heady days as we Americans pulled ourselves out of the devastation of an unprovoked attack, dealt with our losses, and vowed that we would never capitulate to tyrannical and maniacal terrorism. “United we stand” and “God bless America” sentiments plastered billboards, buildings, and airwaves. Like troubled times before when those some call the greatest generation faced a dark, uncertain future, Americans stood with steeled resolve that freedom would prevail.

Six years later, the time of unity and resolve I recapture here sound like a vaporous myth. If not for documented evidence that it actually did exist, I would be accused of substituting fantasy for fact. Who led us on this descent into disunity and discord?

After the initial emotional surge subsided, it was not long before the aclu resumed its objective to remove the expression of the Judeo-Christian faith from the public forum. Indeed, they had new targets to aim for since those terrible “God bless America” banners could certainly not be displayed in public schools and government buildings. As soon as it became apparent that rhetoric against the Taliban in Afghanistan would be backed up with action, anti-war protests popped up with the usual lineup of goofballs and wingnuts: some who paraded in the nude, some who set up their pro-socialist & pro-communist booths, some who burned the American flag, and some who demonized the President as the leader of a Nazi regime. Prominently displayed in this cacophony of disunity and anarchy were the signs of the protest organizers and monitors: moveon.org. These are the people and organizations that choose disunity over unity and chaos over faith. These are the people and organizations that choose to remember each 9/11 anniversary with assaults on every American attempt to defeat the enemies that so treacherously attacked us. These are the people and organizations that choose to act offended when they are accused of a lack of patriotism.

Six years ago, about 3,000 of our fellow American citizens died in a horrible, unprovoked attack by al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization pledged to impose the rule of Islam upon the world. This is just one of several terrorist organizations that believe that every infidel (non-Muslim) is a legitimate combatant target. This is a tough fight, folks. The disunity and chaos of the left will not win it. On this sixth anniversary of 9/11, I honor the day by revisiting the resolve that has seen us through before. United we stand! God bless America!

Perspective on Stock Market

Yesterday, July 26th, the stock market as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) closed down 311 points. It was down during the day’s trading by more than 450 points.

This is big news and should be reported. However, it is wise to keep a steady perspective on it. Many major media outlets tend to overuse verbs and adjectives such as “plunge,” “crash,” meltdown,” and “catastrophic.” How many flashbacks to the ever popular “crash” of the 1920s have already been flashed about? Additionally, mainstream media salivates over anything they can use to further discredit President Bush and his administration; a market downturn like this gives them more ammunition to load into their blank-firing pistols.

Let’s apply some perspective. Since the close of 2006, the DJIA has advanced to a closing high of 14,000.41, an increase of 12.3%. From its closing low for the year (3/5/2007) to its closing high to date (7/19/2007), the index has increased 16.2%. From its highest closing to yesterday’s close, the DJIA is down only 3.7%. This current downturn has not even met the typical criteria for a market correction! (“A market correction is sometimes defined as a drop of at least 10%, but not more than 20%...” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_market) In fact, the DJIA measured from its 2006 close to yesterday’s close puts the average up 8.1%.

I think that the markets were looking for any reason to do some shaking out, and they have found some of those reasons in credit market, global liquidity, and housing market worries. All of these issues are thus far cyclical in nature. While there remains some downside potential, I think that many investors are already poised for “bargain hunting” good stocks and will begin softening the downside blow. For those who are dollar cost averaging into mutual funds or other investments for the long term, this is not a bad time at all.

(image: intraday candlestick chart of DJIA for 7/26/2007)

Solution to Environmental Crises: Eliminate Humans!

Well, the land of left-believe keeps rolling, everyone, this time from the environmentalist arena. As has been pointed out often, the agenda of radical environmentalism is no secret. They are more than willing to share their goals with anyone and everyone who gives them an audience. And leave it to long-time leftwing-biased media to provide such wingnuts a forum to express their kooky ideas and giving them the illusion of legitimacy.

On this occasion, legitimacy is extended by Newsweek. And once again, radical environmentalists proffer their solution to global warming and everything environmental: eliminate humans. That's right - eliminate humans and the earth will once again return to the perfect state it was meant to be. Never mind that these are some of the same environmentalists who grieve without ceasing the prospect of the elimination of any species. According to them, it is a travesty and environmental disaster for any species to go extinct. It upsets the balance of every ecosystem imaginable. Yet, here they are quivering with excitement over the prospect of the extinction of the human race.

These kooks are asylum material, but modern media tries to give them a forum for credibility. Unbelievable!

(start quote)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762077/site/newsweek/

...There's even a group trying to bring it about, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose Web site calls on people to stop having children altogether. And now the journalist Alan Weisman has produced, if not a bible, at least a Book of Revelation, "The World Without Us," which conjures up a future something like ... well, like the area around Chernobyl, the Russian nuclear reactor that blew off a cloud of radioactive steam in 1986. In a radius of 30 kilometers, there are no human settlements—just forests that have begun reclaiming fields and towns, home to birds, deer, wild boar and moose...
(end quote)

Religion of Peace at It Again

Once more, Islamic faithful have demonstrated their odd application of “peace.” The Australian reports that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, is once again the subject of death threats across the Islamic world: “Eighteen years after the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill him, a government minister in Pakistan said yesterday that Rushdie's recent knighthood justified suicide bombing… Hardliners in Iran revived calls for Rushdie's murder yesterday. Mehdi Kuchakzadeh, a Tehran MP, declared: ‘Rushdie died the moment the late imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) issued the fatwa.’”

This declaration is more than a death threat; it is a declaration of Rushdie’s legal status within Islam. By declaring Rushdie already “dead,” no Muslim will be charged by Islam law with murder because it is impossible to murder a “dead” man. Great legal system, huh? Great way to address political and religious differences.

But, hey, this is the “religion of peace.” This is the only religion in the world not currently engaged in holy war. Well, if you listen to certain sectors of American society, this is the case. To all you moderate Muslims out there, especially moderate Imams, scholars, and political leaders: what are you doing to negate the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, protest Islamic threats against Great Britain, and implement Islamic solutions that are actually peaceful?

Evan Sayet: Why I Turned Conservative

I ran across this address of Evan Sayet to the National Heritage Foundation some time back. It is almost 48 minutes long, but I found it to be worth listening to in its entirety. Extremely interesting perspective from a New York Jew who was once a liberal. Among other observations, he says, “Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend & suddenly he blurts out, ‘I hate my wife.’ You kind of chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you’re together, & you know he doesn’t hate his wife. They’ve been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters & they’re just like her. Naw, he doesn’t hate his wife. And you sit there & look out the window, & you spot his wife out the window. And she’s being beaten up. And you grab your friend & say, ‘Come on! Come on! Let’s help her! Let’s help your wife!’ And he says, ‘Naw, I’m sure she deserves it.’ At that moment, it dawns on you that he really does hate his wife. Well, that’s what 9/11 was to me (Sayet continues). I would hear my friends from the left say how evil & horrible & racist & imperialistic & oppressive America is, and I’d laugh to myself & say, ‘Aww, they always say that. They love America.’ And then on 9/11 we were beaten up. And I grabbed ‘em by the collar & said, ‘Come on! Come on! Let’s help her! Let’s help America!’ And they said, ‘No, she deserves it.’ At that moment, I realized that they really do hate America.”

His National Heritage speech is found at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

His website is

http://www.evansayet.com/

Your Choice

Details emerging about the young man who went on the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech indicate, we are told, “a chilling portrait of a 23-year-old loner who alarmed his professors with twisted creative writing…” (Kokomo Tribune, 4/18/07, p. A1). The report tells us that Cho wrote “obscenity- and violence-laced screenplays… One was about a fight between a stepson and his stepfather, and involved throwing of hammers and attacks with a chainsaw.” One classmate revealed, “When we read Cho’s plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn’t have even thought of.”

Frankly, I am confused by the concern expressed over Cho’s writings. It sounds to me exactly like the plots of innumerable movies and television shows being shown as entertainment on any given week of the year. Monday’s entertainment news leader reads, “‘Disturbia’ gets movie-goers’ attention with $23M” (Kokomo Tribune, 4/16/07, p. A8). “Disturbia” - number one grossing movie the weekend before Cho’s shooting spree. Yet, the nation is shocked by the obscenity and violence in Cho’s playwrights? A chainsaw used as a weapon? Hmmm… where have I heard of that theme before? Macabre, murderous uses for everyday tools and items? Hmmm… ever heard of the “Saw” movies? I wonder how many terrified students on the Virginia Tech campus that day were listening to or wearing paraphernalia from groups like “Slip Knot” that market bizarre, macabre, culture-of-death themes as entertainment?

I am not issuing a call for censorship. I am not even suggesting that there is any cause-and-effect link to be made between the modern cultural fascination with the macabre and Cho’s actions. Instead, I am inviting every reader of this blog to take time to reflect on the personal choices he/she makes and ask if those choices contribute to a culture of fear or a culture of peace. Are the entertainment and lifestyle choices you are making every day something you are proud to pass on to your children, or would you rather they not do what you are doing? Are you really so willing to plop down your hard-earned money to glorify gore and culture-of-death media, or would you really rather use your resources to make a difference in the community and world in which you live?

Not a single one of us can bring any of Cho’s victims back to life or erase the injuries he has caused. But we can honor them. We can make daily choices in our own personal lives that reflect and honor peace and the valuable sanctity of life instead of bizarre, macabre, gory deaths and lyrics. What path are you taking? It’s your choice.

Tragedy

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” – Romans 1:21-23 (NIV)

Yesterday, April 15, Lois and I attended an honors convocation on the campus of Purdue University. It was an uplifting ceremony that reminded all participants of the enthusiasm, vision, and hope that are so prevalent on a college campus as young men and women prepare to take their place in the world. It was inspirational to be in the presence of, as Purdue President Martin C. Jischke stated, the “best of the best.”

Today, April 16, Americans are receiving the shocking news of a tragedy of enormous proportions on the campus of Virginia Tech. As of the last report I have heard, more than 22 people on campus have lost their lives to a murderous gunman. More than 28 people are injured. These are just the initial, confused reports. I saw the breaking news at noon. “I have a daughter away at college and a son who has been out only four months,” I thought. “That could happen anywhere, including their college.” I wept. A college campus that has every bit as much vision and hope and optimism for the future as I experienced yesterday has been cast into darkness, despair, and hopelessness today. I weep even as I write this article today.

My heart breaks in sympathy for parents who will be told that their son or daughter who they love and for whom they held high hopes has been killed today. My heart breaks in sympathy for the husband or wife of faculty and staff who will be told that his or her loved one has been killed today. My heart breaks in sympathy for families whose lives have been so tragically – and so unnecessarily – changed today. Normal men and women going about normal activities, yet an unchangeable tragedy has struck their lives.

Most of all, my heart goes out to a culture that consistently and increasingly rejects the offer of peace and salvation. My heart goes out to a culture that consistently and increasingly ignores the Word of God and tries to turn it into a book of myth and make-believe. My heart goes out to a culture that mocks the morality and ethic and piety proclaimed by God through His Word and His believers.

At the time of this writing, it is not known yet what has driven a young man to go on this murderous rampage on a college campus, but I can guarantee that no matter what reason turns up, it will not be worth the devastation he has caused. No matter what drove him to such despair, what would have been the harm had he thrown himself upon the altar of God to seek, even as a last ditch effort, solace for the misery that was driving him mad? What would have been the harm had this young man come away from such an experience having had his despair replaced by the triumphant Spirit of God? What would have been the harm had the campus of Virginia Tech – or any campus – just had to deal with another Christian witness?

At the outset of Romans, Paul addresses a world that knows God but gives Him no glory. Paul writes to our world as well. He tells us the reality we all face. The religious word that our culture rejects is human depravity. The Dictionary of Christian Theology by Peter Angeles reads, “Characterized by corruption, debasement, sin, deterioration, degeneration, evil, perversity, loss of purity, alienation, estrangement. Every human faculty or function is regarded as having an innate possibility for sin.” Even though this concept is frequently ridiculed by modern thought, is there anything that more accurately describes today’s tragedy than this? Men and women today strive so hard for an absolute freedom to live for their personal pleasures that they cast God away from their thoughts. They ridicule those who fail to rid themselves of God as “weak and narrow-minded.” Then, when they come face to face with so much despair and anguish and hopelessness, it translates into such a raging hatred that a normal young man lines up students and faculty on a University campus and executes them mercilessly. Is this not an act of depravity and sin? Is this not a rejection of the Living God who has loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die in our place? My answer is “yes;” if yours differs, I invite you to let me know what else drives a person to such seething, uncontrollable rage. How much more accurate about the condition of the human heart can any human construct be than what we are already told through the Scriptures?

This is certainly not what I intended my article for the May newsletter to be about. But my heart is unutterably broken over this tragic event, and I can think of nothing else. I can hardly bear the thought of what fathers and mothers and husbands and wives and brothers and sisters and children of today’s victims are going to have to go through. I wonder how the University family at Virginia Tech is going to be able to come to grips with today’s unimaginable tragedy. I am overwhelmed.

Later, in the same letter from which I began this article, Paul writes, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:37-39) Both those who accept and those who reject the Word of God are being given wake up calls almost every day. I certainly hope that this is the message that the culture and world in which I live will once again hear and take to heart. Think how much tragedy we could avert if only the Word of God became the first weapon of choice to our fear, despair, loneliness, and even rage.

Taxing Time

Ahhhh… April. Thoughts of spring; Easter; baseball; San Jacinto Day (a Texan thing)… and taxes!

I have never been more disgusted with tax preparation than this year. Don’t know why. I even enjoyed work as a part-time tax preparer a few years ago. But this year, the time I have needed to dedicate to tax preparation has just annoyed me. I didn’t want to go through the paperwork & IRS instruction hassles. Ridiculous!

This is why I have become more & more attracted to the grassroots, non-partisan Americans for Fair Tax movement. If you have never heard of the Fair Tax, or want to learn more about it, a wealth of information is available at http://www.fairtax.org/.

When I first heard of the Fair Tax plan, I was not in favor of it. It is, simplistically stated, a national sales tax. Who wants that? But before jumping to uninformed conclusions, give it a fair hearing. Take the time to be informed about its benefits. The website is full of research. I believe that the Fair Tax proposal is the most well-researched tax reform proposal around.

Here are some highlights of the proposal directly from the website: “The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.”

If the Fair Tax proposal makes sense to you, consider joining the online campaign to fax at least 100,000 messages of support to your Senators & Representative in Congress by this year’s tax day of April 17.

Personal Relationship with Jesus

April 1-8, 2007, is Holy Week among many Christian faith groups worldwide. During this week, Christians reflect upon the meaning of the work of Christ: his triumphal entry into Jerusalem; his final days of teaching and ministry before the betrayal; the “last” supper and the giving of the New Covenant; his betrayal; his trial; his suffering; his crucifixion; and his triumphant resurrection.

The remembrance of these events creates an appropriate time for all of us to take stock of our spiritual lives and personal relationship with God. I offer these questions as a beginning point for personal reflection:
(1) What is your spiritual belief and how do you practice it?
(2) To you, who is Jesus?
(3) Do you believe there is a heaven and a hell?
(4) If you died right now, where would you go? If heaven, why?
(5) If what you believe were not true, would you want to know it?

If your answer to question (5) is “no,” I thank you for reading this far. You really have no need to read further.

If your answer to question (5) is “yes,” I invite you to consider what the Bible says and to let it speak to you.

(1) “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:23) What does this say to you?
(2) “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23) What does this say to you?
(3) “In reply Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’” (John 3:3) Why did Jesus come to die?
(4) “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) What does this say to you?
(5) “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’” (Romans 10:9-11) What does this say to you?
(6) “And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Corinthians 5:15) What does this say to you?
(7) “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20) What does this say to you?

If these Bible verses are speaking to you, I invite you to consider these questions:

(1) Are you a sinner?
(2) Do you want forgiveness for your sins?
(3) Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for you and rose again?
(4) Are you willing to surrender your life to Christ?
(5) Are you ready to invite Jesus into your life and into your heart?

If your answers to the above questions are yes, I offer the following words as a sample of what you can sincerely pray right now to receive complete forgiveness from our loving God:

“Heavenly Father, I have sinned against You. I want forgiveness for all my sins. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for me and rose again. Father, I give You my life to do with as You wish. I want Jesus Christ to come into my life and into my heart. This I ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

If this is your prayer, or if you have further questions, I invite you to visit the website of First Baptist Church, Bunker Hill. You can contact me through the online form there.

May God grant you a blessed Easter celebration, and may this become your moment of salvation!

(Questions taken from the Share Jesus Without Fear workbook. © 1997 by LifeWay Press.)
(Scripture taken from the New International Version. © 1996 by the Zondervan Corp.)

Save the Planet? April Fool!

How could we live without Hollywood stars to tell us right from wrong? As a result of their dire warnings, we know how close to the brink of disaster our world is because of the Global Warming crisis. Just ask Dr. Al Gore (see the March 30th submission below).

But do not expect them to take any steps to personally reduce their “greenhouse gas” emissions or “carbon footprint.” That would be asking too much. It would also be asking too much of normal folks as well, which is why they are trying to introduce and pass legislation requiring us to live stone-age lives.

Anyway, prepare to be motivated by John Travolta:

***(begin quote)***
With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming
30.03.07

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway. The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming. But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway. Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally…. He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson. Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business. But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities… Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel… I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets… I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."

Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.
***(end quote)***

The article goes on to state that Travolta boasts a “carbon footprint” of nearly 100 times the average Briton. Yes, Hollywood liberal elitists believe we should save the planet…

APRIL FOOL!

(photo: John Travolta as official spokesman for Qantas Airline)

Save the Planet? Gore Just Says No!

On March 21, 2007, Dr. Al Gore testified before the House and Senate Joint Environment and Public Works Committee about Global Warming (GW). Dr. Gore testified:

***(begin quote)***

I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth. Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is “unequivocal.” Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. The consequences are mainly negative and headed toward catastrophic, unless we act. However, the good news is that we can meet this challenge. It is not too late, and we have everything we need to get started.

***(end quote)***

He calls upon Congress to implement laws that will address the “crises” he describes. If enacted, the laws and policies he calls for will devastate national and global economies on an unprecedented scale. They are little more than a means for the establishment of a one world government.

During the hearing, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) presented Dr. Gore a personal ethics pledge that, if accepted, would indicate Dr. Gore’s personal sincerity to achieve the steps necessary to reduce the human component of “greenhouse gas” emissions. In a move typical of elitist egalitarianism, Dr. Gore refused to take the pledge. Arrogant hypocrisy from the one who is alarmed about the devastation that global warming brings? You make the call...

***(begin quote)***
GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL PLEDGE

WASHINGTON, DC – …Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:" As a believer:

· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example; I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Gore refused to take the pledge.

***(end quote)***

Additionally, Dr. Gore testified, "First of all, there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming."

If you are concerned that questioning Dr. Gore places you in the company of fringe kooks who are not real scientists, you may be interested in knowing that there really is still serious debate going on among the science community.

***(begin quote)***
Global Warming Petition Project

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

(More at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Top)
***(end quote)***

Just a few of the inconvenient truths for the Gore hypocrites.

(photo: Al Gore testifies at House and Senate Joint Environment and Public Works Committee hearing)

Will AU Investigate?

On March 4, 2007, Democrat Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) addressed the congregation of the Brown Chapel AME Church from the pulpit and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) addressed the congregation of the First Baptist Church, Selma, from the pulpit. During the course of their speeches, each provided reasons why the Democrat Party in general and they in particular as Presidential candidates are the right political party and person to represent African-American voters. Were these speeches by Democrat Presidential candidates partisan politics and, therefore, a violation of their respective 501(c)(3) non-profit organization tax exempt status?

During political campaign “seasons,” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) aggressively pursues the identification and reporting of violations of partisan political support by 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. The AU’s particular targets of opportunity are conservative, evangelical churches and religious organizations that promote “partisan support” for conservative candidates. It is not unusual for the AU to accuse non-profit religious organizations that provide issue-oriented voter guides to churches of violating the tax law forbidding partisan electioneering.

Will the AU demand investigations alleging violations of partisan politics by 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations in the case of the Brown Chapel AME Church and First Baptist Church, Selma? I don’t know. Let’s find out. Write a letter to AU and ask them. If you want to use it as a guide (or just copy and paste), the text of my letter follows:

“Were the church services and political rallies in which Sen. Obama (Brown Chapel AME Church) and Sen. Clinton (First Baptist Church, Selma) participated on March 4, 2007, violations of the tax law concerning 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations engaging in partisan political campaigning? Should the churches hosting these Presidential candidates be investigated for possible violation of this tax code? Why or why not? Thank you for your assistance.”

Address your inquiries to:
Americans United for Separation of Church & State
518 C Street NE
Washington, DC 20002

(photos: (left) Sen. Clinton speaks at First Baptist Church, Selma; (right) Sen. Obama speaks at Brown Chapel AME Church, 3/4/2007)