A House Divided

A House Divided
Vol: 100 Issue: 19 Tuesday, January 19, 2010

I got beaten up pretty badly for my column about Pat Robertson last week about his statement regarding the earthquake in Haiti.

I am probably a glutton for punishment. You should see my e-mail. I wanted to just let this drop, but the Lord wouldn’t allow it.

I had an entire column almost prepared on another subject. But I said something to my dictation software, and the entire column disappeared. I couldn’t find it in the clipboard and it was just gone.

This is the topic I got steered back to. So we will go from here.

Most of the comments made in defense of Rev. Robertson seemed to ignore the statement made to close ranks with Robertson because he is a Christian.
Somehow that doesn’t ring true to me. It isn’t a case of Christians presenting a divided front of the world. Of course Christians are divided. If we weren’t divided, we wouldn’t have so many denominations.
Ecumenism is a word that’s used when Christians close ranks to present a united front to the world.
It would be different if the story about the Haitians selling their soul to the devil were true. As I recall from the statement, that is exactly what Rev. Robertson said, “true story”.
But by every authoritative account, the story is not true.
WorldNetDaily reported the distinguished Haitian Christian minister and scientist who research rumors about Haiti’s 18th-century independence movement said the story is nothing more than an uncorroborated rumor.
Jean R. Gaelin, who is a minister in Haiti who holds a PhD, wrote a series of articles in 2005 regarding Haiti’s history and the slave rebellion of 1791.
“Obviously, the idea that Haiti was dedicated to Satan prior to its independence is a very serious and profound statement with potentially grave consequences for its people in terms of how they are perceived by others or how the whole nation is understood outside its borders,” Galen wrote.
“One would agree that such a strong affirmation should be based on solid historical and Scriptural ground. But although the satanic pact idea is by far the most popular explanation for Haiti’s birth as a free nation, especially among Christian ministers and some Haitian church leaders, it is nothing more than a fantastic opinion that ultimately dissipates upon close examination.”
The idea that what Rev. Robertson said was twisted by the media doesn’t hold up, since what he said is what he said.
My commentary was not intended as a critique of Rev. Robertson’s Ministry or the good that it is done over the course of many decades.
My commentary was aimed at putting some distance between his comments and what I believe as a Christian minister.
I didn’t think that Pat Robertson was mean-spirited in his comment. I don’t believe that God struck Haiti with an earthquake as part of a curse because a handful of Haitians allegedly sold their souls to the devil 220 years ago.
Trying to make a comparison between Haiti and ancient Israel suggests God has a special covenant with Haiti that somehow Haiti abrogated.
When God sent judgment upon Israel, he likened it to Israel having committed adultery. Israel is often referred to as the spouse of God.
When God drowned the soldiers pursuing the children that Israel during the Exodus, it was to prevent them from overtaking Israel in violation of His plan.
There’s no comparison here. If Haiti were judged as a nation last week for this alleged act 200 years ago by a handful of Haitians, then America should not have survived the 20th century.
America is the wellspring and birthplace of pornography. America is the world’s number one market for drugs like cocaine and heroin. America is the only country in the world unsure of the meaning of the word marriage.
America has aborted some 65 million babies, according to some estimates, since Roe V. Wade. Now one might argue that America’s decline is a judgment from God, and it would be hard to argue against that.
If the 200,000 dead in Haiti are a consequence of the 200-year-old pact with the devil, then America’s slow decline doesn’t seem like much of a judgment at all by comparison.

Most of the comments made in defense of Rev. Robertson seemed to ignore what he said in favor of closing ranks with Pat Robertson just because he is a Christian.

Somehow that doesn’t ring true to me. This isn’t a case of Christians presenting a divided front to the world.

Of course Christians are divided!   If we weren’t divided, we wouldn’t have so many denominations.  

We don’t agree on methods of baptism, we don’t agree on the timing of the Rapture, we don’t agree on the doctrine of eternal security; when you get right down to it, we don’t agree on much of anything. 

Ecumenism is a word that’s used when Christians do close ranks to present a united front to the world.   

It would be different if the story about the Haitians selling their soul to the devil were true.  As I recall from the statement, that is exactly what Rev. Robertson said; “true story”.

But by every authoritative account, the ‘devil’s covenant’ story is not true.

WorldNetDaily reported of a distinguished Haitian Christian minister and scientist who researched rumors about Haiti’s 18th-century independence movement.  According to his research,  the entire story is nothing more than an uncorroborated rumor.

Jean R. Gelin, who is a minister in Haiti who holds a PhD, wrote a series of articles in 2005 regarding Haiti’s history and the slave rebellion 200 years ago.

“Obviously, the idea that Haiti was dedicated to Satan prior to its independence is a very serious and profound statement with potentially grave consequences for its people in terms of how they are perceived by others or how the whole nation is understood outside its borders,” Galen wrote.

“One would agree that such a strong affirmation should be based on solid historical and Scriptural ground. But although the satanic pact idea is by far the most popular explanation for Haiti’s birth as a free nation, especially among Christian ministers and some Haitian church leaders, it is nothing more than a fantastic opinion that ultimately dissipates upon close examination.”

Why would I believe a Haitian scholar over Pat Robertson on a matter of Haitian history?  Because it is a matter of history.  

When it comes to history, logic dictates that the best source for accuracy would be a person who has made a lifetime study of the topic at hand.

Because Pat Robertson is an authority on the Bible, it does not automatically follow that he is an authority on the history of Haiti simply because it involves a religious element.

Adding to Dr. Gelin’s credibility is the fact that he published his research five years before Rev. Robertson put it on the front page. 

Finally, the claim that what Rev. Robertson said was being twisted by the media doesn’t hold up, since what he said is what he said.

I heard it myself. 

Assessment:

My commentary was not intended as a critique of Rev. Robertson’s ministry or the good that it has done over the course of many decades.

My commentary was aimed at putting some distance between his comments and what I believe as a Christian minister.  

I didn’t think that Pat Robertson was mean-spirited in his comment. Just unthinking and ultimately, irresponsible.  

And since it gives ammunition to those who paint Christianity as a hateful religion,  I can’t pretend it is doctrinally correct in order to shield Rev. Robertson from his critics. 

I certainly don’t believe that God struck Haiti with an earthquake because a handful of Haitians allegedly sold their souls to the devil 220 years ago.

Many of my critics have tried to defend Robertson’s statement on Biblical grounds — always using the Old Testament — as if the New Testament were suddenly irrelevant.  

What’s next? Justifying stoning on Old Testament grounds? 

Trying to make a comparison between Haiti and ancient Israel suggests God also has a special covenant with Haiti that somehow Haiti abrogated.

When God sent judgment upon Israel, he likened it to Israel having committed adultery. Israel is often referred to as the ‘spouse of God’.  Haiti holds no such status. 

When God drowned the Pharoh’s soldiers who were pursuing the children of Israel during the Exodus, it was to prevent them from overtaking Israel — in violation of His plan and His promise. 

In this instance, the alleged covenant between the devil and the Haitians was supposed to have been in return for the devil’s  help in freeing Haiti from slavery.   

If the earthquake were the result of a curse on Haiti,  it then follows that it was the devil that helped the Haitians to throw off their shackles and overcome slavery.  That was, as Pat Robertson said, “the deal.” 

Jesus was once accused of casting out devils in Satan’s name. 

“But He, knowing their thoughts, saith unto them, every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.” (Luke 11:17-18)

There’s no comparison here.

If Haiti were judged as a nation last week for this alleged act 200 years ago by a handful of Haitians, then America should not have survived the 20th century.

America is the wellspring and birthplace of pornography.

America is the world’s number one market for drugs like cocaine and heroin.

America is the only country in the world still debating the meaning of the word ‘marriage’.

America has aborted some 65 million babies, according to some estimates, since Roe V. Wade.

Now, one might argue that America’s decline is a judgment from God — and it would be hard to argue with that assessment.

But if so, it is still a judgment for what America is doing now, not for what was done 200 years ago. And in fulfillment of prophecy (2nd Timothy 3:1-7) in accordance with the outline given by Scripture. 

The visitation of the sins of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation is not a Christian concept.

That is part of the law of Moses.  (Exodus 20:5)  Jesus died to fulfill the Law of Moses and to free us from its shackles. 

Since we are not under the law of Moses, we have no business judging others according to the law of Moses.

Judgment upon the world for sin during the Age of Grace is held in reserve until the Tribulation Period after the Rapture. 

If Rev. Robertson is crediting the devil with causing the Haitian earthquake, then this is a case of  the devil bringing judgment against his own —  for swearing allegiance to him!

That makes no sense.

If Robertson is not crediting the devil, then he is blaming God. The Bible says that not a single sparrow can fall from heaven without God being aware of it and permitting it.

There is no doubt that God was aware of the Haitian earthquake, and there is no doubt in my mind that it in some way fits with the Plan of God.  Indeed, it must.  But I don’t know what that plan is.  

And neither does Rev. Robertson.

Rev. Robertson has an obligation as a minister of God when teaching to teach, not to muse about things that he has no more knowledge of than does anyone else.

Because Rev. Robertson is such a high profile and respected teacher, his words are immediately accepted by the world as representative of the Christian community.

If the Christian community closes ranks when they know — or should know better — then the world has every reason to believe that Christians agree with Rev. Robertson. 

I have much respect for Rev. Robertson as anyone does. I’ve watched the 700 club for years and years.I am not piling on with the media in an effort to make Rev. Robertson look bad.

I would much prefer to sing his praises. 

Instead, I am explaining why I don’t believe that what he said is representative of what I believe Christianity teaches.

I believe that what he said makes Christianity look every bit as hateful as the case the world is building against it says it is.  

To remain silent is to suggest that somehow I agree that 200,000 innocents were killed as a consequence of Divine judgment — a judgment rendered 200 years after the crime.

And that I accept it as evidence of God’s justice. 

I do not agree.  And the Lord won’t let me remain silent.  In this particular case, I wish that He would.  

I don’t want to be perceived as being disrespectful of Rev. Robertson or the mighty works the Lord has done through him.  But I promised the Lord,  (and each of you) that I would tell it like it is.  

It is not intended as a reflection on Rev. Pat Robertson, his life or his life’s work.    But his comments are being used to paint my Lord in an unfavorable light by the enemy, regardless of how they were intended.  

Somebody has to say something!   I wish it wasn’t me. 

Eliminating Heterosexism

Eliminating Heterosexism
Vol: 100 Issue: 18 Monday, January 18, 2010

“The word, “phobia” is defined as an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations. That’s the social definition as defined by Princeton University.

The dictionary defines it as a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

The Atty. Gen. of Québec has just assigned the government the task of eliminating all forms of both  “homophobia” — and something that the government now calls “Heterosexism”.

As I understand the term heterosexism, it must mean something like what homosexuals are guilty of instead of homophobia.

For reasons I can’t explain, ‘homophobia’ is bigoted but opposing heterosexism is somehow not.

The new policy is to be called the “Québec Policy Against Homophobia” and its goal is to enlist the government in normalizing homosexuality in society.

And, to quell criticisms levied against “sexual minorities”-which means, “lesbians, gays, bisexuals,  transsexuals and transgenders”.

I suspect that pedophiles, necrophiliacs, nymphomaniacs, and those into bestiality are all on the phone with their various representatives and lawyers demanding an answer to why they have been left out.

And I’m sure the government will rectify the situation as soon as it’s been pointed out to them.

The policy was introduced by Québec premier Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction.

“An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity.

The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.”

And that’s not all.

According to the government what must be changed is the “affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm, or the highest form of sexual orientation.”

According to the government of Québec, heterosexism is a new form of discrimination and heterosexuals are the new bigots. And the name for this new bigotry is homophobia.

The government plans to highlight and publicize the most insidious forms of homophobia, by targeting; “the various locations in which homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns as well as heterosexist values on which some institutional practices are found.”

The government also warns,”it will be necessary to deal with the heterosexist values on which some institutional practices are founded.

I wonder, where would one find an institutional practice of celebrating heterosexuality? Let’s see. Where does one find an institutional foundation for opposing heterosexuality?

My guess would be the first institution that they will go after will be the Church.

Atty. Gen. Weil is very proud of the new policy saying, “the policy release this morning shows, once again, the Québec society is a leader in the field of sexual minority rights.”

It’s interesting that no one has noticed the the new sexual minority rights come at the expense of the majority who will have been made legal targets of official government discrimination.

It is impossible to extend rights to the minority, when those rights conflict with the majority, without infringing upon somebody’s rights.  

Evidently, the rights of the majority are the ones on the sacrificial altar. 

That isn’t rocket science.  It should be obvious. But apparently, either it isn’t that obvious, or in its eagerness to rectify perceived wrongs, the Québec government doesn’t much care.  

Gary Cass of the Christian anti-defamation commission, told WorldNetDaily that the practical application of such laws have already been implemented in other countries.

In the United Kingdom, a senior citizen was accused of hate crimes for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival.

“This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries,”Cass said.”Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth.”

The fact that some other group doesn’t believe it’s the truth doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s hateful to disagree with them.

But as we’ve seen with all liberal groups, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when they do it.

When another group disagrees with their opinion, they are racist, bigoted, homophobic, or just generally evil and disgusting people who deserved to have their own right to free speech curtailed, at least until they get it ‘right.

One line in the policy is particularly interesting. It declares that schools can ‘play a key role’  in “retraining the populace on sexual minority rights”.

What the government is planning to do is to impose homosexuality training on children in school. They’re already doing that with ethics and with culture and with social engineering, but this is the first time, to my knowledge, that they’ve openly admitted to an official policy of brainwashing impressionable young minds.

And if you don’t like it, well, you can move. Until they make that illegal.

Assessment

 What this all means, is that today’s Omega Letter could possibly be used as evidence of a crime at my trial, were I to live in Québec, and try to express my opinions regarding this policy. 

When it comes to the Left, the only opinions that count are those that they share and those with which they disagree are those which should be criminalized. The interesting thing about it is that there are so few of them, when you get right down to it.

By “them”, I mean both liberals and homosexual activists. It isn’t an issue so much of my wanting to deny someone else their rights, so much as my wanting to retain my own.

I am not homophobic. I have no particular fear of gays. I have no particular dislike for them. 

But I no more want to hear what they do in their bedroom than I think that they want to hear what goes on in mine.

However, my not wanting to discuss their sexual practices seems in some way to offend them and the government has determined they are not to be offended.  Moreover, what offends me is completely irrelevant.

This is an open effort to stamp out what the government now calls heterosexism — by replacing it with homosexuality– in the name of anti-bigotry!

Assuming for a second, that a lifestyle choice is the equivalent to an immutable physical characteristic, (which then would qualify as discrimination),  then this policy imposes new discrimination upon one group as a remedy for perceived discrimination against another.

It gives you some sense of just how powerful propaganda can be. From the beginning of human history until now, the institution of marriage has existed for the purposes of propagating the human race.

Suddenly, in this generation, we have become confused about biological facts known since the dawn of time.

And make no mistake about it, it will be no defense to prosecution that the statements made are factually correct.  The ‘dawn of time’ argument has already been deemed prejudicial. 

Put another way even if you could prove an offending statement is factually true, the fact that it offended someone else still means that you are guilty of a crime.

So it’s illegal to state the truth, unless its politically correct.  Truth is subordinate to politics. 

I am sure that there are at least some within the government that are involved in this policy who believe that what they are doing is the right thing. But they have overcome the problems associated with ‘cognitive dissonance.’

On one hand, you have all of your knowledge, your experience, your common sense, and your logic telling you one thing, but on the other, political correctness tells you that the exact opposite is true.

Some people might find that disorienting, but that’s the idea. 

This isn’t something that’s happening in Nazi Germany. Isn’t something that’s happening in the Soviet Union. It’s not even something that’s happening in Europe. This is happening on the other side of the border from Maine.

But it’s something that’s also happening on the American side of the border. The only difference is, the government has not yet officially articulated the policy.

But now that Québec has broken the ice, you can be very very sure that the activists will use Québec as a template for formulating US policy.

The Bible expresses it this way, in the book of Proverbs. In fact, the principle is so important that God repeated Himself to make sure that we got it right.

Proverbs 14: 12 and Proverbs 16:25 both make the identical observation:

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” 

Eliminating Heterosexism
“The word, “phobia” is defined as an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations. That’s the social definition as defined by Princeton University.
The dictionary defines it as a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.
The Atty. Gen. of Québec has just assigned the government the task of eliminating all forms of both  “homophobia” and something that the government now calls “Heterosexism”.
As I understand the term Heterosexism, it must mean something like what homosexuals get instead of homophobia. For reasons I can’t explain homophobia is wrong but Heterosexism is is somehow okay.
The new policy is to be called the Québec policy against homophobia and its goal is to enlist the government in normalizing homosexuality in society and to quell criticisms levied against “sexual minorities”which means “lesbians gays bisexuals transsexuals and transgenders”.
I suspect that pedophiles, necrophiliacs, nymphomaniacs, and those into bestiality are all on the phone with her various representatives and lawyers demanding the answer to why they been left out. And I’m sure the government rectify the situation as soon as it’s been pointed out to them.
The policy was introduced by Québec premier Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the polcies introduction.
“An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity. The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.”
And that’s not all. According to the government what must be changed is the “affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm, or the highest form of sexual orientation.”
According to the government of Québec, Heterosexism is a new form of discrimination and heterosexuals are the new bigots. And the name for this new bigotry is homophobia.
The government plans to highlight and publicize the most insidious forms of homophobia by targeting; “the various locations in which homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns as well as Heterosexism values on which some institutional practices are found.”
The government also warns,”it will be necessary to deal with the Heterosexism values on which some institutional practices are founded.
http://www.omegaletter.com/admin/tinymce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js
I wonder, where would one find an institutional practice of celebrating heterosexuality? Let’s see. Where does one find an institutional foundation of celebrating heterosexuality?
My guess would be the first institution that they will go after will be the Church.
Atty. Gen. Weil is very proud of the new policy saying,”the policy release this morning shows, once again, the Québec society is a leader in the field of sexual minority rights.”
It’s interesting that no one has noticed the the new sexual minority rights, the expense of the majority will been made legal targets of official government discrimination. It is impossible to extend rights to the minority, when those rights conflict with the majority without infringing upon the rights of the majority.
That isn’t rocket science it should be obvious. But apparently either it isn’t that obvious, or in its eagerness to rectify perceived wrongs, the Québec government just doesn’t care.
Gary Cass of the Christian anti-defamation commission, told WorldNetDaily that the practical application of such laws have already been implemented in other countries. In the United Kingdom a senior citizen was accused of hate crimes for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival.
“This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries,”Cass said.”Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth.”
The fact that some other group doesn’t believe it’s the truth doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s hateful to disagree with them. But as we’ve seen with all liberal groups, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism, when they do it.
When another group disagrees with their opinion, they are racist, bigoted, homophobic, or just generally evil and disgusting people who deserved to have their own right to free speech curtailed until they get it right.
One line in the policy is particularly interesting. It declares that schools can ‘play a key role’  in “retraining the populace on sexual minority rights”.
What the government is planning to do is to impose homosexuality training on children in school. They’re already doing that with ethics and with culture and with social engineering, but this is the first time, to my knowledge, that they’ve openly admitted to an official policy of brainwashing impressionable young minds.
And if you don’t like it, well, you can move. Until they make that illegal.
Assessment:
What this all means, is that today’s Omega Letter could possibly be used as evidence of a crime at my trial, were I to live in Québec, and try to express my opinions regarding this policy.
When it comes to the Left, the only opinions that count are those that they share and those with which they disagree are those which should be criminalized. The interesting thing about it is that there are so few of them, when you get right down to it.
By “them”I mean both liberals and homosexual activists. It isn’t an issue so much of my wanting to deny someone else there rights, so much as my wanting to retain my own.
I am not homophobic. I have no particular fear of gays. I have no particular dislike for them 
But I no more want to hear what they do in their bedroom than I think that they want to hear what goes on in mine. However, my not wanting to discuss their sexual practices seems in some way to offend them.
Moreover, what offends me, is completely irrelevant. This is an open effort to stamp out what the government now calls Heterosexism, by replacing it with homosexuality in the name of anti-bigotry.
Assuming for a second, that a lifestyle choice is the equivalent to an immutable physical characteristic, which then would qualify as discrimination, then this policy imposes new discrimination upon one group as a remedy for perceived discrimination against another.
It gives you some sense of just how powerful propaganda can truly be. From the beginning of human history until now, the institution of marriage has existed for the purposes of a propagating the human race.
Suddenly, in this generation we have become confused about biological facts known since the dawn o
http://www.omegaletter.com/admin/tinymce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js
f time. And make no mistake about it, it will be no defense to prosecution that the statements made are factually correct.
Put another way. Even if you could prove that what you said was true, the fact that it offended someone else means that you are guilty of a crime. So it’s illegal to state the truth
Now, truth can be subjective. It is a subjective truth that the Bible is true. By subjective, I mean that while I believe it, someone else may not. And so it depends on the subject and upon the persons involved.
On the other hand, if I said it was quarter after seven, that would be a factual truth, assuming that was the correct time.
One might argue that to call homosexuality wrong is subjective. But to say that it does not fit into the traditional understanding of marriage is a matter of historical and verifiable fact.
In essence, this policy will require preachers to have their sermons vetted by a lawyer prior to delivery, or risk a fine and perhaps imprisonment.
This isn’t something that’s happening in Nazi Germany. Isn’t something that’s happening in the Soviet Union. It’s not even something that’s happening in Europe. This is happening on the other side of the border from Maine.
But it’s something that’s also happening on this side of the border. The only difference is, the government has not yet officially articulated the policy.
But now that Québec has broken the ice, you can be very very sure that the activists will use Québec as a template for formulating US policy.
I am sure that there are at least some within the government that are involved in this policy but believe that what they are doing is the right thing. But then you run into this problem of cognitive dissonance.
On one hand, you have all of your knowledge, your experience, y
http://www.omegaletter.com/admin/tinymce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js
our common sense,
http://www.omegaletter.com/admin/tinymce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js
and
http://www.omegaletter.com/admin/tinymce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js
your logic telling you one thing, but on the other, political correctness tells you that the exact opposite is true.
The Bible expresses it this way, in the book of Proverbs. In fact, the principle is so important that God repeated Himself to make sure that we got it right.
Proverbs 14: 12 and Proverbs 16:25 both make the identical observation:
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” 

Dems Don’t Care Who Wins in Massachusetts

Dems Don’t Care Who Wins in Massachusetts
Vol: 100 Issue: 16 Saturday, January 16, 2010

As far as the Democrats are concerned it doesn’t really matter whether or not the Massachusetts election goes to the Republicans or Democrats.

If the Democrats lose, then the majority is prepared to use what they called the ‘nuclear option’ when the Republicans were threatening to use it against them to break the filibuster against judicial nominees.

The nuclear option is a procedure whereby the Democrats will only need 51 votes to pass legislation. When the Republicans threatened to do it during the Bush administration Democrats went ballistic.

But evidently, the Democrats’ important is more important than the Republicans’ important.

According to Chris Van Hollen, “even before the Massachusetts race was on the radar screen we prepared for the process of using reconciliation.”

“Getting health care reform passed is important,” he said during an interview on Bloomberg television.”Reconciliation is an option.”

The original purpose of reconciliation was to make deficit cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems to have only an incidental connection to budget-cutting. Senators would still need 60 votes to override those rulings.

Van Hollen scoffed at the idea that the political climate had changed so much that the Republicans can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House.

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said.  “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place.”

Van Hollen is counting on propaganda for his reelection. That, and his total disrespect for the electorate — who are smarter than he thinks. 

It was not the Republicans but the Democrats took control of both houses in 2006. The economy didn’t begin to tank until after the midterm elections.

So it was the Democrats that drove us into the ditch and not the Republicans since they weren’t in control.

Van Hollen’s spin says their majority will shrink because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterms. I will be astonished if their majority survives intact.

Their problem is that the only ones that want to see this bill passed are the Marxists in the Congress and the White House. The majority of the country opposes it. I saw one poll where only 12% of voters saw healthcare as a number one priority.

That means that 88% of voters do not. Not the best choice for a signature issue in an election year.

Assessment:

The amazing thing is that they don’t even try to disguise their lies anymore. It just doesn’t seem to matter, because it’s already been established that all politicians lie.

And since all politicians lie it should come as no surprise to anyone when one lies right in front of them. There is no shame. There is no effort to cover it up. It doesn’t even matter if it sounds convincing.

And for reasons that is immediately escape me, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone except me. I surf the net. I read the commentaries. There are lots of people making lots of comments, but no one seems particularly bothered when they’re not true.

If the polls mean anything, then the country is opposed to this idea. And since the opposition is so solid, it would seem political suicide to continue to press it. Yet they do.

The left continues to invent numbers to support their case. Is it 47 million uninsured? Is it 30 million uninsured? Do those figures include illegal aliens? Will all those people be covered?

It isn’t as if the answers are hard to find. In order they are, no, no, no, and no. Frankly, I don’t know how many people aren’t insured.

But it seems fairly obvious that they don’t know either. If they did know, there wouldn’t be so many different numbers being floated out there.

It’s a joke, but it’s a joke only about 20% of the country gets. The rest of us don’t understand Marxism, and so we don’t get the joke.

It isn’t about healthcare. It’s about control.

The government can use Social Security and Medicare to scare seniors. It can use social assistance to scare low income families. But the vast majority of the electorate falls somewhere in the middle.

Since they are mainly fully employed, and relatively self-sufficient, the government has no sword of Damocles to hang above their heads. But if the government could use the threat of healthcare cutbacks to push an unpopular agenda, such a threat would impact equally across the board.

No American government in American history has ever had that kind of power. Think of it! In the final analysis, it will be up to the IRS to determine if your healthcare meets minimum standards. Are you likely to buck the IRS?

It’s a brilliant plan. That’s why they’re willing to risk it all to make it happen. Some are even willing to risk their seats. They would not be the first to fall on their sword to advance their ideology. Ideology is a powerful motivator.

Wars are fought over ideologies. The war with Al Qaeda is over ideology. The jihadist ideology is enough to make young men strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up to advance their ideology.

The ideology of the left is nowhere nearly so violent, but it’s clear that its adherents are willing to risk political suicide. But it’s not about taking care of the poor.

It’s about power. Plain and simple.

The Servant Is Not Greater Than His Lord

The Servant Is Not Greater Than His Lord
Vol: 100 Issue: 15 Friday, January 15, 2010

Every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries, according to One World Free International, a human rights watchdog group. 

The group says that between 200-300 million Christians are being persecuted in the world, 80 percent of whom lived in Muslim countries and the rest in communist and other countries.  

According to the Pew Research Foundation which conducted an exhaustive study over two years time involving 198 countries and 99.5% of the world’s population, some 70% of religions world-wide — especially evangelical Christianity — are targets of anti-Christian persecution. 

Seventy percent!  Think of it!  One third of the countries surveyed have both a high rate of government restrictions AND a high rate of social restrictions.

Of the sixty-four worst countries, the vast majority are Muslim, with the three worst offenders being Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. 

In Pakistan last month, three brothers, all Christian, went to a wedding hall to ask their Muslim employer to pay their back wages.  The three were poisoned by their employer, who was enraged that Christians would demand their wages. 

Two of the brothers died on the spot.  The employer didn’t call an ambulance, but instead called the father to tell him his sons were dead. 

In another incident, a group of Muslims shot their Christian friend dead last month on the outskirts of Karol village, Punjab Province. after saying they would spare his life only if he recanted his faith, according to the young man’s father. 

A few other cases, drawn (with appreciation) from Bill Warner’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution:

December 30, 2009 Iraq: A Christian student is kidnapped at the University of Mosul. Over the past two months in Mosul four churches and a convent of Dominican nuns have been targeted in attacks, several Christian and Muslim homes have been destroyed. Five Christians have been murdered, others are victims of kidnappings.

December 31, 2000  Algeria:  Nearly 50 Muslim members of a community in northern Algeria blocked Christians from holding a Christmas service on Saturday (Dec. 26) to protest a new church building in their neighborhood. Protestors also reportedly threatened to kill the church pastor.

January 4, 2010  Pakistan:  Muslim mob wounds a Christian family. Assailants threaten to charge the mentally ill son with ‘blasphemy’ if the victims pursue justice.

January 8, 2010  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Two Malaysian churches have been attacked, leaving one badly damaged, in an escalating dispute over the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims.

January 14, 2010  Pakistan:  Two Christians in Pakistan were recovering of their injuries of January 14, saying they were were shot at a wedding party for refusing to convert to Islam.

Assessment:

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19)

I recall a discussion I was having one night with some acquaintances about Islam and how it is both a political and religious institution. The conversation was interesting and lively and quite friendly until somebody (me) introduced Jesus Christ into it. 

Nobody seemed particularly uneasy about discussing Mohammed — my acquaintances called him the ‘Prophet Mohammed’ and one of them referred to the “holy” Koran although none of them were Muslims and had heard very little of Islam. 

But the moment Jesus entered the conversation, the group’s mood changed from curiosity to animosity.  

When previously discussing a belief system that motivates jihadists to commit unspeakable atrocities against strangers, I was peppered with questions. 

When the conversation shifted to a belief system that motivates people to love one another as one loves oneself,  I was hammered with insults.  

It was clear that my acquaintances knew even less about Christianity than they did about Islam, but that didn’t prevent them from forming hardened opinions about Jesus Christ. 

They were willing to concede that Mohammed was a prophet without hesitation and didn’t even flinch at the concept of Allah.    

But they turned positively bitter at the concept of a loving God that gave His only Son to pay the penalty for their sins so they wouldn’t have to.   

The contrast between the two views could not be expressed more eloquently than it was by former Attorney General John Ashcroft when he said, “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.”

What is there about Jesus Christ that inspires such animosity, even in casual conversation?  He doesn’t impose religious restrictions, He extends freedom from them.  He doesn’t impose condemnation, He extends an offer of pardon.  

But He is almost universally despised by the same folks who will jump at the chance to remind you that “Islam is a religion of peace and love that was hijacked by extremists and that most Muslims are as peace-loving as you and I.”

Without venturing an opinion on the truth of that statement, that only adds to the weight of the question, why?Why seek some spark of good in jihad while simultaneously recoiling at the very Name of Jesus Christ? 

Nobody is ever neutral about Jesus Christ.  Either they love Him or they hate Him.  One doesn’t see the same ambiguity about Jesus one sees about Mohammed.  

Nobody really questions the existence of Mohammed.  But there have been entire libraries of books down through the ages questioning the existence of Jesus Christ. 

I believe that each human being has some form of — for want of a better term — a ‘god-consciousness.’  We know instinctively that there is a god of some kind out there, hence the thousands upon thousands of religions. 

Some people dismiss this ‘god-consciousness’ as superstition and go through their lives unencumbered by any kind of religious faith.  

Others seek fulfillment of this ‘god-consciousness’ in a god that suits their temperament or existing worldview. 

My observations are that such people can discuss religion and the various religious deities as dispassionately and with as much curiosity as did my acquaintances in the story I was relating, without necessarily pricking any nerves.

But the mention of Jesus Christ tends to set off  ‘god-consciousness’ alarms that almost look painful when witnessed from the outside.  

Because Jesus Christ is not some religious icon, but the Son of the Living God ,when the enemy hears His Name, it infuriates him — that’s what I believe is reflected by the sudden change of disposition during such casual conversations. 

Jesus Christ paid the penalty for sin and death on the Cross and is alive forever more.   The enemy hates Him and he hates all that are His.  

The proof is in the pudding.   Try it sometime in a discussion with a group of unbelievers.  You can talk all night about religion and all the various deities. Then bring up Jesus Christ and see how quickly the mood changes. 

Suicide bombings get a more fair hearing.

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

And that’s what they hate most of all. 

Robertson: ”Haiti Deserved It”

Robertson: ”Haiti Deserved It”
Vol: 100 Issue: 14 Thursday, January 14, 2010

We awoke this morning to the stupefying news that as many as a half million people lost their lives in yesterday’s massive 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, according to one Haitian senator.  

Whether or not that unimaginable number is accurate remains to be seen, but eyewitness accounts on the scene suggest the number of dead will rise well into six figures. 

The AP report pictures a living hell on earth:

“Bodies were visible all around the hilly city: under rubble, lying beside roads, being loaded into trucks. Scattered bodies were laid out on sidewalks, wrapped neatly in sheets and blankets. Voices cried out from the rubble.”

The Washington Post adds the following description:

“Untold numbers of people remained trapped under the rubble of once-grand buildings, makeshift shacks, historic gingerbread homes and cinder-block structures. Caked in the flour-white dust of crushed plaster and cement, Haitians dug out family members by hand and piled bodies on street corners, as clusters of bloodied and dazed survivors pleaded for help.”

Medical treatment is for most people non-existent.  There is but one functioning hospital left in Port Au Prince run by the Argentine government.  As of this morning, it had treated more than 800 patients — a comparative drop in the bucket considering what is needed. 

Democrat Representative John Conyers of Michigan is organizing a Congressional delegation to visit Haiti.  But that’s really just a photo-op aimed at helping Democrats in November, particularly Conyers.

Unless he is bringing a shovel to help dig out survivors, Conyers and his entourage will just get in the way. Haiti is already awash in useless government officials, many needing digging out themselves.  

As many as 150 officials of the UN mission in Haiti remain missing.  The UN headquarters there was totally destroyed. 

Additionally, it is estimated that between 40,000 and 45,000 Americans live in Haiti.   Thousands are still missing and unaccounted for. 

The presidential palace collapsed.  So did a number of churches.  The Vatican’s Archbishop of Haiti, Joseph Serge Miot died in the earthquake, along with a number of clergy.   

Worse, the Haitian national penitentiary also collapsed, freeing thousands of escaping inmates.  

President Obama was there with offers of US aid, as were the leaders of almost every major nation in the world.   

In the meantime, ordinary people were struggling to come to grips with the spiritual implications of the disaster, seeking guidance from their spiritual leaders.

“How could this have happened?” many seekers wailed.  “Where was God in all this?”  Our own Pat Robertson was ready with just the answer the world was looking for.

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” 

Perfect.  God did it because Haiti sold its soul to the devil.  So I guess there’s no point in turning to Him for help. 

Assessment:

According to Scripture the last days will be marked by apostasy — and growing animosity towards the people of God and all things Christian. 

The persecution of Christians in the last days will be predicated by the same emotions that were behind the persecution of the Christians of the first century. 

The charges under which Christians of the 1st century were persecuted were hate crimes.  The Romans, not understanding what the early Christians were teaching,  accused them of hate speech.   

The Bible indicates that will be the same charge to be leveled against Christians by the antichrist — that the Christians are teaching hatred.

Where would anybody get the idea that Christianity is a hateful religion and that Christian speech is hate speech?   From Christians like Pat Robertson.  

Robertson could well be the poster-boy for the coming persecution.  Anytime somebody might start to wonder if rounding up Christians was the right thing to do, all they’d have to do is look at a picture of Pat Robertson. 

At various times, Robertson has advocated political assassinations, most recently against Hugo Chavez. Once, while railing against the US State Department, he stunned his audience with this helpful suggestion:

“Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up.”

When the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to replace the school board because they refused to teach evolution,  Robertson offered this ex cathedra pronouncement:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”

And lest Robertson be accused of taking things just a wee bit over the top,  we have this:

“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”

Robertson once even prayed for the liberal members of the Supreme Court to die so that righteous judges could be appointed in their places.

“Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.” 

It is probable to the point of certainty that the liberal justices on the Supreme Court whose deaths Robertson was praying for were not Christians.  So what Robertson was praying for was the condemnation of both body and soul.

As Christians, our obligation is to be Christ-like. I am trying to find an instance where Jesus condemned the innocent or prayed for the guilty to die in their sins. 

That isn’t to say that Jesus didn’t speak out against the evils of His era.   But Jesus was qualified to render such judgments — He had no sin of his own.  

The judgments being pronounced by Pat Robertson are not God’s judgments, they are Pat Robertson’s — but they are disguised as God’s.

One might think the Hatian earthquake could be a judgment from God,  just as one might think the Christmas tsnumani in Asia was a judgment from God. 

But only God knows if it was a judgment — and only God knows why such judgment was rendered.  Pat Robertson doesn’t know.  

A non-Christian who hears Robertson blame the earthquake on Haiti selling its national soul to the devil doesn’t necessarily think Robertson is nuts.  He assumes that is what most Christians believe.  

That we applaud devastating killer earthquakes. That we cheer on tsunamis against Buddhist Asia.   That we approve of murder in the name of political expediency.  

That we’re so frustrated with the political process that the best way to adjust our foreign policy is to nuke the State Department. 

That Orlando will be struck by hurricanes, terrorist bombs, earthquakes, and possibly even a meteor because of ‘Gay Days’ at Disneyworld.

So tomorrow, or the next day, or next week,  you will offer the Gospel to somebody and you will find yourself explaining Pat Robertson, not Jesus Christ.  

And in defending the Lord, you’ll sound like you’re defending Pat Robertson. 

And since Pat Robertson is clearly nuts,  that’s how you’re going to look by the time you are finished.  The day is coming when they will start rounding up Christians — Scripture is clear on that. 

And that is when we’re going to wish we’d spoken out a little more forcefully when Pat Robertson claimed to be speaking out on God’s behalf. 

Seeking God

Seeking God
Vol: 100 Issue: 13 Wednesday, January 13, 2010

“But without faith, it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”  (Hebrews 11:6)

The word “seek” appears in KJV some 233 times.  It is translated from the Greek word ekzeteo which means “to search out, investigate, worshipfully crave, seek after carefully.”    

This is the manner in which we come to the Lord  – we seek Him out. 

I’ve never met anyone who came to salvation accidentally, or  someone who came to know the Lord that wasn’t seeking the truth when they found Him.  If a person doesn’t want to find the truth, he won’t.  

There are those of us who may have found Him by trying to disprove He is, but the only way to accomplish that is to first investigate Him, search Him out, seek Him, and see if He is there.  

If one is diligent in his search and honest in his investigation, God promises that search will be rewarded by God.

There is no greater reward in return for effort expended that to find that which one is seeking, whether is a a lost set of car keys, a buried treasure — or the truth of God’s existence.  

And that knowledge is the reward that is offered here. 

A lot of time that I could be putting to better use is wasted trying to convince people by sharing the results of my own diligent investigation which convinced me that there is an eternal God to Whom we are all accountable for our sins.

I forget oftentimes that I am unable to be diligent on the behalf of the disinterested.  I cannot seek God on behalf of someone else, no matter how hard I try.  

I cannot make someone else seek God either, no matter how much I hover over them with my Bible. 

There is an old saying that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”  If you tried to make him drink you’d drown him.  

Either that, or that horse would never trust you around water again. 

I’ve done that with my Bible.  Someone will seem (to me) to show an interest in spiritual things, and I’ll immediately charge in with the Sword of the Lord.  

And I will stay in there, thrusting and parrying, long after my opponent has asked to withdraw without yielding the field. 

I led them to the Water of Life — whereupon I tried to drown them in it.  

They’ll not get too close to the edge again with me around. 

Assessment:

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)

One of the most discouraging aspects of one-on-one evangelism is feeling that you’ve let God down by not seizing every opportunity to witness to someone.  

I’ve personally never led anyone to Christ who wasn’t already looking for Him. 

Not once have I ever emerged from one of those adversarial debates over Scripture and God feeling victorious in the sense my opponent suddenly fell to his knees and prayed for salvation.  

That is not to say that it doesn’t happen — I’ve just never seen it.  I’ve seen people come to salvation, but I’ve never witnessed anyone unwillingly dragged to the altar that experienced genuine regeneration.  

To please God, one must believe that He is.  But to discover that He is, one must first be seeking Him.  

We can plant the seeds — but generally what we harvest was what was planted by others.   There are a couple of ways to plant a seed.  

One can plant it in fertile ground that has been prepared to receive it.  Or one can throw it against the same fertile ground and hope it will germinate and take root.  

In either case, whether or not it will grow is, in the final analysis, up to the Lord of the Harvest and not to the planter.  

Farmers plant crops that fail all the time.   And squirrels plant trees all the time. It’s obvious that a seed planted in fertile ground that has been prepared to receive it has a much better chance of germinating. 

The point is that it is up to us to try to plant the seed in fertile ground prepared to receive it and in the right season.   Planting in the wrong season just kills the seed and needlessly exhausts the sower.  

(Toss some seed corn into the snow in your backyard and let me know what you harvest.)

The Great Commission commands us to go and make disciples of all nations, and the only way to accomplish that is to share the Good News.  

But trying to beat the Good News into them doesn’t make disciples.  It makes more determined adversaries. 

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

Another Name For God?

Another Name For God?
Vol: 100 Issue: 12 Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Malaysia is a small country in southeast Asia bordering Thailand and Indonesia.   The CIA World Factbook lists its population as roughly 28 million, of whom some sixty percent are Muslims. 

The next largest religion is Buddhism (19.1%) followed by Christianity at 9.1%.  Under the law, however, all ethnic Malays are defined by Article 160 of their constitution as Muslims by default.  

The Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, at least in theory.   A judge ruled on December 31st that Christians had a Constitutional right to use the word Allah to refer to God.  

The ruling was handed down in a lawsuit filed by The Herald  after the Malaysian government blocked non-Muslims from translating “God” as “Allah” in their literature.  The Herald is a Catholic-owned newspaper.

According to an AP report in the NYTimes, “Officials are believed to be afraid that Muslims reading Christian literature might be tempted to convert to Christianity.”

After the ruling was handed down, a number of churches around the country have been attacked and burned. Four churches were firebombed near Kuala Lumpur, currently home to a member of our own OL fellowship.  Please keep him in prayer.

Last week, another Malaysian court overturned the December 31 ruling, reinstating the ban on translating the word “God” as “Allah.”  

In celebration of the victory,  a church and convent were firebombed in the state of Perak and another in Sarawak on the island of Borneo. 

Assessment:

The big issue here is one of Christian persecution.  That is what is being claimed by those involved, and the cry has been taken up by a number of well-meaning Christian groups and organizations.  

Christian persecution, as I understand the term, is the backlash that results from one’s stand for Christ.

Islam claims Jesus (Isa)  Moses (Musa) and Abraham (Ibrahim) as Islamic prophets, recognizes the Bible (the Book) and claims the Koran is the third and final testament of the God of Abraham.

Each Ramadan, George Bush would solemnly remind us that Allah is another name for God.  Barack Obama has continued that tradition since.  But as this story shows, even the Muslims know that is not true.

The word ‘Allah’ predates Mohammed and was the name of the Arabic pagan moon-god who had three daughters.  That is why the symbol of the crescent moon is a symbol of Islam. 

Islamic apologists argue that Mohammed didn’t elevate the existing moon-god to supremacy over the lesser gods, but rather, Mohammed; 

“re-established God’s position as the Only One and worthy of our worship. We are still talking about the same God as the Christians and Jews worshipped…but just as the Christians turned Jesus into God…humans tend to destroy or corrupt the true teachings sent by former prophets.”

In Arabic, Allah doesn’t mean God — it never did.  There is an Arabic word, ilah that is the equivalent to our English god with a small ‘g’  — but Allah was the name of their moon-god.   

The Bible uses the word “Abba” but ‘Abba’ doesn’t translate as ‘God’ in any language.  The most accurate transliteration of the word, “Abba” is “Daddy” – which is how it is still used in Israel today. 

For the Catholic church, or any other Christian organization, to translate “God with a capital G” as “Allah” is the equivalent to accepting Islam’s claim that Abraham, Moses are Islamic patriarchs and Jesus merely a prophet of Islam.

I’m not sure what the Malaysian Catholic Church is up to, but if the plan is to trick Muslims into becoming Christians by pretending that Allah parted the Red Sea and turned water into wine — that isn’t evangelism. 

If the intent is to elevate Christianity’s social standing by equating Allah with God,  they’ve gotten the equation exactly backwards.   In effect, it does the precise opposite, diminishing Christ in the process.

The Islamic backlash against the practice is revelatory of the violent nature of Islam — but I don’t believe I could go so far in this instance as to call it the persecution of Christianity.  

You can’t persecute Christianity by denying Allah is the Christian God – Christians deny that Allah is the Christian God.    It isn’t Christianity that is the issue — this is about trying to appropriate the name of the Muslim deity.  

They aren’t being ‘persecuted’ for standing firm for Christ, they are contending for the right to replace Him with Allah.

The firebombings of churches and attacks against people or property are unjustifiable in the name of any religion.  That said, there is an old saying to the effect that ‘if you don’t want to fall off the cliff, don’t dance on the edge.’

It isn’t as if the backlash was unexpected — the Malays had a law already on the books banning the translation of God as Allah!   The lawsuit served only to provoke the issue — but to no discernible Scriptural purpose.

The Great Commission was given to us to make disciples of all men in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  That commission cannot be honored nor fufilled in the name of Allah.  

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

The Malaysian controversy is about Christians contending for the right to claim that Name is Allah.  I’m afraid I can’t even wish them luck.

Racist Is As Racist Does

Racist Is As Racist Does
Vol: 100 Issue: 11 Monday, January 11, 2010

The quickest and most effective way to stifle dissent in the Obamanation is to find some way to link it to racism.  If one opposes unrestricted immigration,  it is because one is a racist.

If one opposes anything proposed by the Barack Obama administration, it is because one harbors racist tendencies.   When Joe Wilson shouted “you lie!” as Obama was lying to a joint session of Congress, he was called a racist.

If one supports ethnic profiling Muslims as a method of preventing terrorist attacks one is labeled a ‘racist’ — despite the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race.

In 2002, Mississippi Senator and Senate Majority Leader Trentt Lott was giving a little impromptu speech in honor of Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party.  

The party was in the style of a ‘roast’ in which everybody tried to say something nice about the Senator, but with tongue in cheek.

Thurman was a Democrat for the first half of his political life, running for President in 1948 as a “Dixiecrat”.   The “Dixiecrats” were an offshoot of the Democrat Party that was born out of opposition to FDR’s socialist New Deal in the 1930’s.

The South had been a Democrat stronghold for more than a century,  but the New Deal imposed federal economic intervention and introduced federal laws that many southern states felt infringed on states’ rights. 

That isn’t to deny that the Dixiecrats were Southern segregationists.  They were. They were also all Democrats.  The real history of racism in America is not what the liberal revisionist historians would have you believe. 

When George Wallace blocked the entrance to the University of Alabama, he was the Democrat governor of Alabama.  When Orville Faubus blocked the desegregation of Little Rock High School, he was the Democrat governor of Arkansas.

The party of racism in American history has always been the Democrat party.  Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Jefferson Davis was a Democrat.   Racism, as a political platform, was the exclusive domain of the Democrats until the mid 1960’s.

The ‘Dixiecrat’ party, whose official name was the “States Rights Democratic Party’ was racist, but race was only part of their platform.

The principle plank in the Dixiecrat platform was states’ rights under the Constitution, as it was in 1860.  Slavery was peripheral to the question of whether or not the federal government had exceeded its Constitutional authority. 

That is important to understand when interpreting Trent Lott’s remarks at Thurman’s 100th birthday roast.   What Lott said was this: “You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today,”

Lott protested in his apology that was he was referring to wasn’t the “mess” caused somehow by desegregation — it was the mess caused by the federal government being permitted to ignore the Constitution and exceeding its Constitutional authority.

No matter.  The Congressional Black Caucus refused to accept Lott’s serial apologies — he had publicly  apologized on four separate occasions in the first week after his comment was made.  

The Democrats piled on Lott, with Mary Landrieu saying that, had a Democratic leader made such a remark, he would be forced to resign his leadership position.  

Harry Reid also called for Lott’s resignation, suggesting that if Lott made racist jokes,  it was an indication of his true racist tendencies.    Eventually,  after taking a pounding from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle,  Lott stepped down in disgrace.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Ct) once feted Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of W. Virginia on the occasion of his 17,000th vote in the Senate.  Senator Byrd is the nation’s longest serving senator, having occupied his Senate seat as a Democrat since being first elected in 1959. 

Byrd became the first senator to serve continuously for more than fifty years in Congressional history.  When Dodd was lauding his accomplishments,  he sounded a lot like Lott did when Lott was celebrating Strom Thurmond.

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment…  He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.”

The right man for the Civil War.  Hmmmm.   In 1942, Robert Byrd was unanimously elected the “Exalted Cyclops” of his local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1944, Byrd wrote his Senator, Theodore Bilbo, [D-Miss] to complain:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

 In 1947 as a kleagle or, recruiter, Byrd wrote: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”

Byrd’s defenders point out that he left the KKK in the late 1940’s before running for Senator.  Perhaps. But as Senator, Robert Byrd was one of the Senate’s leading opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

When some feckless Republican reminded Dodd of Byrd’s KKK past,  Dodd offered the following non-apology:  “If in any way, in my referencing the Civil War, I offended anyone, I apologize.”

Dodd’s apology was immediately accepted and the matter dropped.  

Joe Biden, while still Obama’s running mate during the campaign, made headlines with this racist comment: 

“In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

But since Biden is a Democrat, any suggestion of racism was quickly quashed. The founder of the Indian-American Republican Council, Dr. Vijay, said Biden’s “recent gaffe is clearly over the top.”

Biden’s ‘apology’ was to deny any racist intent, saying instead, “It was meant as a compliment.”

Assessment:

Senator Lott intended his remarks to be complimentary.   Senator Chris Dodd intended his remarks to be complimentary.   Joe Biden meant his remarks to be complimentary.   

And that is also Senate Majority Harry Reid’s defense for his recently-revealed racist comment from 2008 in which he said he supported Barack Obama because he was a ‘light-skinned black man with no Negro accent unless he wanted to have one.”

And I believe him.  I believe every single one of these comments was intended to be complimentary.  But I don’t see racism behind every comment.   Probably because I’m not a racist.  

Having grown up in relatively color-blind Canada, my first exposure to racism was when I was in Marine boot camp.  It didn’t make any sense to me.

And since I wasn’t race-conscious,  I made a number of gaffes that could have gotten my brains beaten out, had the guys wanted to take it that way.

But they were charitable and several of the black guys in my platoon took me under their wing to instruct me on the topic.

I don’t believe Harry Reid meant to be racist.   I also don’t believe that Harry Reid believed Trent Lott intended to be racist, either.  What kind of idiot politician would deliberately make a racially-charged remark?  

Reid knows better.  And given the instantaneous and unflinching forgiveness extended to Reid by his partisan colleagues, by the liberal media, and even by the likes of Al Sharpton, they know better, too.  

But they forced Trent Lott from his leadership role and hounded him right out of the US Senate.

The charge of ‘racist’ has been leveled by the Democrats at every possible opportunity as a response to political criticism.   

The word racism no longer means what it used to.  It is an ugly, emotionally-charged word, but if it still meant what it used to,  then it wouldn’t be a political term.   

Reid isn’t a racist.  Nor is Senator Dodd,  or Vice-President Biden or even former KKK Grand Cyclops and civil rights opponent Robert Byrd, or they’d have been drummed out of the Senate like Trent Lott.

Or so one might assume.   But the charge of ‘racism’ is misplaced.  The more accurate charge is that of rank hypocrisy.

Paul could have been addressing this exact circumstance when he penned his 2nd letter to Timothy concerning the social and political conditions that would exist during the last generation before the return of Christ:

“This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)

I highlighted the characteristics I think most relevant to this particular story.  But the fact is, I could have highlighted them all.

What an [Oxy]Moron!

What an [Oxy]Moron!
Vol: 100 Issue: 9 Saturday, January 9, 2010

I typed the words “intelligence failure” into Google’s news aggregator this morning and the first word in the first headline was “Obama” as was the first image to appear beside it, giving contemporary fulfillment to the old joke, “if you look up ‘intelligence failure’ you’ll find Obama’s picture there.”

Most of the headlines are like the first one, Obama takes responsibility for intelligence failures which is a testimony to the skill of his propaganda department, since he managed at the same time to blame everyone without naming anyone without the mainstream even noticing.

The Christmas Day bomber wasn’t the first intelligence failure;  it was simply the first intelligence failure that the mainstream liberal media couldn’t sweep under the rug.  

Despite all that has been learned about Major Malik Hassan since his Fort Hood rampage that left thirteen US service personnel dead,  the administration has yet to admit it was a planned jihadist suicide attack, continuing to pretend Hassan was an isolated extremist.

That is the reason that the president referred to the Christmas Day bomber as an ‘isolated extremist’ in his initial comments.  To cover up the intelligence failures.  

To cover up the fact that in the midst of two ground wars and a hot intelligence war with al-Qaeda, he had tasked CIA satellites with finding evidence of global warming.  

To cover up the incompetence of his senior staff and most importantly of all, to cover up the fact we’re actually fighting a war and not an ‘overseas contingency operation.’ 

As we noted yesterday,  all of the justifications offered for trying the five 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian courts are rooted in their being criminal defendants entitled to Constitutional guarantees.  

At the same time, Obama’s ‘overseas contingency operations’ are being carried out using indiscriminate Hellfire missiles to blow al-Qaeda operatives and whoever else happens to be nearby to smithereens.

No trial. No judge. No jury. No conviction.  No appeal. 

I was a police officer for ten years, several of those as a criminal investigator.  I served hundreds of fugitve arrest warrants over the course of my career. 

I was allowed to defend myself if I were attacked, but I wasn’t allowed to shoot the guy and his family pre-emptively —  and then bring him in for trial if he lived.

If the terrorists are criminals, and are afforded Constitutional rights, then we can’t target them for killing — we have to arrest them.

If, on the other hand, the terrorists are foreign jihadists conducting military operations against the United States, then we can kill them — but we can’t try them as civilians.  

We can try them as war criminals, but not as civilians under our Constitution. One doesn’t need a law degree to figure that out. 

Apparently, one needs a law degree from a liberal university to figure out how to see around the obvious.

Assessment:

As the Dems were fond of reminding us when they took over the Congress in ’06 and the White House in ’08,  elections have consequences. 

But what they meant was that now they had the power.  Another consequence of the election is the world’s perception of the United States.  President Obama promised to clean up our international image.  

That was another intelligence failure.  One wonders if he has anybody among his circle of advisors who knows anything about either Islamic or Middle Eastern thinking?   

What the West understands as ‘reconciliation’ the Islamic Middle East interprets as ‘weakness’.

Why do you think that Israel played the kind of hardball that it did until it was forced — against its better judgment — into the Oslo Agreement?  Israel entered into Oslo in 1993 control of the entire West Bank and Gaza.   

The intifada was difficult but since Israel controlled the entire territory, it was manageable.  But the West, viewing the conflict through Western lenses, forced Israel into bargaining from a position of weakness. 

Seventeen years later, Israel has lost almost all of her pre-Oslo holdings to what will soon become a UN-sanctioned terrorist state on her borders.  

She bargained it all away at Western insistence, counting on Western support when the inevitable happened and the Palestinians resumed their terrorist war.  While the West may not understand the Middle East mindset, neither did the succession of Israeli Oslo leaders fully understand the West.

(With the exception of Benjamin Netanyahu, who understood too well and warned that when the time came, the West would betray Israel as the politics of the moment demanded.)

The enemy has been stepping up its operations — the Christmas Day bombing attempt was only part of a pattern.  The enemy has been stepping up the frequency of its probes of our defenses, particularly in the air,  because it perceives us as weak and incompetent.

The enemy conducts these probes, notes our reaction, and adjusts accordingly.  He is probably mystified when we cover up these probes or hide the connection to Islam by withholding that information thinking that US intelligence has something up its sleeve.

Political correctness is as confusing to the Islamic mindset as Islamic jihadist thinking is to us.  Unlike our intelligence services however, al-Qaeda has recruited Americans who understand how we think — and they listen to their advice.

On the other hand, we refuse to believe what the enemy is truly capable of — and so we ignore the advice we’re getting.  

Typical of our thinking was the reaction to the guy who slipped under a security barrier at Newark Airport to kiss his girlfriend behind. Turns out he was not a terrorist, just a Chinese exchange student arrested yesterday for ‘defiant tresspass.’ 

NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg expressed anger that the maximum fine is just $550, because airport security panicked and locked down the airport.

“This was a terrible deed in its outcome — it wasn’t some prank that didn’t do any harm — it did a lot of harm because it sent out an alert that people can get away with something like this,” Lautenberg said.

That’s what I mean by ‘typical’.  It was a weakness the enemy could have exploited.  The airport video didn’t work, which is why TSA couldn’t identify him or figure out if he stayed inside the secured area. 

The guard left his post, which is how the guy got inside in the first place.   And it was a ROPE barrier, instead of a glass door. 

These are an awful lot of security holes, but instead of calling for them to be fixed, Lautenberg wants to hang the guy that exposed them.

Google the phrase ‘intelligence failure’ and see whose picture you see first. 

Members Note:

This is one nasty cold, but I think we are finally on the mend.  I am sorry if the last few briefs have been less coherent than you deserve.   I plead the ‘Nyquil Defense’ — but the fever and chills are now past and I am starting to feel human again.  

Thank you for your prayers.

Predetermining History

Predetermining History
Vol: 100 Issue: 8 Friday, January 8, 2010

Shortly after the November election, incoming Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told a Wall Street Journal CEO conference on the economy, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

“Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

He ticked off some examples: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms.

In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed a European audience on the environment, telling young Europeans at the European Parliament that that global economic turmoil provided a fresh opportunity to push their green agenda.

“Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security,” she said.  “Certainly the United States has been negligent in living up to its responsibilities,” she told her foreign audience.

Georg Hegel was a German philosopher often hailed one of the great thinkers of the so-called “Age of Enlightenment.”

Hegel, Kant, Descartes and others of his era were searching for spiritual enlightenment, hence the nickname.

Although they went looking for spiritual enlightenment, in the main,  they came away embittered skeptics.

Descartes, for example, concluded the only thing he could not philosophically deny was his own existence — and then only because it required his existence to question it. 

It can make you dizzy — as it did many of them. They were looking for the answers in all the wrong places, they came up with all the wrong answers.

Man is a physical being with a spiritual component. Most philosophers recognize the existence of that spirtual component. Descartes expressed it as “I think, therefore I am.” 

Even the most brilliant philosophers will come up with the wrong answers if they are looking within for answers about that which is without.  

Man cannot seek God internally without acknowledging that He exists externally and independently. If they try,  they ultimately find the god they are seeking, not the God that is seeking them.

Hegel’s quest for spiritual enlightenment led him to the conclusion that mankind operates according to a series of constant philosophical conflicts which it is forced to resolve.

Hegel was an idealist who believed mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites.

Hegel postulated a three-part dialectic, or method of argument, that he believed formed the basis for human behavior, expressed as dialetical forumula: thesis vs. antithesis equals synthesis.

Hegel’s dialectic is what Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton were referencing when they warned about letting a good crisis go to waste.

It was the application of Hegel’s dialectic that got them to where they are. Hegel’s dialectic is the foundation upon which classical Marxism is constructed.

Hegel’s dialectic lays out the basic formula by which to manipulate public thinking into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action.

Hegel’s principles were behind the insane war against inanimate objects on the theory that guns should be banned to prevent gun murders.

Strip away the frenzy and it is as logical as concluding that cars should be banned to prevent drunk driving. 

Once one understands how the Hegelian dialectic works,  one can see how WELL it works.

The very notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘government’ are contradictory; the Framers intended for government to be as small as possible for that reason.

When a national government assumes the role of protecting ‘the people’ from the slavery of corporate greed by ‘temporarily’ assuming the role of slavemaster, it’s never temporary.

The sales pitch for the health care system is right out of Hegel’s playbook. The government must step in to ‘level the playing field’ and ‘reign in corporate greed’ and the only way to do that is for the government to reform the system.

Hegel’s dialectic is based on the creation of conflict as a CONSEQUENCE of conflict resolution.

Each synthesis must be challenged and resolved by a new thesis and antithesis. The Hegelian solution cannot be introduced until everybody takes the same side on every agenda, either voluntarily or by force.

Until then, Hegel’s formula is one of perpetual dialogue and consensus-buildiing, propaganda and manipulation, bullying and intimidation — all in the name of conflict resolution.

The Hegelian dialectic process is the notion that conflict creates history.  So controlling the conflict can theoretically create a predetermined history.

Assessment:

Figuratively speaking, ‘crisis’ is Barack Obama’s middle name.  Well, “Hussein” is his real middle name, but you know what I mean.   With Obama, everything is a crisis.

There is a health care crisis. There is an energy crisis.  There is a financial crisis.  There is an immigration crisis.   I’ve even heard the Christmas Day bombing attempt called ‘a crisis’.   It seems that the administration is paralyzed until something becomes a crisis.

The author of a new book about Obama says the announced retirement of Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan presents Obama with yet a a new crisis

The title of his book? How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. Catchy title, no?

It took three days for Obama to first address the Christmas Day attacks publicly, and when he did, he was either lying or woefully misinformed, calling the terrorist an ‘isolated extremist.’   He hadn’t decided it was a crisis yet.

It took another week before somebody at the White House figured out how to use the incident to their advantage politically that the president suddenly went all presidential.   

After another week of dithering, the president ordered a review by the relevant intelligence agencies.  The report, according to National Security Advisor Jim Jones, would shock America when it was released yesterday.

There wasn’t anything in the report that wasn’t already in the news, so that couldn’t have been what General Jones thought would be shocking.   However, President Obama’s speech about the report was, on at least two points. 

First and foremost,  I noticed that President Obama did not blame President Bush.  It’s unclear whether this is a new political strategy, or if his staff couldn’t find a way to make it work.

The second thing that I found shocking was his announcement that “We are at war with al-Qaeda.”  

Nothing that this administration does is done without first consulting Hegel. 

So Obama’s firm and unequivocal declaration of war against al-Qaeda terrorism is puzzling, given that it had previously be downgraded to an “overseas contingency operation against man-caused disasters.”

The decision to bring the enemy to New York for trial was an effort to introduce conflict demanding compromise and consensus that would ultimately benefit his party politically by highlighting the failures of the Bush administration.

If we are ‘at war’ with al-Qaeda, then the logic of holding Constitutional criminal trials for foreign enemy combatants collapses.    And so was arresting Umar Abdulmutallab and affording him US Constitutional rights. 

He was reportedly singing like a bird until he lawyered up.

I’d like tell you what it means, but it is isn’t quite clear yet.  One thing seems certain, however.  

They won’t let this crisis go to waste, either.