Tuesday, December 26, 2006

To Canada, With Love -- If you Want New England...

Recently, an editorial columnist in the Toronto Star suggested that the Northern States -- the "Blue States," if you will -- have become disenchanted with the "U. S. South, and that it was plausible to forsee their political separation from the more conservative regions of America, and their eventual political "marriage" to Canada. Well, this is not a new issue -- nor a new idea. And things rarely work out as simply as they do in 10 or 12 column inches of an opinion piece. Consider, however, some of the background and past approaches to this subject....

The "disenchantment" of other (particularly northeastern) states with the South is not a new occurrence. As early as the 1820's, New England openly discussed secession from the Union -- to rid itself of the backward, low-brow sodbusters in the southern states.

In the 1860's, the South decided they'd had enough of Northern "do-goodisms," and they saved some Yankees the trouble of seceding -- the South went ahead and DID IT. (Yes, yes, I know -- The South lost the War, Slavery was a big issue, the Southern Cause in itself was not a perfect vehicle to preserve the Constitution and Liberty, etc. etc...) The point is, when the North was confronted with actually losing the South, they spared NO expense to keep them in line, and under the boothill, of a central government in Washington.

Why? Several reasons. Then, the agricultural base of the nation was the South. The Raw materials were in the South. the Industrial complex in the North NEEDED those raw materials to feed their economic machine. They also needed the vast and growing tax base in the South to fund the centralization and deconstitutionalization of the nation. So, they simply took it. (Exploitation is one of the key policies of that region...)

Fast forward to today, and the South in the last generation or so has reasserted itself in the political life of the nation. The South is far more religious, far less "tolerant" of, oh, lawbreakers, deviants, enemies of the state, terrorists, etc. They no longer put up with as much of the political free-for-all that has been foisted upon the nation in the last 150 years -- particularly since the 1960's.

So, the "Yankee Do-gooders" are desparately searching for another stooge -- more raw materials to exploit, more social causes to champion, more special interests to fund. What place would be more amenable to their philosophy than Canada?

I for one would GLADLY approve of any succession of the Northern states from the USA. They may go independent, they may hook up with Canada -- for all I care they could be honest and align with the ChiComs or Russia -- or even Iran. Some of them have more in common with the Radical Islamists than they do with their countrymen in the South.

In any case, this kind of idea is one some of us in the South have favored for over a century-and-a-half. If it catches on in the North, more power to 'em! Here's your hat, what's your hurry?? A word of warning to the poor, unsuspecting Canadians though -- should the day ever come that you actually wed yourself to your lovely New England bride, don't expect the honeymoon to last long -- and expect to pay far more to keep her than you ever imagined.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Thank God for Donald Trump!

I have never said this before, but thank God for Donald Trump! Now, I'm not generally a big fan -- I think he's usually an egotistical, self-interested, conceited, pompous. etc.... You get the idea. But I totally respect him for coming back at Rosie O'Donnell. SOMEBODY needs to put her in her place.

A few weeks ago, she compared "extremist" or "fundamentalist" Christians to militant Muslims. That is demonstrable hogwash. She deserved it then. But we Christians are too nice to come back at her like she deserves. In other words, too often we would rather practice Matthew 5:39 than I Peter 3:15-17 -- and we usually misapply both.

Donald Trump spoke the complete, utter, total, truth about Rosie. Too many people have let her get away with her outrageous, irresponsible words, acts and lifestyle. Because she is a lesbian, a celebrity and a "comedienne," she thinks we must excuse everything she says, every lie she tells, every slur she utters.

Can't ANYONE confront her in her corruption and sin and tell her the truth to her face?!? Donald may have the wrong motivation (pride), but he did the RIGHT thing. Would to God that we had believers who were so inclined and motivated by RIGHTEOUSNESS.


Monday, December 11, 2006

Why Obama Won't Run (to Win) in '08

Barack Obama won't run for President in '08. Or, if he does, it will be a "show candidacy." Here's what I mean...

Hillary IS running. She's made that REAL clear. Since Bill's tenure as "El Presidente" of the Junta from '92 - '00, They have run pretty much every aspect of the Democratic Party -- or have kept their opponents cowed in fear.

Enter Obama. A young, upstart, BLACK guy....With a NAME that SOUNDS like a Muslim (This would be Clinton's reasoning...) Hillary -- nor Bill -- would DARE let someone such as him move in on the throne to which Hillary is the heir. You'll notice that Hillary and Obama have had several meetings and appeared at several of the same fundraisers in recent weeks. See beyond the headlines and discern the patterns, the design...

Hillary WILL be the nominee for the Democrats. IF Obama is still the "Flava of the month" among Democrats at that time, he will be her running mate. She may have already told him that. Note -- NOT ASKED HIM, TOLD HIM. SHould she fail to get the nomination (and she won't), or fail to be elected as Queen (er, dictator....um, El Presidente), then she will pledge her support to him in 2012.

2008 is Hillary's year -- her LAST chance. NO ONE will get in her way, including Obama. Anyone who does is quite likely to be "FORT MARCY PARKED."

Saturday, November 18, 2006

In Denial: How are the Islamofascists Worse than the Nazis?

I recently made the statement that the Islamofascists we face in this present World War are even more dangerous than the Nazis of WW II. Someone asked me, "HOW are they more dangerous than the Nazi's? This was my answer:

Are you joking?

In 1940, there were not even 100 million Germans in Europe. Today, there are 1.2 BILLION Muslims spread throughout the world -- a ready made horde to descend upon the "infidels."

In 1945, ONLY the United States had the A-Bomb; Today, about 20 nations have the H-Bomb -- including Pakistan, which is ALWAYS perilously close to a Coup by Islamofascists. Additionally, the Communist allies of the Islamofascists -- North Korea -- have the bomb, and NEED desparately the $$ that Iran and other Islamic nations AND Islamofascist terrorist groups HAVE to spend. Add to that the fact that Iran itself is within 3 months to 3 years of developing their own bomb, and you have a recipe for Armageddon.

In 1938, when WW II started, Germany had almost NO domestic oil supply; Today, MOST Mulsim countries have MORE than enough oil and refining capacity to fuel their war machine, while the West DEPENDS on them for most of our oil, and we haven't built a new refinery in 3 DECADES, nor opened a new oil field to mass production in well over 20 years.

In 1941, our enemies were oceans away, making invasion unlikely, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor; Today, with the advent of modern aviation and shipping, and with the uncooperative nations on our borders AND the incompetence and unwillingness of our government to enforce border security, our nation is overrun by "illegal aliens" who are NOT just Hispanics, and who can bring ALMOST anything over the borders or into our ports -- even in pieces -- reassemble it, and use it against us. The WMD's would come first -- the invasion, a little later.

HOW are they more dangerous than the Nazi's? Hope that definitively answers the question.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Random Thoughts in the Wake of the Elections, Part 5

I found this earlier today -- the comments of a soldier sent to Radio Talk Show Host Rusty Humphries. I've heard Humphries a few times, but don't know much about him, as he's not broadcast in my area. Regardless, thanks to him for making public this letter, and visit his site at talktorusty.com.

Thoughts on the Election Results from a Soldier in Iraq
Dear Rusty,
I know you probably get a lot of messages asking you to read stuff on your show, but I BEG you to read this...... I would like you to tell America exactly what they did to their soldiers on Tuesday, and what WE think about our countrymen right now. "I hope you are satisfied with what you have done...

Today in the mess hall, where there is usually jovial conversation, there was silence, long faces, and broken spirits... Everyone, to include all American soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, Iraqi Nationals, Bulgarian Soldiers, etc, etc... was speechless, tired, demoralized and stunned.... all ate in erie silence.....

Last night, while we watched the press conference with the President, there was utter discust, and the common feeling amongst us all that we soldiers are now the loneliest people on Earth.... we fight an enemy over here, and we have a country full of enemies to go home to that are our countrymen. We watched President Bush say his own political funeral, our commander and chief.. as well as ours..... He tried so hard to spin it, but... well.. there is no way to soften such a morale blow.

While you sit and Monday morning quarterback what we work so hard to do for you out here, just know that the spirit of your team is wounded..... YOU liberals, you America have done a great job of demoralizing us... Thank you.

Do us a favor though, when we do come home, spare us the ceremony....... We all now know that it is a bunch of crap, and what you think of us.......

I have to say that right now, I would rather be a pussy ass Frenchman, even though they have no will to fight, at least they have the balls to make a decision and stick with it...... They stuck to thier guns about staying out of this war, even if it was the wrong decision......America on the other hand, goes off half cocked, and when the decision appears to be a hard one, or something that might cost a little bit, they turn tail and run.....


This week I am NOT proud to say that I am an American..........I think it is obvious why... See, we just have told the world that we are not a nation of people who are tough, and will fight for what we believe in... We have told the world that we are a giant coward that will shy away from any difficult challenge...

So, while you eat your cheetos, and sit there and watch your lazy ass get fatter, dumber and happier Joe Citizen.. Just remember this, I, and all my commrades payed a dear price to come this far and have you decide that we should fail...

Realize this, because of your action this week America.... do not expect so many men to be so willing to stand up for your next little whim just to be cut down in the middle of it all............

Realize this also.. you have just put a heavy price on the heads of us all...... Now that we are branded as cowards, we are an easy target, oh so inviting for the taking....... I swore to protect your children in your beds.... yet you fling the door wide open inspite of me to invite the scourge.... Well.... have it your way then.

Because of this, September 11th will soon be overshadowed by these same enemies.. my advice to you is get your lazy, self centered ass up and make peace with your God, and your family.. cause, time will come when they may not be there for you................Because you kicked me in the teeth, and so many others, I know I won't any more.. "


As heard on the Rusty Humphries Show
My only comment to this soldier -- and the MANY like him -- is, I'm sorry.
I was a child during the Vietnam Era. I had a cousin and an uncle in 'Nam. I saw the news reports, and the protests, and the so-called "peace movement." I saw how the Vets were maligned, spat-upon, called "baby-killers," and were ignored as though our nation was ashamed of them after they got home. I swore then, even as a child, as I watched my Father shake his head painfully -- that this would NEVER again happen to those who would willingly DIE for their country. Now I find that the majority of American people either oppose my vow, or are too stupid to realize the danger of those who do.
I strive to be a peaceful man. I am not a violent, mean or vicious person. I do love the truth, however, and I will stand up for it. And I DO appreciate the sacrifice of these men and women who VOLUNTEERED to defend us -- and who've now been "kicked in the teeth." Well, rest assured, if I ever see them abused in my presence, they won't stand alone, and this is one old, fat preacher boy who'll set straight the hate-mongers who would defame our military while hiding behind the MASK of "peacenik."
Bless you, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Coast Gaurdsmen, et. al. You deserve FAR MORE respect than this sorry nation (or at least its LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC majority) would ever give you.

Random Observations in the Wake of the Elections, Part 4

According to a Washington Times article today, Conservatives gave Webb the victory for the Senate seat in Virginia last week. I have a different view, and a few comments in regard to this notion...

No, Conservatives didn't defeat Allen. Those who may claim on being "Conservative" fall into one of several possible categories.

First, there are those who stayed home on election day -- to "teach Republicans a lesson." They will be the ones who are taught a lesson over the next two years. At best, only unthinking, kneejerk "conservatives" took this path.

Second, there are those who voted FOR THE DEMOCRATS because Webb "claimed to be conservative." These people bought into the lie that this new crop of Dems are somehow "different" from the old school Pelosi's, Levin's, Kennedy's, Kerry's, etc... Face it, stooges, THEY LIED. And if the Webb's of the Democratic party DIDN'T lie, then they have already been marched before Pelosi and been TOLD to put their testosterone -- and any organ that excretes or produces such) in her little lock box. They can only have it back WHEN she says and for WHAT she deems it necessary.

Third, these so-called "conservatives" have been riding a bandwagon since 1994, or perhaps as far back as the Reagan era. This time, they jumped off. They were faux conservatives, Pseudo-conservatives -- nothing more.

Once again, however, it's not the stupid Republicans that will pay the price for their return for power -- it's the REAL conservatives who will be left holding the [EMPTY] bag.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Random Observations in the Wake of the Elections -- Part 3

Hmmm...I've heard some pundits say that this new crop of Democrats are not "Liberals." Here's why I don't believe it, but even if it's true, it doesn't MATTER...

It may be true that most of the newly elected Democrats are "more conservative than those of yesteryear," though I personally DON'T believe it -- they are just more adept at lying about exactly what they DO believe.

Regardless, when this "new class" of Democrats arrives in Washington DC, Nancy Pelosi will call them all into a conference room, and demand the following:

"Gentlemen (and Ladies), I hold in my hand a box. This is a lock box. As you exit this room, each of you will deposit all of the Testosterone you possess, and any element of your being that produces or excretes it.

You will speak ONLY when I tell you to, and then you will say ONLY what I tell you to. You will vote as I say, do as I say, and SMILE while you do it. In public, you will address me as Speaker Pelosi -- NEVER as Nancy, Ms. Pelosi, or the 'chick in charge.' Behind closed doors in our Caucus meeting, you will refer to me as 'Your Highness,' or 'Her Majesty.'

Failure to follow these instructions, or the theft of your Testosterone back for the purposes of growing a spine and speaking your mind is STRICTLY forbidden! VIolation will respult in the choice of another candidate in the primary -- or perhaps a visit to Fort Marcy Park courtesy of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember these words, or else! That is all, Plebes...."

Random Observations in the Wake of the Elections -- Part 2

Why Conservatives Lost
By Chuck Colson
Thursday, November 9, 2006

Election Day is over, the votes have been counted, and it's clear that conservatives took a beating. I have always maintained that Christian leaders should not make partisan endorsements — and I never have. But I am unashamed to say that I am a conservative.

In one sense, I think, all Bible-believers are conservative, because we believe in governing our lives by revealed truth rather than by man-made, utopian ideologies. Modern liberalism wants to remove all restraints on people's behavior. Conservatives believe in the moral law. So Bible - believers might be liberal on a lot of issues, at least in the common sense of that word, like helping the poor, but they would be fundamentally conservative in their disposition toward life

So, what happened in Tuesday's election? The economy is strong. And it's true we're in an unpopular war, but people vote their pocketbooks most often. Yet the conservative movement, which had been gaining ground, has blown it. It has been defeated. Why?

The answer is one that may startle you. Conservatives lost because they deserved to. They failed to live up to the high standards of personal behavior they preach about. And that's what brought them down.

Is there a double standard here? Why should the case of Mark Foley have helped bring down the Republicans? After all, twenty years ago a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, had an affair with a male page, disclosed that he was a homosexual, got his wrist slapped by the House, and then got re - elected! Why has Foley's indiscretion turned into Foley-gate?

The answer is because it's just the tip of the iceberg. Look at how the conservatives for years railed against the Democratic liberal establishment and all of its money, the lobbying establishment, the junkets, the payoffs. The conservatives campaigned against it in 1994, only to take over Washington and do exactly the same thing. This is what is known as rank hypocrisy.

Is it unfair that when conservatives do things liberals do, that they, the conservatives, are labeled as hypocrites? No.

According to that great conservative thinker Russell Kirk, the first tenet of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. True conservatives don't look at government as a plaything by which they can impose their latest ideas on the country; they look at political power as a guardianship, what Chesterton called the democracy of the dead. In other words, we have a debt to those who have gone before us, and the primary debt is to preserve the moral and constitutional order that our forebears fought to defend.

So when a conservative has a much - publicized affair or is outed for improper sexual behavior with pages, or digs into the congressional budget pot to hand out earmarks to his own district, he is a hypocrite to be scorned.

My hope and prayer is that conservatives in America will do some serious, sober soul - searching. We need to get our own act together before we can preach to others, or before we deserve to hold power. And if we break trust, we are breaking trust with the very essence of who we are. Our own character is at stake.

You can talk all you want about the unpopularity of President Bush, or the Iraq war, or immigration. But what this campaign really boiled down to was, well, when it comes to conservatives, it's character, stupid. If conservatives don’t learn that lesson, they will spend a long time in exile — and deservedly so.

Chuck Colson is the Chairman and Founder of BreakPoint and of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

I am not a big fan of Colson, but I generally agree with his assessment of this aspect of the election. Conservatives WERE/ARE hypocrites, and they deserved to lose. They left their principles, and didn't keep their promises, and they deserved to lose for that too.

Now, I didn't deserve to lose -- but I WILL. The Democrats will be merciless on those who kept them from their rightful thrones for the past 12 years. Cooperation to them is very easy to define -- it means CAPITULATION TO THEM.

But, who can argue that Conservatives didn't get just what they deserved? I honestly can't.

So why is it Conservatives are held to higher moral standards than Democrats? And isn't it a 'double standard'?

Let's face some facts. The electorate KNOWS before they ever vote for Democrats, that they HAVE NO MORALS. The entire nation has long been disabused of such notions as ethics or moral absolutes with regard to Democrats -- Ever heard of BILL CLINTON?!?

Conservatives, on the other hand, claim to believe in and support "moral absolutes," and a general "Judeo-Christian Ethic." When Republicans violate those moral and ethical standards to which they lay claim, the Electorate holds them accountable -- like this year. Abrhamoff, Foley, Burns, Allen.... Now, SOME of these people DID indeed violate their self-proclaimed standards, others DID NOT, but were deceptively portrayed as having done so by the Leftist MSM. In any case, the Electorate had seen enough.

Democrats, however, when they violate this same set of standards, are generally laughed off by the electorate, and their lawlessness and criminal behavior is largely ignored by the LEFTIST MSM. Why> Because the People generally KNOW Democratsd have NO morals or ethics, so they EXPECT this kind of behavior out of them. And, because the LEFTIST MSM has a vested interest in the LEFTIST Democratic Party, so they protect their comrades and hide their misdeeds.

A double standard? Colson can't be seeing this for the first time! He suffered dearly for it over 30 years ago! But, thanks be to God, He turned it around for Colson. Let's HOPE God wills to do so for the entire nation -- because we are in a devil of a mess.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Random Observations in the Wake of the Elections - Part 1

I'm beginning to put together some coherent and thought out ideas in my mind of what is to come in light of the November 7 Elections...

To those who doubted me -- I told you so. I'm not gloating about being right though. Even though I KNEW what the outcome would be, I am saddened and disappointed. Not at all shocked or surprised...

THe AMerican people have virtually gauranteed the military loss of Iraq, which will set in motion devastating results. I don't CARE what happens to the idiots who voted to make this possible, but to my family and friends who had the intelligence and insight to understand what the future holds if short-sighted decisions are made. Most of all, though, I feel terribly bad for our troops. Guys and gals, we DO care, and I do support you. No one will abandon you, nor mock you when you come home. Not if I live and breath and am able to stand with you. And what you're doing won't be forgotten, or by God's grace wasted!

Now, for my perspective of what happens in Iraq as a result of November 7th:

With Rummy gone, and President Bush apparently more than willing to kiss up to the Dems, I think the troops have every right to feel demoralized.

I'd say that by mid-summer 2007, the Dems in Congress will begin defunding and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq -- whether Iraq is ready or not. It would perfectly follow the template of their actions in Southeast Asia. IN 1973, Nixon pulled our troops out of Vietnam -- an "honorable peace" -- with an established SV government, and a "promise" from the Communist NV's not to invade. Just in case, Nixon made a non-aggression pact with the SV's, so that in case the Communists DID invade, we would re-engage and help SV.

Then came Watergate, impeachment, and Nixon's resignation. Ford, an unelected lame duck was powerless when the NV's invaded SV in 1975. He practically BEGGED the Democratic Congress to allow our troops some kind of intervention to help our allies, whom we had PROMISED to support. The Democrats said, "no," defunded all US military operations in SOutheast Asia, and we abandoned our allies -- the South Vietnamese.

Then the NVA invaded Laos, using biological and chemical warfare -- hundreds of thousands were killed. Then the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia -- MILLIONS were killed...

Expect Democrats -- DESPITE their "promises" -- to shoot for impeachment within the year, and to follow suit on defunding Iraq operation and handing over the Iraqi nation to Iran's Ayatollahs sometime shortly thereafter.

Then of course, just like Carter was elected in '76 because the American people didn't care, Hillary will be elected in '08 -- because the American People WON'T care.

Monday, November 06, 2006

The Last Minute: Election Predictions and Explanations

I've just gone ove the polling data for the last time before tomorrows election.

After the absolutely idiotic and inane comments of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) last week, I allowed myself a moment of hope. Alas, it was short-lived. I now believe the bump Republicans enjoyed over the last week are fading.

My original perdiction several weeks (months) ago, was that Democrats would gain 22+ seats and regain control of the House, and that they would gain 5+ seats in the Senate -- 5 would bring a tie, 6 would give the Democrats control.

Last week in the wake of the Kerry fiasco, several Senate races tightened -- including Missouri, Montana and Virginia. All of these are Republican seats. All of them are "too close to call" according to pundits. I believe at least 2 of the three will be lost.

To Summarize my Senate perdictions with regard to the seats that are questionable:

Missouri Democrat gain -- McCaskill over Talent (by <1%)
Montana Democrat gain -- Tester over Burns (by 3%)
Ohio Democrat gain -- Brown over DeWine (by 5%)
Pennsylvania Democrat gain -- Casey over Santorum (by 6%)
Rhode Island Democrat gain -- Whitehouse over Chafee (3%+)
Virginia Democrat gain -- Webb over Allen (<1%)

If any of these are incorrect, it is likely to be either the Virginia or Missouri races. Republicans WON'T win both. I think Kyl in Arizona and Corker in Tennessee will BARELY hold on to their Republican seats -- but even these two seats are NOT a sure thing. The seats held by endangered Democrats like Cardin in Maryland, Menedez in New Jersey and Lieberman in Connecticut will remain safely Democrat it appears. Though Leiberman will technically be Independent, he has said he will remain part of the Democratic caucus -- if he had half a brain he could bargain with the Republicans for real power, but I suppose someone has to be the Democrats Don Quixote.

In short, Democrats win 5 or 6 seats, retake Senate.

There are too many House seats to single out, but here's my brief take:

The Democrats have an absolute lock on 13 current Republican seats, and will probably capture 9 more barring a political earthquake. I think they have a realistic shot at at least 3 other Republican seats. I predicted they would win 22+ seats weeks ago, and I've seen relatively little evidence that Republicans have cut into that margin. Though the Republicans MAY pick up one or two Democrat seats in toss-up races, the Democrats retaking the House at this point, from my observations, are beyond the abilities of Republicans to prevent.

In short, Democrats gain 22+, retake House.

Now some analysis and explanations. I think there are several reasons why Democrats will make such gains in the mid-term elections, and why they will retake Congress.

First, let's face it, Republican's have, after 12 years in charge of the Legislative branch of our Government, finally taxed the patience of many Conservatives beyond the breaking point. That process, for me, began WAY back in 1995 with the failure of Newt Gingrich to stand up to the Clinton Government shutdown. I left the Republican Party the next year -- with a little help from disastrous Republican Governor David Beasley in South Carolina. The failure of the Senate in 1999 to convict Comrade Clinton of the impeachment of High Crimes and Misdemeanors paved over the grave of my Republican life.

But instead of becoming MORE dedicated to the principles that got them there, Republicans in Senate in particular, have moderated their stands, compromised their principles -- in short, they've tried to BE Democrats while retaining the Republican labels. Examples? Illegal Immigration, deficit (and pork barrel) spending and failure to push for social issues important to the base. That kind of equivocation never works. Yellow Dog Democrats will NEVER vote for ANY Republican, and trying to be like them will only result in the loss of Republican Conservative base votes.

I find most ironic on this point the fact that the Republicans acutally have a better shot at KEEPING the Senate, while the more deserving Conservative House Republicans will almost certainly be lost.

Because I understand the stakes, I WILL be voting -- for Republicans -- tomorrow. But I'm afraid there are those who have forgotten the stakes...

Which leads to a second reason I think the Democrats will win. It's been over 5 years since 9/11. It's been over 5 years since a major terrorist attacks on the United States. It's been almost 6 years of the MSM (mainstream media) relentlessly pounding on President Bush, the Republican Congress, and the War against Islamofascism. They have largely succeeded in their effort to paint the President as incompetent or evil, to describe the Republican Congress as corrupt, and to portray the Global War in which we are engaged as "unwinnable," "another Vietnam," and "based on a lie." Because most Americans have a short attention span, and due to the fading memories of the events of 9/11, and because we no longer believe the principles of freedom are worth dying for, and because we think the price of fighting terror is too high; for all those reasons, the Democrats will likely win.

No matter how good the economy is, no matter how much income increases, or unemployment goes down or how dangerous our enemies in the world become, it just doesn't "feel right."

"Let's talk to Iran, and North Korea, and Osama," they say, "I mean, we need things. We like peace. If we stop bothering them will they leave us alone so we can play our video games and watch our DVD's and listen to our IPod's?"

These are all valid and observable reasons why I believe the Democrats will win. These are the reasons that our Islamofascist enemies in Al-Queda and and Iran, and our Communist foes in North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba, and those who tacitly back them -- like China and Russia -- desparately want the Democrats to win. Almost as desparately as their accomplices here in America -- the Liberal Democrats themselves.

Please, go vote tomorrow. MAKE ME WRONG! Otherwise, as I've recommended before, learn to speak Arabic. And you might want to go ahead and purchase your prayer rug, and ladies may need to visit the Burkha store....

The Danforth Division -- Liberal Republicans and the Retreat from Leadership

I recently read a news article in a major Newspaper regarding former Senator John Danforths new book. Here's a portion of the article:.

"While promoting his new book, "Faith and Politics, How the 'Moral Values' Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together," Sen. Danforth urged his Republican Party to "disengage" from Christian voters – who have enabled it to win the last three national elections – saying religion has become too divisive a force in American politics.

Danforth, 70, an Episcopal priest, said politics today is too polarized and that the GOP spends too much time trying to appeal to the Christian right – which, in reality, is the party's base. "I think it is bad for the country and ultimately the Republican Party," Danforth declared."

You must understand that Danforth is an "old school" (read: RICH LIBERAL) Republican. He was in Congress for a couple of carefree decades, for those of his ilk. Republicans were a small minority, they had no REAL leadership responsibility, they were able to enjoy the high life, the lobbyist perks, the favor of the Ted Kennedys, Jim Wright's and Tip O'Neill's so long as they minded thier place...

All Danforth wants is those good ole days back. He doesn't want his party, his former colleagues, to have to deal with such serious issues as life and death (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research funding, cloning, etc), moral questions (homosexual marriage) or survival (the Global War against Islamofascism). It's easier to let the Democrats do that.

Unfortunately, though MOST won't say it, I'm afraid there are too many "Republicans" STILL in office who actually agree with Danforth. Chafee anyone? Spectre? Hmmm...?

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

"Higher Powers," Romans 13:1 and the United States

With regard to the Christian view of "government" in the United States, the key verse in my view is Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

When the Founding Fathers sought to design a Government for the new nation, they wanted it to be very different from what they'd experienced in England. European governments emphasized "The Divine Right of Kings," or tempered such concepts with a deliberative body such as the English Parliment. The problem was, these governments were composed of men -- fallible, flawed (and arrogant) men. In these governments, the "higher powers" of Romans 13:1 were always MEN.

In an attempt to remove as much of the "human element" as possible, the Founders composed the US Constitution. The Constitution, a body of LAWS, set forth the guidelines for our nation. Every public servant or soldier who took an oath from that time til this, pledged to defend THE CONSTITUION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Not a king, or a president, or a government...The Constitution -- the body of LAWS.

Thus, in the USA, the "higher powers" of Romans 13:1 is the CONSTITUTION, NOT MEN.

If men defy the Constitution, the MEN are to be broken, not the Law. That's what made the failure of the Senate to convict Comrade Clinton in 1999 such a travesty. The Constitution is not written in "Lawyerese" (Er, sorry PL) its written in plain English, so that anyone can understand. Therefore, if a Judge, or a Legislator, or the President himself violates it, he may (should! MUST!) be held accountable, if by no one else, then by the PEOPLE.

THe Constitution declares we have certain inalienable rights from GOD. One of those rights is that of self government, and one of our responsibilities to keep those rights is voting. If we fail to vote, we fail to follow the clear injunction of the Constitution -- our "Higher Powers" in the USA -- in our duty both as a Christian, and as an American Citizen.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Atheist Evangelist: A Response to Sam Harris

It's not like atheism isn't preached to us here in America and across the entire Western world daily -- and often. Most of our News Media preach and practice it. Popular TV shows praise it. Pundits proclaim it. If not in direct language, then certainly by their lifestyles, their actions, and the social and political causes they support.

Sam Harris has become the premiere voice in the massive choir calling for a divorce of culture from religion. His first book, The End of Faith, was an award winning, bestselling promotional piece for the supremacy of the atheistic ideal. His thesis is neither novel nor complex: "Religion is the root of all evil." The Washington Post documented this thesis quite well (and somewhat happily) in an article on Thursday, October 26, 2006.

In the interest of full disclosure, I can't say I disagree with the entire case Harris puts forth. If you read my previous posts, you'll know that I have found just plenty of "evil" in the guise of "spirituality," hiding hypocrisy in the robes of religion. Harris points out in his second very popular book Letter to a Christian Nation, that he received tons of letters in reaction to his first book. Most were from self described "Christians," many professed hatred for Harris, and some even threatened his life.

Seriously, that's helpful. I'm sure Jesus is pleased with that. No, really -- "kill all the infidels." For this, Christians -- BIBLICAL Christians -- should be profoundly saddened. That kind of hatefulness does nothing to answer the arguments of Harris, and on the contrary affirms his claims. I can understand why ANYONE would reject the idea of religion -- especially Christianity -- who its principles are so often clearly contradicted by the lives of its supposed adherents. I always think of the words of Gandhi when he was asked, "why are you not a Christian?" Gandhi answered, "I would be a Christian, but for the Christians."

That said, I certainly do not endorse nor agree with the conclusions of Sam Harris. Harris not only believes that religious people are wrong, but that they are crazy, and their beliefs and practices are THE reason for dysfunctioning cultures and societies. By the way, he doesn't discriminate -- this applies to ALL religions. Well, he has a mild affinity for Jainism, but....

Once you've read Harris' books or heard him speak, however, you get the distinct impression that he's spent many of his 39 years buried in the works of Bertrand Russell. Many of his arguments are, well, OLD. The language has been updated. The specific targets of his writing are new. But, the attack on "religion" goes on. It was once Voltaire, then Bertrand Russell, now Sam Harris.

May I gently point out that Voltaire is dead? Russell -- dead. Harris -- not yet, but one day. After all, it is the way of all flesh, as the book of Ecclesiastes says -- and THAT is one truth Harris can't deny.

To answer Harris, let me mention several simple facts that must be considered. First, religion is the attempt of mankind to answer questions he cannot understand, to explain events and ideas that finite humans cannot grasp. Religion, then, of its very nature, is fallible -- because HUMANS are fallible. But that in itself does NOT make ALL religion evil.

Second, religion, as a human endeavor, can be co-opted and corrupted by those with personal and evil agendas who abuse and misuse their professed beliefs for their own ends. Case in point -- Islamofascism.

Third, Harris contends that it is "absolutely" TRUE that religion is "absolutely" evil. How so? If atheism is indeed "true," then there is NO "absolute truth," nor is there any God, entity or "Ultimate Reality" by which one can measure truth or error, right or wrong, value or worthlessness. His vehement argument for atheism, then, is self contradictory on its face.

Harris is right to this extent -- religion does not hold the answer. Though it may not be evil in itself, and though their are billions of adherents to multitudes of faiths and philosophies, no attempt of man will EVER bring him to full knowledge of the universe, or "Ultimate Reality," of Truth, or of God. Because man IS limited and finite in nature, he could never discover "Truth," whatever that might be. It would take this "Truth" revealing itself to humans to make it real, to answer our questions, to calm our angst.

In my view, from my own experience, I have found that Revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. I am hoping Sam Harris will consider his own "finiteness," and realize their are questions he cannot answer, mysteries his reason can't master. If he does -- if YOU do -- Truth can reveal Himself to you too.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

STILL MORE Observations - Christians and a Democratic Congressional Majority

If you ASSUME that we as Christians HAVE ANY credibility with Liberal Democrats, you clearly do NOT understand them. That would be breathtaking naivete with regard to those who would steal your rights.

Scandals have happened, and WILL happen, in BOTH parties. Washington is RIFE with such. The difference is that the MSM will help HIDE Democratic scandals, but will not cease "puffing" Republican scandals.

I've made CLEAR that we ought to insist on accountability for ALL in Washington -- for Foley and any accomplices, but also for those in the opposition party. We must face it, this scandal was not "about Foley," it was about power.

Christians have a responsibility as citizens to hold those who are dishonest and abuse their power to account. But that DOES NOT mean we should naively buy into the propaganda of a hypocritical party who -- when given the chance to take a moral stand on these SAME issues against their own myriad of offenders, failed to do so repeatedly.

Don't think for one minute that if the Democrats regain Congressional power that they would pay the first bit of attention to Christians -- unless they thought they could bargain for more votes, and more power, or deceive them as a means acheiving their goals. Acting in contrition when confronted with wrongdoing requires a conscience -- something the whole of the Democratic Party lacks.

MORE Observations - The Foley Scandal -- NO, I'm not Defending Him! Part 3

And NO, I'm NOT DEFENDING Foley! My earlier posts have clearly condemned his actions -- and those who may have known but said nothing. But ALSO for those who are BEYOND hypocrites in condemning Foley, but EXCUSING those on their side of the aisle for actions just as bad or worse.

Another case in point -- 1983, Congressman Gerry Studs, D-Mass (I know, who'd a thunk it, right?) was "censured" for ACTUALLY having SEX with a 17 yr old MALE House page!!!!!! After he was "censured," the House Democrats gave him a standing ovation as he made a speech accepting the censure, but NEVER apologizing. Not just ONE standing ovation, but THREE.

So far, Foley might have sent dirty emails and IM's, but there's no evidence that he ever physically acted on those disgusting thoughts. And furthermore, we now know that he NEVER contacted the pages with lewd IM's or emails WHILE they were in Washington, OR before they were of AGE. The IM's in question were sent to pages 18 and 21 years of age. Disgusting - YES, a crime...?

Sure, PUNISH Foley and any "accomplices" he might have had -- but DON'T give the Democrats any "high ground," that would be FAR worse than anything Foley did.

MORE Observations -- On the Foley Scandal and 'Nobility' in DC

Nobility?? (The very use of the word in the same sentence with Washington DC constitutes a joke). We are talking about Politicians...in Washington DC... Since when was "nobility" a consideration with the majority of this crowd?

Foley has resigned, he should be prosecuted IF what he did consitutes a violation of the law. I'm not sure that has been established yet.

We KNOW that Barney Frank's gay lover had an underage GAY sex ring running out of his basis a few years ago. We know the former occupant of the White House benefitted in a number of ways from his interaction with at least one 18-20 year old page, then committed perjury (that qualifies as 'high crimes and misdemeanors') to hide it. We know that ... You know what? Do we NEED more examples?!?

Democrats -- SHUT UP. Republicans -- if you knew and didn't tell, RESIGN. Will either happen? NO.

See predictions above...Dems 23+ in the House, 5+ in the Senate.

Anyone know Arabic? We might need to brush up if we are to mount an opposition movement.

MORE Observations - On the "Foley Scandal" Part 1

The apparent activities of former congressman Mark Foley are reprehensible. Lewd emails to pages or former pages (regardless of age or sex, actually) constitute and abuse of power. At least he had enough moral conviction to resign from Congress. And, Republican leaders roundly criticized and condemend foley, and began investigations to see if any other rules were broken (that's possible), if the page program needs reforming (it does), and how this information was leaked to the press at such an advantageous moment before the elections (Can you say DEMOCRATS?).

Now, of course, you don't think that's where the Dems or their siamese twins in the "MainStream Media" will let that die, do you? Oh no, not on your life. The 'do as I say not as I do' Democrats are off to the [election] races, pumping this for every possible political point they can make. Should the American people let them get away with it?

Democrats have absolutely ZERO credibility on this issue -- no matter WHAT Foley did. When they go back and try Kennedy for murder, and Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, then I'll listen to word ONE.

Regarding Republicans -- If they tried to play the Democrats game by overlooking such CLEARLY immoral behavior it is deplorable, and will only get DEMOCRATS elected. Their people already know most of them are degenerates.

If the Republicans lose the 2006 elections, it will be WHOLLY their fault, for this and many other reasons. You can't blame the Democrats for taking advantage of the circumstances! They don't care about decorum, or morals, or even those poor "innocent" pages -- they ONLY care about POWER.

My prediction: Dems gain 23 or 24 House seats, 5 or 6 Senate seats. This would give them a definite House majority, and in the Senate, 5 seats would be a tie, and 6 would give them total control of Congress...God help us.

On World War III -- AGAIN

I am one who firmly believes that we are IN WWIII -- and NK has been and IS a part of the so-called "Axis of Evil."

Consider that when NK tested their missles July 4th of this year, representatives of the IRANIAN government were present to observe. Consider that the little dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has been travelling around the world to ALL the members of the Axis of Evil -- and to many others who are not "decided" in this war -- attempting to persuade them to join the "Anti-American" effort.

The growth of neo-communist movements in recent years -- in Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, etc, plus their cooperation with "old" communist powers that NEVER actually died (China, Cuba...Russia perhaps?) AND the unequaled power and passion of Islamic Fascism have created a formidable alliance. It's not because they AGREE in their worldviews. It's because they BOTH know their most formidable enemy -- The United States.

After the Neo-Communist/Islamic Fascist alliance has toppled Europe, exterminated the Jews in Israel, and either destroyed America (or at least aided Americas "socialist/progressives" to overthrow the Republic), THEN there will be time to see who ultimately comes out on top -- the Commies or the Islamists..?

Alarmist? Perhaps...But the idea that NK has the bomb and that they are Allied with Iran, means that BOTH COULD BE nuclear powers within 12 hours -- however long it takes to fly a nuke from PyongYang to Tehran.

SOmething to consider....

Observations, Part 6 - Election Predictions for November 7, 2006

Some weeks ago, I predicted the Democrats would regain the house, gaining 22+ seats, and they had a good shot at gaining 5 or 6 Senate seats -- 6 would give them the Senate Majority. I'm sticking by my predictions (though I desparately hope I'm wrong).

I spent some time studying the latest polls (best place to do that is www.realclearpolitics.com ) in the various races yesterday. From what I've learned, I think the Dems have an absolute LOCK on at least 20 seats. They are within easy range of taking 8-10 more, and another 5-7 House seats are not out of the question. It is unlikely they would win EVERYONE of those seats, but it is LIKELY they will win at least SOME of them.

In the Senate, the Dems have a virtual LOCK on 5 seats. The only real question is the MO seat of Jim Talent. If the Dems get just a SMALL push, his seat will be lost too -- which would give the Dems a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Heaven help us...

WOuld love to hear if anyone in the toss up states (PA, OH, MO, etc.) have insights or particular takes on the races...


Observations, Part 5 - The Necessity and Limitations of Politics

We'll never be able to change our nation's moral decline via politics. That is not the reason for politics, government, etc. The Gospel is the ONLY means by which people can be truly changed from the inside out.

That being said, I believe part of our mandate as believers is to -- as much as is possible -- be engaged in the culture as SALT and LIGHT (Matthew 5:13-16). I think in our nation, that clearly includes our involvement in civic affairs -- voting at the very least! (cf. Romans 13:1-8; I Timothy 2:1-4; Proverbs 29:2) To do less actually invites and encourages evil and persecution -- and it is a SIN.

Observations, Part 4 - Why I am not a Libertarian

Some have asked why I'm not a Libertarian. These reasons are EXACTLY why I am NOT a Libertarian.

The Constitution - and if you want to believe Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence - BOTH declare the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Libertarians AS A PARTY will not affirm a position that gaurantees the basic right to life, even in the face of clear and overwhelming scientific evidence of "life" as we understand it beginning at conception or at least shortly thereafter.

Am I saying the Republicans have delivered on restoring that right to the unborn? Hardly. But they have managed to pass a ban of "Partial Birth Abortion," and they have done reasonably well in placing qualified Constitutionalists ("Originalists") on the Federal Courts. Libertarians WILL NOT do the same.

I am not affiliated with ANY party. BOTH of the major parties are too liberal and interested in power rather than issues. The Libertarians are more interested in promoting libertinism (by-and-large) than in protecting the Constitution and the principles which it emphasizes.

But of all the parties, the Republicans best represent and deliver on the promises they make -- and therefore give a slight hope that progress can be made. That being said, I'd vote for ANY candidate that I thought had "right ideas" and stayed true to the Constitution and the traditions that form the basis of the American Republic.

Observations, Part 3 - On Life, Marriage and the Constitution

I tend to be a Constitutionalist -- quite libertarian (small "l") in my view of government involvement in economics, but socially, I'm a conservative about most things.

I do not, for instance, believe that the states had a right to permit slavery when the founding documents gauranteed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Now, a WAR was unnecessary to enforce that, but I digress.

Just the same -- and on the very same principle -- the right to LIFE is a gaurantee. Therefore, an allowance for the practice of abortion as a means of birth control or convenience is unconstitutional -- and also a violation of God's commandments.

One may be correct in this sense -- marriage OUGHT NOT TO BE an issue the government attempts to meddle in. But government -- in the form of the out of control liberal judiciary -- ALREADY HAS.

Also, the founders designed our system of government to keep separate the "church" from the "state." But they did permit one exception. The minister is not only a representative of God in the marriage ceremony, he is also -- in the USA -- an agent of the state. Thus, if the judiciary continues on its current path, they will by courthouse fiat declare that a ministers refusal to marry ANY couple in a church or elsewhere is a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

The implications just BEGIN with being stripped of tax exempt status -- how about arrest of the Pastor for violation of civil rights? Seizure of all church property? Civil Court Lawsuits? Hate crimes charges? That's just for starters.

No, although I do agree that government OUGHT NOT be involved in marriage, they already are, and the ONLY way to protect the institution is by constitutional amendment. Either that, or have the government DEMAND by law that we marry whosoever desires to be married, or face prosecution (or, perhaps persecution).

Regarding marriage, then, the issue has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone NOT to be married. To the contrary, it protects the institution and the majority who believe in it from being FORCED to accept "alternate lifestyles" AS marriage.

Observations, Part 2 - My Take on Moderates

Moderates?!? Moderates are fence sitters... Moisten the finger, poke it up in the air, and see which way the winds blowing... passionate about nothing but being "moderate"... There are no great "moderate" leaders in American history...

The "middle of the road" is where you get hit by the CARS. Mind your momma and don't play in the Street! Stay on the RIGHT side of the road, and things will GENERALLY turn out for the best.


Observations on Voting in the 2006 Election - Part 1

I haven't generally voted straight ticket in the last couple of elections (SOME will pass out with SHOCK) -- but this time I've found that I will vote straight Republican.

Even so, I've said consistently, I expect the Democrats to retake Congress. My perdiction: 22+ seats in the House; 5+ seats in the Senate.

NO ONE hopes I'm wrong MORE than ME. I'm not trying to be pessemistic, but when you combine the relentless drumbeat of hatred and left wing attacks from the media and the lack of attention span among most Americans today -- and the fact that Democrats can lie FAR more convincingly than Republicans...AND the pathetic job of the Republican Congress in the last few years....

Just my take.

A Note and Update - 10/22/2006

In recent days, I've been doing more posting on a forum I joined a while back. It is freebaptist.net , a website frequented by members -- and those who have some connections with -- Free Will Baptist denominations. I was an FWB minister for over 17 years, and while my view of ecclesiology ("the church") has changed, my theological convictions have remained quite stedfast.

In the next few weeks, I'm going to try to post some of my comments on that site, as well as some original insights and opinions. This is especially true as we approach what I consider to be a watershed election that may even decide the fate of our nation in very short order. Thanks for checking back, and for understanding how busy I can be. Teaching at two different colleges, a corporate job AND ministry in and beyond my local church is a challenge.

Blessings -- and there's STILL more to come.

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

An Example of Theological Arrogance

Before I get into the concept of "Reformed Arminianism" and the early theology of General Baptists, I wanted to give an excellent example of why many Arminians consider many Calvinists to be arrogant. The following statement appeared in the Trinity Journal --A ministry of the "Trinity Foundation," a group of apparently Hyper-Calvinist rhetoriticians:

Are Arminians Christians? Sproul answers, " ‘Yes, barely.’ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency" (25). Another theologian thinks that Arminians are saved by "blessed inconsistency." But what is to prevent the equally possible, and perhaps more Biblical, conclusion, that Arminians are lost by cursed inconsistency? Did not the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, curse everyone, even an angel, who teaches a false gospel? (See Galatians 1:8, 9.) Arminianism has a false gospel; it is not Christianity; and if a member of an Arminian church makes it to Heaven, he does so despite his church’s teaching, not because of it. There may be some Christians in Arminian churches, just as there may be some Christians in Roman Catholic churches, but they are Christians despite their churches’ teachings. (Emphasis added)

"May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father’s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen." (The Conclusion of the Articles of Dort)

I am always tempted, after reading something like this, to do one of two things:

First, I consider firing right back. I think about pronouncing "Anathema Maranatha!" on these imbeciles and being done with it. Hey, if they can condemn me and my particular views to hell, turnabout is fair play, right? After all, there is much about hyper-Calvinism that certainly is at odds with Scripture and presents manifold dangers to the true, Biblical "doctrines of [FREE] grace"...

A second reaction is to simply throw up my hands, conclude that any and all of those in the "made-with-hands" church are more interested in their pet doctrines and their petty differences than they are in reaching the lost world and glorifying God in the process.

The first reaction is unChristian and uncharitable...I will not return evil for evil. The second reaction is not productive -- no matter how much I long to avoid people of this sort in "the church."

The fact is, not all of those who are of the Reformed Calvinist persuasion are of this attitude. There are two types of Reformed Calvinists, my friends and I concluded while in Seminary at Columbia International University: There are the OR's (obnoxiously Reformed) who believe that if you aren't Calvinist JUST LIKE THEM, TULIP and all, then you are on the road to hell, and that's that. Then there are the SR's (sufficiently Reformed) who, though Calvinists, holding to TULIP and so forth, aren't willing to jettison the Biblical concept of unity and diversity in the Body of Christ, and run around quoting the Articles of Dort rather than the Scriptures themselves as a basis of truth.

Still and yet, it's always fun to find one of those OR guys and tell him that I'm Reformed too -- a Reformed Arminian. The look on their faces is always priceless. They still tell me I'm a heretic going to hell. I wonder if that same look will be on their faces when we stand together before the Eternal Throne in Heaven? That is, if they are predestined to be there.....

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

What the Calvinist Baptists Leave Out

In the last couple of weeks I've been studying the early confessions of Baptists. I find it humorous that on most Calvinist websites, they point to the London Confession of 1644 as "the First Confession" of Baptists. Conveniently they ignore the first true Baptist confession put together by Thomas Helwys in 1611. (See www.generalbaptist.net/resources/confessions/helwys.htm ) The reason they claim the 1644 London Confession is that it bolsters their claim that the first Baptists were actually calvinist/Paritular. Not so...

Helwys had led a group of English Baptists back to England and planted a church, and wrote this declaration of faith, clearly identifying the first "Baptists" to see the atonement as general (for all mankind) and to understand that man -- though totally depraved -- retains free will, that when called by the Holy Spirit through prevenient or precedent grace, is enabled to receive or reject God's grace unto salvation.

I hope to post much more on this subject in the coming weeks -- though I am on my way to teach a class at the moment. I look forward to exploring this subject further.

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Islamofascism vs. Communism: Our Enemies in Different Wars

Today as I listened to a radio talk show today, the host was comparing the Cold War to the current War on Terror. It struck me as he was talking what the main differences in our enemies were then, and now.

Soviet Communism saw the defeat and destruction of the West as an ideological and political goal. While they would have seen losses -- even large losses -- on their part as necessary, they believed they could achieve their goal, eventually, and rushing it would have demanded too high a price for them to pay. The good news is that their efforts to destroy us failed. We can only hope that Chinese and Latin American Communism fail as well.

Islamofascism on the other hand, does not view the defeat of the West as merely and ideological or political goal -- they see it as a MORAL IMPERATIVE. Simply put, if and when they gain the use of weapons of mass destruction, they will not hesitate to use them to destroy their enemies -- the West. It is a moral imperative, a command of Allah. The price to be paid is not something they worry themselves about. That's Allah's problem -- and ours.

The West had better understand this mentality -- before it's too late to prevent the implementation of their "imperative."

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

When I'm Wrong...

...I admit it. I ask Tom Ascol and the folks at the Founders blog, as well as my readers, to forgive my assumption that my post on that blog had been removed. I was wrong.

In fact, I evidently posted it on the wrong thread -- I still haven't figured out how I did that, but I have no doubt I did. As Mr. Ascol pointed out in his kind email to me, we all make mistakes. I am now endeavoring to determine whether or not this error on my part was predestined, or of my own free will... :-D

I do, however, still stand firmly behind Dr. Johnny Hunt, his ministry at FBC-Woodstock, GA, and his potential nomination for SBC President. I look forward to further discussion and debate with my "Calvinist" Baptist friends at www.Founders.org/blog

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Monday, February 27, 2006

When A Good Man is Trashed...

I deplore denominational politics. Reading my posts, you can quickly see that. I believe that the largest part of modern day "made with hands" churches are at best useless, and all too often many are harmful to the message of Christ.

Today, however, I am compelled to commend a good and Godly man to my readers. I recently learned that Dr. Johnny Hunt, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, is to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I've known Dr. Johnny Hunt for over 20 years. The first time I ever met him, I was a Junior at Wingate College (now University) in North Carolina. He was speaking at the NC Baptist State Convention because for two years in a row, his church had lead the state in conversions and baptisms. His zeal and excitement to win souls was infectious and inspiring.

Shortly after this, he became Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock. WHen he arrived, they had 250 in attendance on a good Sunday, and they'd run the last pastor off. Some folks told him he'd never be there for long. He has surpassed 20 years now, and lead his church to a regular Sunday attendance of somewhere around 6,000-7,000. Most of those years FBC-Woodstock has lead their association in conversions and baptisms.

I have followed Johnny Hunt's ministry for more years than I've been in the ministry. As a young Southern Baptist College student he inspired me. As a Free Will Baptist Pastor he often encouraged me -- personally, through correspondences and through his dynamic preaching. Now, as an evangelical minister and member of a Southern Baptist Church, he continues to be one of the few men I hold in high esteem for his integrity and consistency as a Christian and a Pastor within the confines of the "institutional church."

The reason I bring this up is that, earlier today, on another blog ( http://www.founders.org/blog/ ), A number of so-called "calvinist baptists" were crucifying Dr. Hunt in anticipation of his nomination to be President of the SBC. As I've said, I hate denominational politics. I didn't like it in the National Association of Free Will Baptists, and because I am not a "thorough-going Southern Baptist" I avoid it at my current place of worship. In this case, I have three reasons for speaking up: (1) I know Johnny Hunt; (2) I tried to post aa response on their blog, but it was removed without explanation -- probably because Calvinists tend not to be able to handle a different view; and (3) I see in his critics the very reasons why I so dislike the particular/calvinistic baptists of history, and of today.

There has been in recent years a resurgence of Calvinist doctrines (they enjoy calling them "the doctrines of grace") within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Albert Mohler, youthful President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky is himself a "founder" and a five-point Calvinist. Incidentally, I respect him very much, though I disagree with him strongly on these points. Therein lies one of the major problems. Arminians -- or those who would consider themselves "general Baptists" with regard to the atonement, usually hold those of other theological persuasions to be worthy of respect, despite some disagreement. Calvinists, on the other hand, hold no one in respect -- and generally dismiss others as heretics -- anyone who does not agree with them. Just read the blog I've linked to above if you have any doubt.

It is a fact that, up to the latter 1800's, Southern Baptists were mostly Calvinist in theological perspective. That changed a great deal beginning with the Second Great Awakening and the rise of modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism. Should the Calvinist heritage of the "founders" ever be restored among Southern Baptists, the Convention will have to go back to the old way of growing their churches -- stealing churches and congregations from General and Free Will Baptists. Historically, there is no valid argument to refute that point.

Dr. Johnny Hunt is a good man, and a great Pastor. He will make a fine leader of the SBC. His vision to evangelize is both Biblical and God-centered. Despite the arrogant and critical statements of the Calvinist wolves in lurking within the SBC, he will make a fine President to the Convention. No, he's not perfect, but he has the right vision, and depends on the right Person with the right Power to bring that vision to pass. Bless you, Dr. Hunt.

And to those who would trash him, you might consider that few men will be as charitable and kind to his critics as will this man.

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Imperfect Understanding

Just time for a thought during these busy days...

Is it possible that there are disciples -- true followers of Jesus Christ -- who have some doctrinal "fallacies" that would get them labelled heretics, but that they are still "saved?"

If this is not true, what of the saints in the early and medieval church? Augustine himself had deeply flawed theological views regarding the structure and authority of the church, the papacy, human sexuality and eschatology. Yet, he is highly regarded as among the greatest theologian in church history.

Today, many hold doctrines outside the "orthodox" understanding of the essentials of faith -- or at least orthodox interpretations of key beliefs. What of them?

I suppose we should ask, how wide is God's grace? Certainly the line is drawn somewhere -- but we don't have the crayon, and it's not our line to draw.

The main reason I am writing this is not to say whether we should "receive" or "reject" those who hold suspect tenets of faith. I am merely asking everyone to consider the implications of receiving and rejecting, and then consider "what would Jesus do?"

The trite "He would love them" is true -- but doesn't answer the question entirely. Think about it...I certainly am.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

The Virtue of Solitude

Luke 9:10 tells us, "And [Jesus] took [His disciples], and went aside privately, to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida."

How often do we "go aside privately?" I'm not referring to a short devotional time during the day. Quiet times are important, but that's not truly solitude. When was the last time you took a few days -- just by yourself, or maybe with a small group of close friends -- and "went aside" to rest, rejuvenate, replenish yourself spiritually?

Jesus did this often in His earthly ministry. Why is it that so few of His followers do the same -- particularly those "in ministry"? Could it be that we've become so caught up in the world that we don't know the difference between solitude and the status quo? Have the thistles and thorns entangled us to such an extent that we can't find a few days to get away, to pray, the sit silently in God's presence and let Him speak?

No Christian is perfect. I am convinced, however, that if we would do this one simple thing -- cultivate solitude -- we would benefit immensely in our own lives, and in His kingdom work. I think a good goal for most disciples today is to follow the Master's lead, and "go aside privately" for some simple, spiritual rest. The world will be here when we get back.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Tenets of Faith -- Just for the Record

I affirm these essential doctrinal truths and principles of the Christian Faith:

We believe:

1. that both the Old and New Testaments constitute the divinely inspired word of God, inerrant
in the originals.

2. in one God existing eternally in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God, in order
that He might reveal God and redeem sinful men.

4. that the Holy Spirit came forth from the Father and the Son to convict the world of sin, of
righteousness and of judgment; and to regenerate, sanctify, comfort and seal those who
believe in Jesus Christ.

5. that man is totally depraved in that of himself he is utterly unable to remedy his lost

6. that salvation is the gift of God who brought to man by grace and received by personal faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose atoning blood was shed on the cross for the forgiveness of

7. in the water baptism of believers, symbolizing the believers union in the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ; in the observance of the Lord's Supper commemorating the
sacrifice of our Savior for all mankind.

8. We believe the life of the believer is to be separated from the world by consistent conduct
before God and man, and is to be in the world as a life-giving light.

9. We believe in the personal and visible and bodily return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree with and uphold these essential truths with the fellowship of which I am a part, and by whom I am ordained into Gospel ministry. SEE: www.ecainternational.org

Should this statement leave any questions unanswered or tenets unclear, I also affirm the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, which is found at www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith

My theological philosophy is generally "Reformation Arminian," (as opposed to Calvinist) and I tend to be "baptistic" (as opposed to other denominations) on many issues. Honestly, though, I think many of those "lines" and differences are manufactured by "made-with-hands" human organizations or Satan himself to keep The Church divided.

As some have read in earlier posts, my understanding of the organization of the "church" defies neat, nutshell descriptions.... I affirm "That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head."

Now at least you know where I'm coming from Theologically :-D

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Gloves Off: On The War Against Islamofascism

I haven't directly commented here on the War Against Terrorism before, but today's events in Israel regarding the Palestinian elections provide a good opportunity.

Seventy percent of Palestinians voted yesterday to elect Hamas -- a radical terrorist group whose written and commonly known goal is the absolute destruction of Israel in particular, Jews in general, and any nation (re: United States) that supports them. Hamas is directly supported by Iran, who immediately made public its praise and support of the new terrorist state, along with other Islamofascist terrorist groups and nations.

I won't go into great detail, but a short primer on modern Islamic terrorism is appropriate here. The "Palestinians" were little more than desert nomads from a number of Arab nations after WWII. Those nations didn't want them, so they wanted them to remain in the region of Palestine -- a protectorate of Great Britain. When the US and Britain (largely at the behest of Evangelical Christians in these nations) supported the creation of a Jewish state, Israel, the Palestinians became a problem.

Israel became a nation in 1948, and was immediately attacked by half a dozen Islamic states. Within a few weeks, Israel almost doubled their size against superior, better armed forces and with no standing army. When the so-called "Palestinians" fled the Jewish state, they were slaughtered -- NOT by the Jews, but by OTHER Arab states....Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt....They didn't want them!

With the rise of Yassir Arafat (actually born an Egyptian), and his "Palestinian Liberation Organization," modern Islamic terrorism was born. First lead by grand mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini of Jerusalem, the fledgling Palestinian movement to destroy Jews began. Husseini, who was also related to Arafat and his mentor, even supported and fought on the side of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's during WWII, supporting his "final solution."

From the 1950's and 60's onward for about 30 years, the primary target of terrorism was Israel. The dynamics of the Cold War also figured into Middle East politics, with the United States and the "West" supporting Israel, and the Soviet Union and the "Eastern Bloc" of Communist nations supporting the Arabs.

Then, in 1979, the Iranian Revolution destroyed any American or Western influence over the Islamic states of the Middle East. The US supported Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Ayatollah's became both the religious and political despots of a modern day Persia (Iran). The taking of hostages at our embassy by Iranian revolutionaries was merely a portend of things to come. After 444 days -- and it was no accident that it was on the inauguration day of Ronald Reagan -- the hostages were released. Still, the atmosphere had been created for Islamic extremists to grow and thrive. Their violence planted seeds of certainty that they knew would eventually bear fruit against the weak infidels of the West. Their martyrs became the bricks that built the foundation of the future Islamic kingdom that would destroy the infidels and rule the world.

The United States regarded the increasing attacks at the hands of Islamic terrorists as little more than international relations "mosquito bites." Even when the attacks were major, little time or energy was dedicated to response and recompense. Consider some of the attacks that occurred through the 80's and 90's: The Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing - 1983; The Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking - 1985; Downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland - 1988; First World Trade Center Bombing - 1993; Riyadh Saudi Arabia Military Compound Bombing - 1995; Khobar Towers Bombing - 1996; American Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya -- 1998; Attack on the USS Cole in Yemen -- 2000; And finally, 9/11/2001....The one that got our attention.

The responses to all of these attacks were, at best, anemic, like the Clinton regime's cruise missile attacks on empty camps in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. Other times they were harmful, like the Reagan Administrations withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon rather than invading in force and hunting down Islamic Jihad, or the usual response of the Clinton regime -- to do absolutely nothing. In any case, the Islamofascist terrorist organizations and the nations that supported them understood the import of these attacks -- they are at war. They had to destroy the Zionists, kill the Jews, create a kingdom for Allah.

On the other hand, the West didn't -- and to a large extent still doesn't -- understand what that means. "War" is something that happened in the distant past, when our grandparents or great grandparents were young. The world can't go through that kind of desperate struggle again, can it?
A simple answer is, 9/11....

Though the West in general and the United States in particular may not recognize it, we are currently engaged in World War III. The enemy now is Islamofascism, just as virulent as Nazism in World War II, and far more widespread. Wherever Muslims are, there are, in their midst, Islamofacist. They share the same goal as the Nazi's -- the destruction of Jews, and world domination. And they are willing to fight for it -- to give anything to attain it. How much are we willing to sacrifice to stop it?

In a war, you don't win by withdrawing from the battle as some spineless, politically correct liberal elites are demanding. You can't peacefully co-exist with fanatics who will never be satisfied with anything less than your total destruction. You have to fight with all your might -- to fight fire with fire.

Yesterday's election demonstrates that very few Muslims in the Middle East (less that 3 in 10 among the Palestinians) have any interest in peace or co-existence. The vast majority are firmly dedicated to the Islamofascist agenda. And when you consider that Iran is perhaps only months from attaining nuclear weapons, and that intelligence indicates many of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction were secreted out of the country to Syria before the coalition invasion, and Al-Queda continues to attempt to find ways to attack US interests at home and abroad, anyone with an ounce of common sense will conclude that we are, indeed, in World War III. To conclude anything else is utter foolishness and invites absolute destruction not only of our freedoms, but quite possibly our very lives.

It's time to take the gloves off. Democracy among the Palestinians did not produce good results -- but at least it produced honesty. Finally, it is clear that we as a civilization are at war with another civilization -- one that is diametrically opposed to our own worldview both politically and religiously. War is certain, but peace can only be achieved against Islamofascism AFTER victory is won. Then there will be peace -- but what kind of peace will it be? The peace of freedom, or of tyranny?

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Monday, January 23, 2006

The Spirit of Treason

I don't have to write a long blog on the issue of treason among some here in the United States during a time of war. People like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, John Murtha, Howard Dean, Al Gore and other Democrats in elective office make that case for me perfectly.

During a time of war, to advocate "withdrawal" from the field of battle against an enemy who is bent on our destruction is not merely surrender, it is suicide. To deny the President his constitutional duty and responsibility to gather intelligence about the enemy is aiding and abetting our enemies. Declaring that the President has "betrayed" this country while at the same time advocating betrayal by badmouthing our troops and accusing them of the same war crimes that our enemies boldly commit is beyond the pail. To accuse our soldiers and intelligence officers in time of war of "torture" without any evidence -- but with certain knowledge that our enemies do torture and worse -- is inconceivable to loyal, patriotic Americans... But not to these traitors.

No, these fools are not motivated by patriotism or some noble concern for the preservation of liberty and the constitution. They are motivated only by their lust for their own power. Their "crimes" may not meet muster to be charged for treason by the letter of the law, but they are certainly in the spirit of treason. And these people should be treated as the Benedict Arnolds they are.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Controversy: NBC's "The Book of Daniel"

I've not done a great deal of "social commentary" here, but that's about to change. Last week, NBC premiered a new TV show, "The Book of Daniel."

No, it doesn't deal with the great Hebrew prophet by that name. No, the show doesn't seek to answer questions regarding Bible prophecy. It is a "drama/comedy" that deals with the life of an Episcopal priest and his dysfunctional family, and his personal "talks" with "Jesus."

Most Christian's opposed the airing of this series because of the way it portrayed Christians. Okay, I can see why that's an objection. Every member of this priests TV family are dysfunctional. Not just dysfunctional -- screwed up! Now, I've known screwed up families before. The reality is, Christian families can be -- and sometimes ARE -- dysfunctional. In some cases, they ARE really screwed up. In my experience, however, all families have problems, but few unchurched families are as insane as NBC's family, much less Christian families. What really bothers me about this aspect of "The Book of Daniel" is the not so subtle insinuation that this family is as it is because they are "Christians." Do they say that? no, not directly. But that idea is implicitly set forth. Still and yet, is that why I think this series is problematic? No...

The biggest difficulty I have with the series is the way it portrays Jesus. Don't get me wrong -- the fact that Jesus (in the series) has a biting wit and can be sarcastic isn't bad. In fact, I LOVE that! I often tell people (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that my two spiritual gifts are sarcasm and facetiousness. Clearly in the Gospels Jesus IS sarcastic at times -- contrary to what many good evangelicals might say.

The irritation I have, is the way "Jesus" so easily dismisses what the Bible clearly said. One instant I recall is when this priest quotes a Bible verse verbatim from the Gospels. "Jesus" then scoffs and shaking his head, says, "where do you people get this stuff?"

That troubles me. He got it from the Bible, from the words of Jesus Himself. To portray "Jesus" as questioning -- or denying -- the very Word upon which faith in Him is based may be funny, but it's dangerous. Funny I get, but that borders on blasphemy.

In short, I don't particularly object to Christians being portrayed as troubled people -- they are -- though not to the over-the-top extremes "The Book of Daniel" indicates. I don't mind a Saviour who is portrayed as having a quick wit and a sarcastic disposition at times -- He was, and IS. What I DO find unacceptable is that this "Jesus" isn't true to His own words, His own virtues and characteristics. Contradicting the Bible in its description of Christ is an attack not only on the Word, but on the One who gave us that Word.

I won't be watching this series. I'll tell NBC and my local affiliate that I won't watch -- and I might just discontinue viewing NBC as a whole. That's my choice. NBC and Hollywood may choose to keep on running this series and other such junk. That's their choice. I don't have to agree or to like it -- not yet anyway. But, in the end, Hollywood will run out of money before I run out of convictions.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Defining Yourself

If you want to really get a good idea of who you are, of what you're all about, here's a good exercise to engage in..... Plan your own funeral.

Seriously, down to the last detail. Songs or hymns sung; readings of Scripture, literature, poetry; those who will officiate and those who will eulogize; even what you'd like to be said, preached, remembered...

My Dad told me about the funeral of my Great Aunt last week. She was nearly 93, the last sibling of my late paternal grandmother. He told me it was maybe the nicest funeral service he'd ever been to. She clearly gave the service -- and her life -- a lot of thought. She included everything, planned every detail. She even wrote a poem herself for her memorial service! That takes a great deal of reflection and introspection.

How many of us are willing to do that? To sit, and spend time just reflecting on who we are, what we've done, why we're here? To lay out a plan for what people (one would hope) should think of you, and how they will bid you goodbye?

Most of us are repelled by the idea of death -- especially our own. And in all honesty we don't like to contemplate the far too numerous failures and missed opportunities in our past. Looking back and seeing our faults can be as painful and uninspiring as looking to the future at our certain, impending expiration.

Then again, planning our own funeral -- our own formal recognition of departure from this world to the next -- may actually help us not only to face our appointment with death, but it could encourage us to live better in anticipation of it. When I go, I want to have made plans not only about how others will remember me, but to prepare for what awaits me. And part of that preparation is to live purposefully now, in focus and on target.

Life does not merely end in death. Life is an introduction to eternity. We should concern ourselves not only with planning our funeral, or even with how we'll fare and where we'll be in eternity -- but with how we'll be remembered -- with the legacy we leave after we've gone.

Plan your funeral. It might not only give you an idea of how you'll die, but about how you ought to live until then.