The Day I Changed My Mind...

I was 16, I believe. It was the summer of 1981, and I was a rising Junior in High School. I had been saved for not quite a year, and as a teenager, influenced by the pop culture of that time and the [already liberal] public education system, I thought I knew "TV Preachers" like Jerry Falwell.

I thought I understood issues like abortion, School prayer and the like. Still, as I was visiting my Aunt Dorothy and Uncle Kenneth's house, I was flipping through the 5 or 6 channels on the dial (no remotes for the Middle Class "regular folks" back then) to see what was on.

I came across the Reverend Jerry Falwell, preaching, according to the screen, at some church out in Dallas, Texas I believe. He stood at the podium, emphasizing his point, quoting his text, passionately calling for his large crowd of hearers to consider, to ponder the subject at hand.

I'm sure a smirk crossed my face. It was the kind of smirk a teenager gets when he [or she] already knows it all, and is looking forward to a good laugh.

I don't remember Dr. Falwell's subject, or the Scripture he was quoting. I DO remember that he was saying something about Jesus Christ, and that in Him God showed His love, and offered His salvation. Just then, the shadow of a man obscured the view of the camera, and he yelled something -- perhaps obscenities, perhaps protests -- I couldn't tell what. At the same moment, the intruder threw something at Falwell. Even I was shocked.

Falwell stepped back surprised as the object hit him, as I recall, in the left chest and shoulder. It was a pie. A cream pie. As security gaurds tackled the protester and led him away, Dr. Falwell stepped back up to the pulpit, removed his jacket, smiled, and said "that's okay folks. It needed to be cleaned anyway." To thunderous applause, Dr. Falwell continued on, preaching the Gospel without missing a beat.

I thought I had Falwell pegged. I thought this guy was the stereotypical, holier-than-thou preacher I heard about in my school, in the media, even in my church. But Falwell's reaction -- Christlike in attitude and disposition -- made an impression on me that I couldn't forget.

I started listening to Dr. Falwell. I started praying for Dr. Falwell. Soon, I was agreeing with Dr. Falwell. I became a member of Moral Majority and supported it for almost a decade. I listened to his "Old Time Gospel Hour." I grew to respect Jerry Falwell, and a minister, and as a man.

In January, 1985, at the Students For America national convention meeting during the second Reagan Inauguration, I had the pleasure of sitting at the head table for a banquet, with Dr. Falwell, and my Senator at the time, Jesse Helms. I had the opportunity to share the previous story with Dr. Falwell. I remember his smile, and what I perceived to be humility. His acknowledgement was a simple, "thank you." Someone later that evening -- I think it was Ralph Reed, who at that time was the National Chairman of SFA -- told me that Dr. Falwell had really been touched by my story. But I was the better for it.

Now, I didn't agree with him on every issue. Most of the time I got frustrated that he was too quick to apologize when he was right about something he commented on. Once in a while, I asked, "Dr. Falwell, did you have to talk about THAT?"

My respect for Dr. Falwell, however, never waned. He was one of the most stalwart evangelists I've ever known. I don't ever recall a time that he compromised the Gospel message even a little bit. And he always shared the love of Christ, even while telling the truth of God's Word about the critical issues of our day.

From that day, as a teenager and a young believer and American, I found a respect for Jerry Falwell that grew over the years -- and an appreciation for his prophetic and evangelistic zeal that has never wavered.

I'm profoundly glad that my respect and appreciation for Dr. Falwell -- like his soul, now present with His Lord -- will not end in his death, nor lessen in eternity.

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Who Will Get the 2008 GOP Nod -- and Why Do We Care NOW?!

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I left the Republican Party in 1996 after the party refused to stand up to Comrade Clinton in the budget battle (and just about everything else).

I vote for the person -- usually A Republican, sometimes third party or write-in, RARELY a Democrat (and only in a local race so far).

Frankly, it's too early to even consider who I'll definitely be supporting for President in November 2008. When I was a kid, campaigning for President didn't begin until the YEAR OF the election. Now, the 24/7 drive-by media have made elections a 24/7/365 thing. It's awful and doesn't serve our national interest.

I can say that there are some I would NEVER vote for. Examples: ANY DEMOCRAT. The Democrats are the allies of Al-Queda, the enemies of the Constitution, the party of death, and they are all around bad guys (and gals).

I COULD NOT vote for Guliani -- though I respect his leadership ability, I simply will not pull the lever for someone who is pro-homosexual unions/marriage, and who has said he'd write a check for his own daughter's abortion. Additionally, he carries far too much personal baggage like 3 marriages, 2 divorces, infidelity, etc.

Same for Newt. If he were to run, I don't mind most of his views -- He's a conservative. But his morals are atrocious. 3 marriages, 2 divorces, infidelity, etc. And I think that was used by the Clintonistas to blackmail him and keep him quiet while he was speaker of the House...

McCain...I respect his service to the country -- but I just don't LIKE the guy. AND, I don't TRUST him. He'll compromise with the Kennedy's in a heartbeat to make himself look good. He has generally been conservative (with NOTABLE exceptions such as McCain-Feingold), and I won't say NO NEVER...But, not so much....

Romney...At least his personal life is "clean." Of course, He's a Mormon. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... Seriously, I find his sudden "change of heart" on abortion too convenient to believed, at least at this point. And, he raised taxes and grew Government in Mass while Governor. Again, I won't say NO NEVER...But, no, not so much here either...

Tancredo...I LOVE his stance on the border issue. Other than that I see him as a grandstander out to promote himself -- even at the expense of the war effort and our CURRENT CIC. He might do as Secy of Interior or even Homeland Security, but President...? Not NO NEVER, but not likely either.

Hunter...LOVE the guy. Been a faithful and strong conservative for a lot of years. Right on life, the border issue, supporting the war, etc. He's from California -- which is an automatic strike against him LOL Too close to Hollywood! I would vote for him and feel comfortable in doing so.

Brownback...generally Conservative -- but dead wrong on the border issue. His home state Kansas is set to benefit big time by buildning that "Trans-American Corridor" which will flood our nation with illegals, terrorists and heaven knows what else. I just don't think I could punch his chad on the election ticket...

Huckabee...Again, I like the guy. Conservative -- right on life and moral issues, ran Arkansas well -- that's saying something after Herr Clinton and his Jezebel left for Washington. On the same token, he raised taxes in the state in compromise with Democrats. That makes me consider putting him in the "Republicans who never learn" category...Still, I might be able to support him.

Fred Thompson is an unknown factor right now. Will he or won't he run? Though he has been divorced and Remarried (as was Reagan) there is no egregious or scandalous history morally. He is generally conservative. He was my Senator when I lived in Tennessee, and the biggest disappointment I had with him was in his failure to vote to convict Herr Clinton on the strongest charge of perjury in the impeachment hearings. I wrote him then and said he needed to return to acting, because I wouldn't vote for him again.... Well, he did return to acting, he didn't run for Senate again. Is he too close to Hollywood? Would he be too quick to compromise with the Democrats?... I MIGHT consider voting for him -- he looks better all around than most other candidates...

I guess we'll see. But, it's STILL too early for all this! I wish they wouldn't bother me til NEXT YEAR!

Short Takes on Recent News

I found out what my life is worth today. Mary Wnkler, the "wife" of COC minister Henry Winkler, the mother of his children and the one who shot him in the back with a shotgun while he slept, Was Found guilty.

She was found guilty of VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. Her sentence will be 3-6 years. For Murder. Oh, wait, for murdering a PREACHER. That doesn't count as much as, say, killing a businessman, or a minority (which can get you a hate crimes charge too).

I guess I should be thankful that my life is still worth more than say, the inconvenient fling of Massachusetts Democrat Senators, or maybe ex-wives of rich football players and their Jewish friends....

***********

Did you hear that Harry Reid, Majority Leader in the Senate, says "the war is lost"? Uh-huh. He certainly hopes so. After all, it's not about freedom, or Islamofascism -- it's all about power -- Democrat party power. Nothing else matters as long as the Democrats maintain their power -- and grow and insure it. Viva la Revolucion! Right Harry?

***********

Hats off -- and lots of prayers for -- Va. Tech University today. Blessings and healing to you all...

On Total Depravity: Clarifications of the Arminian Position in Response to a Calvinist

Recently, I've been debating the issue of "Total Depravity" with a number of Calvinists on BaptistBoard.com. A charge often made by Calvinists against Arminians is that we (Arminians in general) "invent" ways to take credit for our own salvation. It's a spurious charge that is borne out of either ignorance or malice. I've edited several of these posts to attempt to counter a number of the myths and fallacies perpetuated by Calvinists against the Scriptural integrity of the Arminian view of Total Depravity. What's interesting is that this is one area in which Reformed Arminians and Reformed Calvinists are in agreement!...


ON TOTAL DEPRAVITY

I am what has come to be called a "Reformed" (or Reformation) Arminian. Some refer to it as "classical Arminian." Titles aren't important, what we affirm about TD is.

Reformed Arminians have NO disagreement with Reformed Calvinists in saying that man is "Totally Depraved." No area of a human's life is not affected by -- corrupted by -- sin. Man is fallen, and completely and wholly unable to affect, evoke or otherwise contribute to his/her own salvation.

Thus, God indeed MUST intervene. HOW God intervenes then becomes the main issue on this point. Calvinists believe God intervenes via predestination, causing regeneration which produces faith. Thus, man does not freely choose, but is chosen by God already, and is irreversably "elect." This state of being chosen and elect is "irresistible."

Reformed Arminians believe that God intervenes via "Prevenient Grace" -- that grace by which He enables man to believe -- but does not force man to do so. Thus, man is graciously enabled to accept the salvation of God by faith (also a gift of God inherent within humans), though he may chose NOT to accept God's gift of salvation. In this case, the "Elect" are those whom God foreknows will believe.

There is NO difference between Reformed Believers -- Arminian OR Calvinist -- with regard to TD (Genesis 6:5; John 3:16-18; Romans 3:10-18, 23).


EFFECTS OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY ON MEN

The concept of "Total Depravity" does not necessitate that man is totally uninfluenced by God, nor that man does not in some way do "good" things. Cyprian, a Bishop in the Early Church, made the statement that "all man's abilities to do good are derived from God."

There are two elements that render this possible -- (1) ALL humans, though fallen, STILL bear the Image of God within them. Certainly it is marred, scarred and distorted, but it still may, in some circumstances, reflect the nature of God in some small way, much like a broken mirror may still reflect a true visage of one who looks into it. (2) Common Grace is still abundant to the world, and may still in some sense draw those who don't know Christ to "do good" or "glorify God" in their works.

This by no means suggests they are saved, but it DOES demonstrate God's sovereignty and grace to the WHOLE of the world -- not merely to the "elect."


ON FAITH, DEPRAVITY AND CALVINIST PRESUPPOSITIONS

I don't disagree that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves -- if we understand that God has given us (humans) that faith and made us the custodians of that faith.

To conclude that it is the "faith of Christ" that saves in the sense that Jesus believes FOR US, that our "belief means nothing," would then imply several problematic conclusions:

(1) Universalism. Scripture clearly teaches that "whosoever believeth in Him," (John 3:16), and that "God is not willing that any should perish..." (II Peter 3:9). If Jesus believes FOR US, then He believes FOR ALL. Of cours, this gets into the pet doctrine of Calvinists regarding limited atonement...

(2) No need for repentance. Everywhere, Scripture tells us that coming to Christ begins with repentance. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That's why Jesus and John began their messages in the Gospels at the very beginning of their ministries with, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Hevaen is at hand!" That's why the writer of Hebrews (Paul, BTW :-D ) tells us that among the "elementary principles of the Gospel" are "repentance from dead works, and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1).

(3) No personal responsibility. If Christ believes for us, then we have no responsibility to live as Christ desires. If following this train of thought to a logical conclusion, Jesus believes for us, so it's up to Him to produce a holy life in us -- but, what if we don't WANT to live a holy life? What if we WANT to sin? What if we RESIST His will? Or, is this where "irresistible grace" kicks in?

To insist on this tortured interpretation of so many Scriptures renders them meaningless -- unless you are one of the "elect" god has chosen and you are thereby smarter than the rest of the pathetic losers God has predestined for hell. To me, this denies logic, defies Scripture and de-emphasizes God's love for ALL mankind, whom He desires to save -- IF they believe -- which He has graciously given them the abiltiy to do.

And in advance, forgive the hyperbole -- I am making a point, not being hostile in ANY way! :-)

* * * * * * * * * * *

If we speak of faith coming from God, or from Christ, then in that sense we have all been given the ability to believe -- in the salvific sense, we are enabled by God to exercise faith unto salvation, or to resist and perish. As I said before, though faith is a "gift of God," He has in His Sovereignty made us custodians of that gift, and charged us to do so responsibly. Then, via prevenient grace He enables us to do so.

If we speak of "the faith of Christ" as something Jesus has to do in order for us to be saved, that becomes more problematic. Jesus' work was done on the cross -- "It is finished." In that sense, then, the role Jesus (or should I say the Person of the Holy Spirit) plays is granting us the ability to respond positively to our conviction of sin and His drawing through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In no way does the idea of "the faith of Christ" mean that somehow He must do something more for us to be saved -- for He has already DONE it.

Incidentally, I hear something similar to this coming from the Charismatic segments of Christianity quite often. Kenneth Copeland talks about "the faith of Christ" as though it is somehow separate from the "gift of faith" which God grants to all men. Something to consider...

THIS WE CAN AFFIRM

Salvation is ALL of God. That does not absolve US from the responsibility of being obedient and doing as He instructed us in order to gain salvation and entrance into His Kingdom!

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (John 6:28, 29).


SUMMARY

(To a particular Calvinist) You've certainly made your case forcefully. As with most Calvinists, you seem to have taken the position that, since salvation is "all of God," that axiomatically removes any role of man in any shape, form, or fashion from the equation.

Man is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) you say. And I agree. "Christ, by His right acts makes men free and gives them life" (Romans 5:18) you say. And I, again, agree.

I suppose that which is most problematic in this discussion is the Calvinist tendency (fallacy?) to deny the necessity of faith for salvation.

Oh, I know Calvinists believe faith is there -- AFTER regeneration. But, of course, that presupposes that God neither desires nor requires the assent -- whether intellectual agreement or spiritual surrender -- of a human in order to experience salvation. They are either "predestined" to be saved, and are thereby irresistibly "elect," or God created them with the sole purpose of sending them to the eternal damnation of hell-fire.

Calvinists may certainly "interpret" scripture in this manner. I think, however, that other passages have relevance to this issue. Other scriptures -- many already mentioned here -- but all too often dismissed, explained away or just ignored by Calvinists.

I could remind you that "God so loved the world" (John 3:16) or that "God is not willing that any should perish" (II Peter 3:9), or maybe even that "it is through faith that you are all sons of God in union with Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26) and "faith in Jesus Christ is the ground on which the promised blessing is given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).

There are many others... Maybe though, this simple phrase might clarify my understanding of Scripture -- and the very heart of God.

"Whosoever will."

In the final chapter of revealed scripture, John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes, "Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17). This is a -- THE -- Divine invitation. This invitation echoes across the entire expanse of Holy Writ. Consider for example:

"Whosoever believeth on Him..." (John 3:16); "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). These and countless other passages obviate an invitation -- an invitation which is offered to someone who can accept, or reject it. An invitation that cannot be rejected is not an invitation, but a command, (a "decree" in Calvinist terms). A "command" or "decree" can neither be accepted "freely" nor can it produce "freedom" in that life.

This invitation is offered to "whosoever will," which applies potentially to every human being and indicates the engagement of the will -- the HUMAN WILL. Thus, a choice.

This is a choice we cannot make if left to ourselves. Our fallen nature precludes human ability to choose the right and the good. That is why the Holy Spirit came -- to "convict the world of sin" (John 16:8), and that is why Jesus was "lifted up," to "draw all men" to Himself (John 12:32).

In that conviction, in that drawing, the Holy SPirit works on the heart of everyone to enable them to believe (prevenient grace) -- but not the ensure or guarantee that they will or must believe.

God's offer of salvation to every human is real, and He does everything to enable humans to receive it -- except force them.

If God's offer to "whosoever" does not mean "whosover," and if He does not require the engagement of human "will," what a cruel, cosmic joke to pull on the very creatures God has created.

As certainly as God is sovereign, He is loving. To abandon all but an "elect" few and leave them without hope or opportunity defies God's revealed nature, and the very witness of Scripture itself.

JDW

(originally posted on "Total Depravity" thread, BaptistBoard.com)

Fewer Pledge Allegiance to Republicans

This article appeared on March 23, 2007, and it really didn't come as a big surprise. I've included the first couple of paragraphs, and then included my comments...

Fewer Pledge Allegiance to GOP
Posted on 03/23/2007 7:27:42 AM PDT

WASHINGTON — Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged during George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political victories, a major survey has found.
The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans.....

Simple reason for this: Republicans haven't stood for anything, and accomplished relatively little while they were in power in Congress and the White House. They were capable of far more, but were too weak, too worried about the MSM, and too lacking in conviction and dedication to principle to achieve anything. Now, the Republicans are for the most part acting as though they are comfortable in the minority again. Why support the party? I'll support those (Republican or not) that are committed to Conservative Principles. The party can take a flying leap.

JDW
(Originally published on FreeRepublic.com 3/23/2007)

On Imus, Idiocy, and the End of Free Speech

Welcome to the witch hunt.

Imus was stupid. What he said was offensive. His advertisers have every right to end their contracts. His networks can even cut him, if they like.
When it becomes something driven by an agenda — political correctness, government control, etc — it takes on a dark, McCarthy-esque quality.

No, that’s not fair. McCarthy was actually investigating a REAL threat — Communist subversion in government and culture. The Imus thing — and the “lists” being drawn up now entitled “who’s next?” are over PERCEPTION — WORDS.

The cornerstone of our Constitution is FREE SPEECH. Of course their are limits, when words DIRECTLY endager lives. But when we are told to “shut up” or MADE to “shut up” because we hurt someone’s feelings, offend their sensibilities.... That’s a violation of our first amendment rights.

Imus is an idiot — but he is just a pawn in the hands of the “politically correct” thought — and speech police. And it’s getting dangerous — not only to our freedoms, but to the eventual survival of our nation as we know it.

JDW

(Originally published on thread at FreeRepublic.com 4/12/2007)

Well it's about TIME!

Forgive my failure to post in the last couple of months. I've had "issues" with Blogspot -- My computer and the host here weren't "talking to each other." The result? I couldn't access my blog! It was a pain, but I think it's straight now.

I'll be posting some of the things I've written on several forums while I was unable to contribute here. Hopefully, I'll get back into more regular blogging in the next week or two -- barring further problems with Blogspot....

JDW

The Next Nuclear War

Many have been sounding the alarm in recent years that radical Islamofascists are close to obtaining nuclear weapons. Of course, the fear is that they would them use them – most probably against their most hated enemies, Israel or America.

There are any number of scenarios that could potentially set this chain of events off. For instance, a coup d’etat in Pakistan could remove the current regime and restore those elements who helped put the Taliban in power in neighboring Afghanistan. This is hardly far-fetched, as there have been numerous attempts on the life of Pakistani President Musharif. Should it occur, not only would India have reason to fear its ancient enemies, but Israel would also have reason for trepidation. Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to India and Israel.

Another scenario, even more likely in the current climate, is that North Korea launches a desperate invasion into South Korea – a last ditch effort to secure its survival. This would inevitably lead to, or begin with, nuclear strikes against Japan, or the Philippines, or other areas of United States military interests. Perhaps even Hawaii is vulnerable now, and the West Coast will be in short order.

A bit less likely is the possibility that the remnants of Saddam’s research and arsenal – which many believe to have been secreted away to Syria – will be used in Lebanon, or perhaps against Israel in renewed conflict with Hezbollah. That could easily draw Iran into direct war with Israel. That is decidedly NOT unlikely.

The most plausible and unfortunately likely scenario is that Iran succeeds in developing its own nuclear arsenal. At most, that’s only 2-3 years away. It could happen by spring. The United Nations is impotent (and unwilling) to prevent it. The United States, with its newly minted Democratic Congressional majority has no stomach for military adventures, instead choosing preemptive surrender and ignominious defeat. All in the name of diplomacy and peace, of course.

I wouldn’t expect, however, that Iran will be the first to actually launch a nuclear strike on its enemies. Oh, it’s certainly possible. They would if they got half a chance. But I’m willing to bet it won’t come to that. Not to begin with anyway.

My bet? Israel takes out Iran’s nuke program before they have a chance to use their weapons. The only way they could do that would be to use tactical nukes of their own. And the nature of that kind of an attack would be extensive. And it would take help. Help that only the United States could offer.

Reports from Israel, denied by officials of course, have already said that the IDF Air Force is practicing such an attack. United States officials deny aiding them, but they cannot deny sharing important and sensitive intelligence that would be imperative to such a mission. And in this case, the Congress could not stop the President from helping our allies in Israel. At least, not BEFORE such a mission is launched. They might find reasons to impeach him following such a mission.

Still, Israel isn’t worried about the politics of the situation. They don’t care about the ramifications as much as they do about doing nothing. Should Iran develop nukes, their fate is sealed. Should Israel preemptively knock out Iran’s nukes, at least they stand a fighting chance against the combined armies of the Islamofascist states. They’ve defeated those armies and air forces four or five times before. Times may have changed, but Israel’s resolve to survive, when their backs are literally up against a wall, should not be shrugged off.

The most dangerous result of this next nuclear war scenario is that, as a result of Israel’s “aggression,” the powers that be in the United States, will seek to cut ties. Perhaps the President is impeached, or in 2008 the Democrats capture the White House. Maybe a coalition forms that disowns the ‘troublesome ally’ and deems them a nuisance. It certainly is possible. Anti-Semitism is growing not only around the world or in Europe, but right here in America.

In that case, I don’t fear so much for Israel as I do for America. Those who oppose and seek the destruction of Israel will not face just political consequences. There are profound, spiritual and eternal consequences. Those who bless you I will bless; Those who curse you I will curse…(Genesis 12:1-3).

Let's Bash Other Believers! An Example...

I Saw this posted on a forum I frequent. See my comments below the article....

But Southern Baptists Say Ok To “Bishop” T.D. Jakes


By Ken Silva

Apprising Ministries


Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? [1]



The Youngs Father And Son Share A Podium

Those who have been following recent events here at Apprising Ministries will know that I have been led of the Lord to begin exposing contemplative mysticism and the deep penetration of the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church into the Southern Baptist Convention. As I have been researching I found myself uncovering a little event put on by Ed Young, Jr. of Creative Pastors: Life & Leadership Resources With Ed Young.



I must admit that even I was shocked to see who would be sharing the platform for this upcoming “Christian” conference. So get ready and hold on tight because here comes Creative Church Conference 2007 [2] aka C3 2007. O yeah, now we can wipe out all doctrinal distinctives! C3 2007 we’re told is all about “turning WHAT IF into WHAT IS”...well, actually an abomination in the Lord’s sight.

Even so, we’re told at the website, “Each year, thousands of pastors and leaders from across the country and around the world converge on Fellowship Church for the Creative Church Conference – a conference that promises to challenge your imagination, encourage your heart and stretch your leadership in ways you never dreamed possible.” You bet it will. Just look who’s sharing the platform here with Ed Young, Jr.

First there’s his dad Dr. Ed Young [3] former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. His Mega Second Baptist Church also happens to be having a big Grand Opening of their West Campus [4] in January of 2007. In her recent post Circus Maximus: More Mega-Madness on Slice of Laodicea Ingrid Schlueter correctly points out:



At the core of the megachurch foolishness is, of course, a wrong view of God and the Gospel. Big churches need big buildings, so these people take their wrong view of God and the Gospel and work it into every aspect of church life. In short, like the ancient Roman government, the church becomes the purveyor of “bread and circuses” to keep the restless masses happy.



If you have huge buildings and lavish facilities, it is only natural that you are going to want to use them. Second Baptist Church in Houston has five "campuses". They are just holding a “Grand Opening” of 200,000 square feet of new building space. [5]



So after all of the festivities Dr. Ed Young should be plenty revved up for C3 2007. But wait, it gets even better…or worse…depending on whether or not you’re a Christian who loves our Lord’s Church. There’s “ex”-Emergent–maybe I am, or maybe I’m not– Mark Driscoll [6] who’s slated among the stellar “special guests” as well.



The Ecumenical Church Of Deceit Grows A Little Closer

And in addition there happens to be one other rather interesting, “Ministerial and business visionary, entrepreneurial trailblazer, altruistic philanthropist, and spiritual shepherd to millions around the globe” who is going to be on that same platform. At C3 2007 we also see a certain Word Faith Oneness Pentecostal heretic by the name of “Bishop” T.D. Jakes. [7] That’s right. Dr. Ed Young, twice president of the SBC is currently billed right below a man who actually denies the very nature of the God he says he serves.



So now what do you think about that? As I showed in my article Faith Forward Straight Into the Worship of Man the lines are rapidly blurring in the Ecumenical Church of Deceit. And in this case we have T.D. Jakes who denies the Holy Trinity accepted as a brother in Christ by a former two time president of the SBC. Y’know just maybe Steve Camp is onto something with his Reclaiming a Reverence for God in Ministry – a clarion call for reformation when he says:



It is no secret, the current state of evangelicalism moving away from biblical truth is eroding dramatically almost monthly with no corrective in sight. There needs to be a clarion call for action in evangelicalism today that I am now reoffering The 107 THESES as one such call.



No one today, and I mean no one of any evangelical note of leadership, is willing to risk their current book deals, contracts, public standing in the marketplace, or radio positioning to confront the theological/biblical corrosion of modern day evangelicalism head on. [8]



Is the SBC finally going to draw a line somewhere in all of this? But as the C3 2007 website says: “After experiencing these two days, you and your team will walk away with a new sense of what church is and should be.” Indeed you will, apparently now it’s a free for all with absolutely no spiritual backbone whatsoever. I’m certainly not Christ but this even makes me want to spew.

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

[1] 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, ESV.

[2] http://www.creativepastors.com/c32007.php, 12/29/06.

[3] http://www.creativepastors.com/c32007-speakers.php#edsr, 12/29/06.

[4] https://www.second.org/west/west_home.aspx, 12/29/06.

[5] http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/12/circus_maximus.php, 12/29/06.

[6] http://www.creativepastors.com/c32007-speakers.php#mark, 12/29/06.

[7] http://www.creativepastors.com/c32007-speakers.php#mark, 12/29/06.

[8] http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archiv ... 06/12/reclaiming_a_re.php, 12/29/06.



Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

My Turn:

I have followed the ministries of Ed Young Sr. -- and Ed Young Jr. -- for a long time. I've read about T.D. Jakes, and I teach adjunct at a predominately African-American Bible College where most hold Jakes in high regard, though he is not in their denomination.

Now, certainly, I don't agree with these men on every issue which they speak, nor every doctrine which they hold. However, after reading the article posted above, my observations aren't so much about the subjects addressed, as about the "writer" and "ministry" that addresses them.

First, WHO is Ken Silva and WHAT is Apprising Ministries?

Second, WHY does he believe God has called him "to begin exposing contemplative mysticism and the deep penetration of the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church into the Southern Baptist Convention"?

Third, just what IS "contemplative mysticism" and "the neo-liberal cult" according to Silva -- other than a club with which to publicly flog Southern Baptists and other Christians? (If they ARE Christians of course -- which Silva concludes they are not...)

Fourth, why does he have a problem with Ed Young Sr. pastoring a MegaChurch? I mean, why is the MegaChurch "evil," as he claims? Is it wrong for the Church to provide entertainment and recreation for its members -- or is that a sin too? And would Silva feel better if 2nd Baptist Church Houston only ran 200 or so? WOuld he feel better if HE pastored 2nd Baptist? WOuld the numbers be alright then? Would he have condemned the Jerusalem Church in 30 AD for being a MegaChurch too? After all, they had a membership of over 3,000 in their FIRST DAY! And within a few years, they'd added at least 5,000 more men, not counting women and children! (those Apostles...they should have read Silva's newsletter).

But my final observation is the one that bothers me the most. Among Fundamentalists and some Conservative Evangelicals, it is better to separate than to unify. It is better to condemn than to commend. It is better to trash people than to talk to them. Silva, apparently, fits into this category.

Responsible Disciples seek a Biblical balance that brings about TRUE UNITY. This unity allows us to "speak the truth in love." It does NOT bring about uniformity. It brings FREEDOM, not fear. Dr. Robertson McQuilkin rightly says, "It is easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of Biblical tension." Silva has found the ditch. Hopefully most of us won't blindly follow him there.

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.

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.

JDale

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."

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.

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.....

WHAT A NATION OF PUSSIES!!!!

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.. "

Aaron.

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.

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.

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.

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...?