Theophilus' Journal

The End has Come

2011-08-19T12:24:00.001-07:00

I have nothing more to say.

What's Missing from the London Riots?

2011-08-10T21:37:00.001-07:00

Dead rioters.

Mark of The Beast

2011-08-10T21:32:00.000-07:00

It is seldom the case that people are aware of the historical significance of the times in which they are living; the founding fathers apparently realized that they were living during a time that was truly history making, but this was exceptional. Most people believe that they live in “ordinary” times and, if there are difficulties, they will pass and things will get back to normal.

I believe that we are witnessing nothing less than the end of Western Civilization as we have known it. The economic and social turmoil in the US and Western Europe can be interpreted as nothing less. “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

The collapse is not, as most Christian pundits would have it, because of the rise of homosexuality, or abortion; these are symptoms of the collapse not the cause. The collapse is the result of nothing less than the abandonment, by Christians, of a distinctly Christian worldview. Christians have, by and large, pursued the same goals of personal peace and prosperity as the general culture. Christians have sought prosperity as a goal rather than recognizing it as a by-product of “seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”

Think I’m exaggerating? Then why do most “born-again Christians” continue to send their children to state controlled schools where they are indoctrinated with anti-Christ values? There is only one reason; because removing their children would disrupt their personal ease and require the abandonment of a lifestyle that requires “double incomes” to satisfy worldly lusts.

What can be done? Nothing, if the goal is to “save” America. We have no mandate to save America. Our only mandate is to glorify Jesus Christ and acknowledge his lordship over every area of life – not society’s life, but OUR life. The only safety for Christians is true holiness - the separation of heart, soul and, in some cases body, from worldly ambitions.

II Chronicles 7:14 is often cited at political rallies as the means of “saving America,” but this promise is clearly and exclusively directed to the people of God, Israel. Its demands are clear: “repent, turn from their evil ways, humble them-selves and pray.” That is the prescription for the saving of “my people.” Its scope is corporate, as well as individual.

There is no way to know what our culture will look like after a total collapse. I do not look forward to it.

p.s. If you think the title is misleading, consider whether you would have read a post titled "The End of Western Civilization."

More Space Waste

2011-07-28T20:22:00.000-07:00

“Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.^[“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program

In case anyone missed that, let me repeat; the Space Shuttle program cost “$1.5 BILLION per launch over the life of the program.”

That’s right! Every time we watched the Space Shuttle launch, we were watching $1.5 Billion of our hard-earned tax funds literally going up in flames. Sure, this seems like chicken-feed in the total scheme of federal spending, but that’s the problem. The federal government is spending OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Those who are supposed to be representing our interests view tax revenues as their personal piggy bank to fund their pet projects.

The fact is that neither our elected representatives nor we can comprehend these kinds of figures and so, we have blithely sat by and watched as our wealth has been squandered. Attempts to translate such into something more meaningful are seldom helpful. It should be enough to understand that such expenditures for programs which offer no tangible benefits to citizens who cannot participate in or understand what they are paying for are inappropriate.

I should also observe that virtually all government funded space exploration is based on an evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of the Universe and our place in it.

Another $100 Billion Down the Drain

2011-07-28T20:15:00.000-07:00

Russians will dump Space Station in 2020

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/international-space-station-2020_n_911361.html

It’s time to end taxpayer funding for what is nothing more than an expensive hobby. Space travel, by its very nature, has been and will continue to be limited to those with a lot of money. Up ‘til now, the US taxpayer, who will never travel into space, have been footing the bill for a relatively few people to pursue their Buck Rogers fantasy.

People wonder how we got into this debt crisis. It was easy; $100 Billion here and $100 Billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Dems Embrace Future Debt

2011-07-01T13:36:00.000-07:00

If we needed any proof that the Democrats have no intention of dealing with the federal debt, here it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/chuck-schumer-14th-amendment_n_888692.html

Not only do they plan to cooperate with the President in doing an end-run around Congress (they are always so concerned that the Constitution be followed), they are planning for more debt.

"Schumer said that the next time the debt ceiling needs to be raised, the 14th Amendment option would get a close look. "It's something worth looking at for the next time around, but I don't think it's had enough fermentation -- examination, to employ at this time.""

"Next time around?" That means more debt.

Can You Say "Post Hoc?"

2011-06-27T14:53:00.000-07:00

Advocates of reduced government spending will commit a serious effort if they fall for the trap of arguing directly with this report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/state-funding-cuts_n_885438.html

Instead, they should point out that the report's major premise commits an elementary logical fallacy, the post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy. In English this means "after this, therefore because of this."

"After I broke my leg, I could not play the violin; therefore, I could not play the violin because I broke my leg."

Unfortunately, neither politicians nor the public care much about logic.

NATO to Libyan civilians: Sorry, sort of

2011-06-21T13:34:00.000-07:00

You can add another example of post-modern debasement of language (same-sex marriage, air-strikes don't qualify as hostilities, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it).

NATO originally denied bombing civilian targets in Libya, but subsequently (a la Anthony Weiner) admitted it and issued an apology.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57335.html

Reading between the lines, the apology means "in our mission to protect the civilian population of Libya, it is unavoidable that we will occasionally kill civilians, and that's a risk we are willing to take."

Proving proof

2011-06-19T13:02:00.000-07:00

In order to "prove" Christianity by:

Science

History

Archaeology

Philosophy

Etc

On must first "prove:"

Science

History

Archaeology

Philosophy

Etc.

The Tragedy of Anthony Weiner

2011-06-17T13:15:00.001-07:00

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of this entire episode is the failure of both Weiner and the public to learn anything.

Weiner’s downfall, indeed the downfall of numerous people in public life demonstrates the truth of the proverb, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Watching his tirades in Congress shows a consistently arrogant, self-righteous man. This is not to single him out for criticism; pride is a common fault of human nature – many of us struggle with it on a regular basis.

However, his original denial, subsequent confession and resignation indicate that he has learned nothing from the incident. There is no humility, no apparent contrition, and no remorse except for being caught.

The language of his resignation confirms this; “I am announcing my resignation…” One does not “announce” a resignation necessitated by moral failure; one issues a statement. Citing his efforts to represent those “without a voice,” and vowing to continue his efforts by other means is not the expression of true shame and remorse. These are the words of a proud, defiant person still trying to exalt himself.

Public apologies are only appropriate for public transgressions. His repeated public apologies to his wife, as part of his confession and this announcement, are inappropriate and only show his insensitivity to her humiliation.

What the public will fail to learn by portraying this as a political issue is that such moral failings are not “mistakes,” but sin against God. Again, Weiner is not alone in this reality. When David acknowledged his sin with Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband, his failure was not defined by his public actions, but by his rebellion against God’s law: “Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned.” Ps 51. He recognized that his sin could not be atoned for by religious observance, or “public” displays but only by a changed heart.

So it is with Anthony Weiner, and so it is with all of us.

The "Christian-right" should not be silent on this, nor should it try to make political capital. It should identify the true issues, i.e. sin and repentance, and remind everyone, Christian and non-Christian, that we all “fall short of the glory of God” in both word and deed. That Jesus Christ is the only “treatment” for our condition and that a regenerate mind is the only way to change a sinful heart.

Harry Reid Identity Confirmed

2011-05-04T16:11:00.000-07:00

Reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fell and was injured have raised a number of questions sending administration officials scurrying to do damage control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/harry-reid-dislocates-shoulder_n_857414.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec3_lnk3|60438

Reid’s identity was confirmed using both DNA and facial recognition by seals which happened to be in the area after escaping from Sea World.

Photos of the injured Reid were taken, but the White House has announced they will not be released due to the fact that Reid’s appearance is even more gruesome than usual.

Attempts to have Reid buried at sea were frustrated when he refused to walk the plank on the presidential yacht anchored in the Potomac.

President O’Bama announced that Reid was armed and attempted to use his wife to break his fall.

Clarification. The White House announced that Reid was NOT armed but HARMED at the time of the fall and that his wife actually pushed him down; a simple mistake in reporting.

Further, the president retracted his earlier statement that Reid was “drunk as a skunk” when he fell down the steps at Pomeroy’s Wine Bar. The president said he was referring to a game of "horse" the two had played earlier in the day and that Reid's "dunk really stunk."

More details will be available as they get their story straight.

Arizona's Law

2010-07-06T15:54:00.001-07:00

This should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes the obvious is not so obvious.

We are a nation of States - the United States of America.

It is impossible for anyone to immigrate to the United States, legally or illegally, without immigrating to one of the states, i.e. one must be IN one of the states to be IN the United States.

The Constitution gives presumptive authority to the federal government to regulate immigration, but it does not give the federal government authority to regulate immigration in such a way that a particular state is harmed or benefited by such regulation, e.g. all immigrants with college degrees must live in Utah while all high school drop-outs must reside in Nevada.

Since the federal government has defaulted on it's responsbiility to control the southern border so that the states adjacent to that border receive the bulk of illegal immigrants, and bear the financial and crimminal burden of such unregulated immigration, the federal government is operating, de facto, to the harm of those states.

It is therefore, legitimate for the states suffering such harm to take action to relieve themselves from the burden incurred as a direct result of the federal government's failure to enforce federal laws. This does not give them authority to enact new immigration laws, but it does give them authority to enforce existing federal laws.

One would certainly not argue that if the federal government failed to repel an actual armed invasion by a foreign nation that the state/s suffering from such an invasion would be prohibited from acting to protect themselves (their citizen's lives and property) and repel the invastion.

2010-04-05T13:06:00.001-07:00

You say Potato and I say Happy-fruit

The debasement of language as a prerequisite to cultural and moral decline

It started in the Garden when the serpent told Eve that God didn’t really mean what he said about eating the forbidden fruit. It has continued throughout human history when sinful men desired to throw off the shackles of restraint and justify their conduct. In order for previously condemned conduct to become legitimate, the terminology must first be changed.

No despot in his right mind would describe his conduct in ordinary language. From Lenin to Mao, murder, theft and oppression have always been portrayed as being necessary for the greater good. So, conquest is redefined as “liberation;” unprovoked assault is justified as “pre-emptive” self-defense.

Advocates of cultural reconstruction also find it necessary to alter the common vocabulary in order to justify their plans. Thus, every kind of inappropriate behavior is defined as “disease,” or “addiction.” A married man who commits adultery at every opportunity is said to have a sexual addiction. Fornication is reduced to “pre-marital sex;” un-wed mothers (already a compromised term) are re-categorized as “single-parents,” an innocuous term that includes widows and unmarried adoptive parents.

A major victory for cultural and moral relativism occurred when advocates of homosexual behavior succeeded in re-branding their conduct; sodomites became “gays.” Such conduct was no longer viewed as an offense against nature and God, it was merely a lifestyle choice or, more significantly, a genetic predisposition. After all, who could object to a lifestyle described as “gay.”

The final assault in the homosexual offensive is the inclusion of sodomite and lesbian relationships under the umbrella of “marriage.” The key to their ultimate victory, as in the previous assault, rests in a redefinition of terms – a perversion of language.

To speak of “same-sex marriage” is to speak nonsense unless the plain, historic meaning of marriage is first destroyed. Aided by their willing accomplices in the main-stream media, homosexuals have been largely successful in this effort. When Rosie O'Donnell came to San Francisco to marry her "partner," she introduced her new spouse as her "wife" (Rosie and Keli have since divorced and Rosie has announced plans to move-in with a new "girl friend"). Does that mean that Rosie is the husband, or that a sodomite couple is composed of two "husbands?"

Various efforts to affirm the historic, linguistic and legal definition of marriage, such as California’s Proposition 8, are changed into “anti” same-sex marriage statutes and thus, inherently immoral. In the campaign for Proposition 8, opponents actually described the law as “wrong.” Advocates were just mean-spirited, selfish reactionaries who wanted to deny homosexuals the same "right" to marry that straights have.

Of course, it does not matter how much language is redefined, sodomites and lesbians cannot marry (except as Michael Medved points out, sodomites can marry lesbians). It will simply mean the further destruction of our culture where words can mean anything and, therefore, nothing.

Not my father's bible hero.

2010-01-20T12:11:00.000-08:00

I don’t know what movie Drew Zahn (World Net Daily) saw, but it wasn’t the same one I saw last night. Eli is not a bible hero – he is a man on a mission which happens to involve delivering a book to an unknown destination. The story has more to do with Waterworld than a biblical epic.

I don’t recall the word “bible” being used at all – it was always “the book.” It could have been any book – this is confirmed at the end of the movie when “the book” is placed on a shelf with other “books” including the Koran.

There is no real scripture in this movie. There is no grace, no atonement, and salvation is the generic kind of doing more good than bad. It is humanism that is preached, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is prayer, but it is prayer to an unidentified deity, not offered in Jesus’ name. The book is never actually read, although Eli says he reads it and there are a couple of scenes where he has the book open. He quotes a couple of Old Testament verses, and paraphrases Jesus’ words in the Golden Rule.

The “faith” that is portrayed is faith for the sake of faith. When his young female companion asks him why he believes that he will succeed in his mission to deliver the book (after they have killed and mutilated a dozen or so bad guys), he says something like “sometimes you just have to believe.” This is the gospel of Quai Chang Cane, not the apostle Paul. Like all stories of this genre, the moralizing is tolerated for the moments when the hero kicks the snot out of the bad guys.

At the end of the movie, Eli’s chick disciple heads back home, armed with his shot-gun and killing knife, apparently to continue his "kill or convert" evangelism. It is unclear whether or not she has a bible – she certainly doesn’t have “the book.”

So, viewers will be disappointed if they’re expecting any serious bible theology, certainly no Christian theology. It is an interesting movie. The cinematography and special effects are noteworthy. The film is not black-and-white, but neither is it normal color. It is almost sepia, which adds to the bleak, barren environment.

The message of the movie is not, as Zahn proclaims, about the victory of the word of God, it is the victory of mankind to remake itself, even after a world changing calamity.

Wise as serpants, harmless as doves.

2009-08-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

I do not like popular political labels; they are neither meaningful nor useful.

Most "conservatives" (even so-called 'Christian conservatives') are merely light liberals, i.e. they do not reject basic statist principles, just their application.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not really liberal at all, i.e. advocates of liberty. They are statists; they believe in advancing their vision of society by an ever increasing use of coercive government power.

So, conservatives (at least the social brand) oppose the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, not because it was a usurpation of power by the federal court, but because of the nature of the decision, i.e. abortion is a right. They work for and hope for a reversal of the decision, but do not fundamentally object to the mechanism by which the decision was made.

In fact, Catholic pro-lifers must acknowledge that their church's official political views are decidedly statist, e.g. endorses redistribution of wealth by government coercion.

Conservatives, those who understand that liberty is indivisible, must acknowledge that a reversal of Roe v. Wade which does not repudiate the jurisprudential activism under which the decision was made will be just as illegitimate as the original ruling.

Our First Post-modern President, or Why Obama Can't Lie.

2009-07-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

Because Christians and Christian institutions, both ecclesiastical and academic, largely abandoned intellect for emotion in the 20th century, and embraced a social/political view of salvation, Christians in the 21st century are unprepared to understand and articulate a meaningful response to the world-view which dominates post-modern culture and politics.

Christians cannot engage in meaningful dialog with or provide a distinctly biblical counterpoint to the standards upon which modern society is founded and by which it operates. Lacking an understanding of the inherent and inescapable antithesis that exists between biblical truth and all other systems, Christians seek common ground with unbelievers upon which all may operate.

Because this is a cultural and not just a personal condition, Christian political action based on "reclaiming the culture" by placing the right people in key positions of power and influence is pointless and bound to fail, especially and specifically when "the right" people are viewed as those who hold specific views on hot political issues, e.g. abortion, while denying a comprehensive, integrated Christian worldview that applies biblical law to all issues. So, the right person can oppose abortion while supporting economic justice/theft through oppressive taxation. The right person can support political intrigue because he opposes euthanasia. So, Christian leaders refrain from speaking against an unjust war because their president supports Israel.

This post-modern dilemma is, perhaps, nowhere more clearly drawn than in matters of political speech and nowhere more clearly illustrated than in our current president.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the embodiment of the radical socialist ideas of the sixties, where lying was justified in order to advance social/political/economic justice, Barack Hussein Obama is the incarnation of the post-modern idea that truth statements, as matters of fact are meaningless.

When the post-modern man makes statements that are in direct opposition to a state of affairs, he is not lying; he is speaking the truth. Truth is not measured by reference to some external standard, but is defined by whatever the speaker means at that moment - the truth does not correspond to a fact or set of facts; it is an existential experience. To argue for “original intent” or “limited government” is pointless when such terms, do not and cannot have specific content in a post-modern world.

So, when he says that he did not hear the incendiary, racists remarks made by his pastor during the 20 years he attended the church, he is not lying (or obfuscating) because his statement does not point to any situation that existed in the past, but to the truth that he is creating now by his act of speaking. When engaging in actions that are manifestly contrary to his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," he is not thereby violating his oath - his oath is validated by the truth that his words create.

For Obama, as for all post-modern men (read all unregenerate), there can be no lying because there is no objective reference point for truth. Lying implies intent to deceive by deviating from what is known to be true. Where truth is not known (cannot be known) there can be no intent and, therefore, no lying.

Christians do not understand this because they do not believe that the bible, God's revealed word, is the only source of truth. They believe that truth can be abstracted from experience; that someone can know and speak the truth in certain areas while denying the One who claimed to be truth.

Obama, for all his public professions, is not a Christian. Not because he does not oppose abortion, but because he, like all infidels since Eve, believes that he, not Christ, is "the way, the truth and the life." Obama, like all unbelievers affirms that he, not Christ, is the Messiah. In that he, like all unbelievers, is the anti-Christ.

Obama does not believe in racial justice; he does not believe in helping the poor; he does not believe in universal healthcare. Obama, like all post-modern man believes only in one thing - himself. When he speaks, he speaks the truth because he speaks of himself.

Until and unless Christians understand this reality and adjust their thoughts, words and actions to it, they will continue to be ineffectual and unfaithful witnesses to their Lord and, therefore, fail to change their culture.

Bush makes pledge to "the people of Mexico."

2007-03-19T14:51:00.000-07:00

The following is a portion of President Bush's comments during the welcoming ceremony upon his arrival in Mexico. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-1.html

"The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

There are several points that require comment (as far as I know there has been no response by Conservatives):

1. "The United States respects the rule of law. But ..." Apparently, the rule of law is okay so long as it doesn't get in the way of doing something illegal, e.g. entering the United States illegally, or failing to enforce existing immigration "laws." Why does the president even mention "the rule of law" unless he is acknowledging that US Immigration laws are being violated by people from Mexico.

2. "in the debate on migration..." There is no "debate on migration," there is only failure by the "people" of Mexico to respect the sovreign borders of its neighbor and the unwillingness of the government of the United States to protect and defend its borders against illegal crossing and to deal with those who cross illegally.

3. "I remind my fellow citizens..." This is both irrelevant and insulting. The president is in a foreign country lecturing us on the virtues of people who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders. I'm sure that pedophiles have many endearing qualities. THAT'S NOT THE POINT, Mr. President.

4. "my pledge to ... the people of Mexico." The President of The United States is not responsible for or to the people of Mexico. He is not responsible for their welfare, their prosperity, or enabling them to fulfill their dreams of living in the United States. He is responsible to his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," this means enforcing its laws.

There are no ifs, ands or "buts" about it, Mr. President.

On State Interference

2007-03-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

(This is the final paragraph from an essay by William G. Sumner (I have divided it for easier reading).

"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.

Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?

I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.

The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.

For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.

I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.

The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interference? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for whenever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."

State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.

Yes, Virginia, someone DID oppose the war ON Iraq

2007-03-05T21:26:00.000-08:00

In researching who else might have opposed the war on Iraq, I was surprised to see that Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the following prescient observations in his speech opposing the Senate's Use of Force Resolution.

Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.

There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.

There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.

The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.

In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.

The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.

Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.

This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.

To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.

So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.

Hugh Hewitt says I can't oppose Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon

2007-03-05T21:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/02/17/a_mormon_in_the_white_house

Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.

Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).

Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.

Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.

Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).

So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.

Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.

State of the Union

2007-01-24T14:06:00.000-08:00

Anyone who is a true friend of liberty must be disturbed by the substance of the president's address last night. Most of his comments reflect an assent to Socialism in virtually every area of our political life.

While he would describe himself as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, his words prove that his interpretation of the powers and duties of the federal government are just as "dynamic" as the most ardent liberal.

"Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. "

Notice, not guided by the Constitution, but by "our own convictions." We must each "stay faithful" not to the Constitution, but to these convictions. This means that the Muslim, intent on the reconstruction of America according to Shira law must stay faithful to his convictions. It also means that pro-abortionists must stay faithful to their convictions.

Of course, the Constitution provides no warrant for "extending the nation's prosperity" as a function of government, except that government should not interfer with or restrict the liberty of individuals and groups to engage in commerce. The idea that the government should determine the direction of economic activity is Marxist, not American. The Soviet Union followed this modle of "command economy" with disastrous results. Such policies result in shortages, inferior products and political bondage.

To "guard America against all evil," is at once presumptuous and blasphemous and displays, once again, that whatever brand of Christianity the president may subscribe to, it is not grounded in biblical theology. Only the gospel can "deliver" men from evil.

"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight."

In order for the government to "make life better," it must first determine what a "better life" looks like. This makes priests of government officials. Those "Americans" who have a different idea about what makes life "better" must, of course, be dealt with. This is not merely political rhetoric, it is a declaration of war on personal freedom and responsibility.

There is too much in the address to deal with extensively. However, it would be instructive to know how all those who were so recently alarmed over attempts to restrict their "freedom of expression," will use their freedom to respond to this address.

Will Dr. Dobson take the president to task for taking such liberties with the Constitution? Will other "pro family" groups recognize that there are no "parental rights" in a government that assumes powers to itself as it sees fit?

President Lincoln correctly observed that no foreign power could ever defeat our freedom, but that domestic enemies are always at work to destroy liberty.

The real threat to our liberty is not Al Queda, Iran or any other foreign power. The real threat to our liberty is those who seek to "make life better," and they are seated in the offices of our Executive, Legislative and Judicial institutions.

What is this bleating of sheep?

2007-01-19T18:22:00.000-08:00

Victory for Grassroots Lobbying--Bennett Amendment Passes Senate

E-mail January 19, 2007 from >From the HSLDA E-lert Service...

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,

Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Bennett amendment by a vote of 55-43. American citizens will remain free to organize and contact their congressional representatives without being forced to comply with federal regulation and oversight.

The Bennett amendment removed section 220, the grassroots lobbying provision, from S. 1. Section 220 would have redefined lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Entities that engaged in grassroots lobbying would have had to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress, or face serious consequences.

The Bennett amendment would not have passed without the calls and support of you and millions of other concerned citizens. The senators who supported the amendment were very thankful for your calls and credited them with this victory. (Edited by Theophilus)

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

There is nothing to celebrate here.

Once again, Christians have demonstrated that they can be led like sheep based on misrepresentation of fact (remember Teri Schaivo?). How many bothered to read SB 1 to see if they were being told the truth (remember the Bereans?)

The only "victory" here is for groups whose existence depends on them being able to raise large sums of money through the exploitation of crises.

Actual language from the dreaded Section 220:
"`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'."

So, is HSLDA acknowledging that it is a "lobbying firm?" How about FoF and AFA? If so, who is the "client" by whom they have been "retained" and how much are they being "paid" to influence the "general public?"

Isaiah Chapter 59
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

Much ado about nothing?

2007-01-18T12:00:00.000-08:00

Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and HSLDA have all sent alerts to their constituents alleging that Section 220 of SB1 is intended to eliminate grassroots lobbying. While it is unquestionably important for us to protect our right to petition our elected representatives, it is equally important that we be correctly informed about the issues involved.

I have read Section 220 and can find no danger to the kind of activities in which these groups normally engage, e.g., sending alerts to their members. In fact, sub-section (18)(a) would seem to exclude such groups.

Please notice the use of terms like "paid" and "client." These do not seem to apply to FoF, AFA or HSLDA.

I would be glad for the impartial assessment of any qualified analist in clarifying this matter.

An Open Letter to Pat Robertson

2007-01-04T13:00:00.001-08:00

SHUT UP!

Swearing on the Koran

2007-01-04T11:42:00.000-08:00

There is a good deal of controvery over the fact that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress, has announced his intention to take the Oath of Office with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible.

Three points should be observed:
1. The Constitution does not require that ANY book be employed, simply that officials take an oath, the text of which is established by statute. The actual "swearing-in" is done in a group setting; the individual oath-taking is merely ceremonial and has no legal significance.

2. The value of the oath sworn by any particular official is only as meaningful as the underlying value system to which he holds, i.e., if he doesn't mean to keep his word, it doesn't matter whether he holds a Bible, Koran or the Reader's Digest. In the case of Rep. Ellison, it is a question of his personal integrity as well as the degree to which, as a Muslim, he is bound to keep his word to what he must consider an "infidel" society.

3. Rep. Ellison's claims that it is his right to use whatever book he chooses because the US is a nation of religious tolerance. It is legitimate to ask whether the Koran, as a system of belief and law, could create and sustain such a culture of liberty.

Perhaps Rep. Ellison could point out where such a Muslim based culture of liberty currently exists or has ever existed.