Mygration

The Whole Duty of Man

2012-02-04T02:20:00.002-05:00

Ecclesiastes 12

¹Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

²While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:

³In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,

⁴And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

⁵Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

⁶Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

⁷Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

⁸Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

⁹And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.

¹⁰The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

¹¹The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

¹²And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

¹³Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

¹⁴For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

The Value of Diligence

2012-02-02T13:35:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 11

¹Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

²Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.

³If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.

⁴He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.

⁵As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

⁶In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.

⁷Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:

⁸But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity.

⁹Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.

¹⁰Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity.

More Treasure Mined from the Vanity of Life

2012-01-29T21:53:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 10

¹Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

²A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

³Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

⁴If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.

⁵There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:

⁶Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.

⁷I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

⁸He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.

⁹Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby.

¹⁰If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.

¹¹Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.

¹²The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.

¹³The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.

¹⁴A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

¹⁵The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city.

¹⁶Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!

¹⁷Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

¹⁸By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.

¹⁹A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.

²⁰Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.

Death and Depravity in a world of Vanity

2012-01-27T02:44:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 9

¹For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.

²All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.

³This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

⁴For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

⁵For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

⁶Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

⁷Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

⁸Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

⁹Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

¹⁰Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

¹¹I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

¹²For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

¹³This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:

¹⁴There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:

¹⁵Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

¹⁶Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

¹⁷The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

¹⁸Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.

Enduring the Vanities of Men and Life

2012-01-24T23:24:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 8

¹Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.

²I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.

³Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him.

⁴Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

⁵Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment.

⁶Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him.

⁷For he knoweth not that which shall be: for who can tell him when it shall be?

⁸There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.

⁹All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt.

¹⁰And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.

¹¹Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

¹²Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:

¹³But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.

¹⁴There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity.

¹⁵Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.

¹⁶When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)

¹⁷Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Proverbs for a Vain World

2012-01-22T20:09:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 7

¹A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

²It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

³Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.

⁴The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

⁵It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

⁶For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.

⁷Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the heart.

⁸Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

⁹Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.

¹⁰Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

¹¹Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun.

¹²For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.

¹³Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

¹⁴In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.

¹⁵All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.

¹⁶Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?

¹⁷Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

¹⁸It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.

¹⁹Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.

²⁰For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

²¹Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee:

²²For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others.

²³All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.

²⁴That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?

²⁵I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

²⁶And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

²⁷Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:

²⁸Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

²⁹Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The Value of Longevity, Labor and Children

2012-01-21T19:27:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 6

¹There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:

²A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.

³If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

⁴For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.

⁵Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.

⁶Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

⁷All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.

⁸For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?

⁹Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.

¹⁰That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.

¹¹Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better?

¹²For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?

The Vanity of Riches for the Sake of Riches

2012-01-20T18:09:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 5

¹Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.

²Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

³For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

⁴When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

⁵Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

⁶Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?

⁷For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

⁸If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.

⁹Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field.

¹⁰He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.

¹¹When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes?

¹²The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

¹³There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.

¹⁴But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand.

¹⁵As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.

¹⁶And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind?

¹⁷All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness.

¹⁸Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

¹⁹Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.

²⁰For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.

The Futility of Envy, Travail, and Oppression

2012-01-19T00:19:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 4

¹So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

²Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.

³Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

⁴Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit.

⁵The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.

⁶Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.

⁷Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.

⁸There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail.

⁹Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.

¹⁰For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

¹¹Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?

¹²And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

¹³Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.

¹⁴For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.

¹⁵I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead.

¹⁶There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

A Time to Every Purpose

2012-01-17T13:35:00.002-05:00

Ecclesiastes 3

¹To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

²A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

³A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

⁴A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

⁵A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

⁶A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

⁷A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

⁸A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

⁹What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?

¹⁰I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

¹¹He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

¹²I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

¹³And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

¹⁴I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

¹⁵That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

¹⁶And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

¹⁷I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

¹⁸I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

¹⁹For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

²⁰All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

²¹Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

²²Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

The Vanity of Possessions and Pleasures

2012-01-16T18:45:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 2

¹I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.

²I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?

³I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.

⁴I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:

⁵I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:

⁶I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:

⁷I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:

⁸I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.

⁹So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.

¹⁰And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.

¹¹Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

¹²And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for what can the man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done.

¹³Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

¹⁴The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

¹⁵Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

¹⁶For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.

¹⁷Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

¹⁸Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.

¹⁹And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.

²⁰Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.

²¹For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.

²²For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?

²³For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.

²⁴There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

²⁵For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?

²⁶For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

All is Vanity

2012-01-15T22:17:00.001-05:00

Ecclesiastes 1

¹The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

²Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

³What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

⁴One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

⁵The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

⁶The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

⁷All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

⁸All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

⁹The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

¹⁰Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

¹¹There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

¹²I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

¹³And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

¹⁴I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

¹⁵That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

¹⁶I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

¹⁷And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

¹⁸For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

MY PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA

2009-01-21T14:34:00.002-05:00

Today, January 20th, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States.

Barack Obama won an impressive electoral victory on November 4th, 2008. He put together a brilliant campaign. He is a master orator. President-elect Obama just plain “whooped” John McCain in the election, as we say down South.

There are things I actually admire about Barack Obama. He is, by all accounts, a devoted and loving family man. How can anyone look at his two daughters and his wife Michelle and not acknowledge that? And unlike the photo ops we all witnessed of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990’s, the smiles and laughs that Barack and Michelle share seem quite genuine.

I must admit I like Barack Obama’s shrewd political skills. After winning the election, he almost immediately named two of his former political opponents to fill posts in his cabinet, in addition to his Vice President, also a former rival. He effectively removed most known obstacles to his re-nomination four years from now. I think that’s shrewd, and smart.

Barack Obama also shows a particular gift for “measured answers” when being interviewed. As an orator, he almost never misses a beat. He is confident, visionary and connects easily with “the masses.” When he is being interviewed, on the other hand, and he’s confronted with a question that could make things a little sticky, he is very measured in his response. He rarely just throws out an answer. He is deliberate, he is slow, he is vague. Don’t get me wrong – that makes me incredibly nervous. As a political and ideological adversary, I find it dangerous. But I recognize it as a “gift” well suited to his aspirations.

More than any admiration I might have for the new President, however, is my deep and abiding respect for the United States Constitution. That venerable document has, since 1791, set the standard for how the “transfer of power” from one government to the next is handled. This election is no different. This transition is no different. Today, we as a nation inaugurate Barack Obama as President, just as prescribed by the Constitution. Our nation has in the past inaugurated George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and 38 others before him in just the same manner.

“We the People” have spoken. That it may be an error does not enter into the equation, not at this point. The next four years will determine that. The duty – and the privilege – of every Christian (and I hope every citizen), including me, is to pray for President Obama. I will continue to do so, just as I did for President George W. Bush in the past 8 years. I will NOT stoop to the gutter level of those Leftists who hated George W. Bush, Constitutional principles, and Conservatives in general, so much that they never prayed for, supported, liked, worked with or were willing to listen to George W. Bush. Their blind hatred is neither born of, nor will it sustain, our liberties. They do not understand the Constitution, nor the system our Founders gave us.

So, please don’t read into this that I have had an “epiphany,” or that I’ve been “converted” to Obamaism. Au Contraire! I am weary. I am weary of President Obama’s ideology. I am weary of President Obama’s opposition to the right to life, and his apparent support of various “alternative lifestyles” agendas. I dread his apparent commitment to a large, intrusive, socialist style of central government. I am deeply troubled by many of his past – and present – associations. I am fearful of his foreign policy and national security plans. I shudder at how he might “support” – or fail to support – our ally Israel. And I find his disregard for understanding the Constitution as our Founders intended chilling.

But, those are concerns for a different day. Tomorrow we will return to the process of deliberation and debate. Tomorrow we will clash in the realm of competing principles and ideals. Tomorrow, we may come to the place that resisting the political powers-that-be in favor of the Constitution is our only option. But today, Barack Obama is my President. Today, I am praying for him, and for our nation. And come what may, I will continue to do so….

JDW
1/20/2009

On Memories, Humor and Reconnections...

2008-12-24T17:56:00.003-05:00

I've been on MySpace in the past. It was Facebook, however, that got me back in contact with literally scores of old friends and acquaintances. I've noticed some interesting responses to "friend requests" from people I knew in my past -- or to messages I've sent, when I recollect events from our shared past... In most cases, the reactions are funny, in some cases, they are telling.

I'm basically an introvert. I like my life to be solitary, but I don't usually mind interaction with others as long as it's on my terms, or terms I can feel comfortable with. And, I am generally pretty amiable and light in my attitude and interaction with others. Sometimes, people just don't like that attitude though. And even when you're 25 years removed from that person and that memory, how they react to your recounting of an event tells you alot about that person.

Some of my good friends, even after all these years, will laugh with me as I recount some foolishness we got into, or some circumstance where we were caught between the proverbial hard place. Others will totally deny anything like that ever happened. Still others -- even after 25 years -- will get defensive and angry, even if it's over nothing.

Looking back, and having known these people before, I should have realized where they were coming from -- and I should have been able to predict what they would think and how they respond before I ever sent them the message or responded to their requests.

So, a rule of thumb for Facebook or other similar networks: If someone "recommends" an old friend they think you might know, consider and then reconsider whether this is a person you wish to reconnect with. If you will ONLY have that one "mutual friend," how close were they to you in the past REALLY? Did they run in your circles, or were they from a whole different clique? What were they like then?

I've found that leopard's very rarely change their spots. Can they? To be sure. But DO THEY? Not usually. If someone in High School or College came across as a bit aloof, if when they acknowledged you it was as though they were doing you a favor, or it was a matter of necessity -- don't bet on that attitude having changed. The odds are long.

That happened to me the other day. Made me think. Looking back, I laughed at the things I mentioned to this person. This person didn't laugh. "No recollection of that," said they. It angered them that I would remember such things, much less bring them up as humorous. Then, it hit me -- they weren't laughing back then either. Not at themselves, and not with me.

Some people didn't want to be your friends in the past. What makes you think they would want to be now, on an internet site, where the whole world can see? Since this little reminder, when someone sends me a "Thought you might know..." link on Facebook, I usually do a double take on who's being recommended as a friend. Some, I've just ignored. They didn't want to be my friend in 1987, or 1982, or 1998, or 2002. An internet site designed to reconnect "friends" won't make them anymore "friendly."

It's a valuable lesson in reality. It's a vaulable lesson in human nature. It's a valuable lesson in internet etiquette. If they weren't your friend before, don't expect them to be your friend now. It's a fools thought.

Blessings,

JDW

The Coming Republican Suicide

2008-11-20T22:14:00.002-05:00

Heresies and Other Truths
by Kathleen Parker

WASHINGTON -- As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it. But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. ... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.

Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.

But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.
***************

I think Kathleen Parker should keep it up. No, really! Cal Thomas too! David Brooks, all those "Conservative intelligensia" that write so eloquently from within the Beltway -- or at least from wannabes who wish they rated that.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan united the "old gaurd" Conservatives previously represented by William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater in his younger years, and the newly emergent "Moral Majority" -- predominantly Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, and not a few blue collar Catholics -- who brought concerns for social issues such as abortion, the homosexual agenda, prayer in schools, and so forth. The "old gaurd" generally were blue bloods and traditional Republican types -- anti-communist, pro free trade, leaning toward libertarianism on some social issues. The Moral Majority was also anti-communist, pro-American, but were mostly blue collar suburbanites who wanted to see God represented again in a Government that had happily left Him out of the process for decades.

The formula was a winner for Ronald Reagan. Since Ronald Reagan, the angst and internal conflict between the "old guard" and the "moral majority" have steadily increased. With the exception of 1994, when Republicans recaptured the Legislative branch for the first time in 40 years as the foils of Bill Clinton, the emergence of the modern Conservative Movement has been slowly regressing.

The regression from victory to exile in the American political wilderness has come about for several reasons. Among the most important are the changing threats faced by the United States, the relentless campaign in popular entertainment and the mainstream media to advance secularism and to marginalize (or demonize) religion in general and Christianity in particular, and the seething hatred of many of the blue-bloods among Republicans for the poor, stupid bumpkins and Bible-thumpers they wish they'd never allied themselves with to win elections. Add to that a more than generous portion of Evangelical self-loathers who wish to return their faith the the quiet days following the Scopes Monkey Trial (to the joy of the blue-blooders) and you have the circumstances Conservatives find themselves in today. Defeat. Retreat.

When Ronald Reagan built his Conservative Coalition, The Communist threat posed by the Soviet Union was at its greatest apex in three decades, having captured several nations in Central and South America, Africa and Asia in just the previous four years. The Reds were encroaching upon our territory, too close to out borders, threatening our friends and interests. This motivated both the blue bloods interested in advancing business and economic interests, and those concerned with advancing the Christian faith in other areas of the world.

Now, consider popular media. Remember when an episode of Welcome Back Kotter was almost banned in the 70’s – and warnings were broadcast at each commercial break – due to “mature content?” The content? A girl in Kotter’s class claimed that one of the “Sweathogs” got her pregnant. Turns out, no one did anything with anyone in the storyline. Remember when NYPD Blue debuted in the 1990’s? The vulgar language and bare backsides were roundly condemned by cultural critics, but the series remained on for years, opening the way for even more questionable and troubling programming on the major networks, not to mention cable or premium channels. And, how are Christians generally portrayed on popular media today? They are buffoons. They are hypocrites. They are crooks. They are thieves. They are deviants or deceivers. They are the objects of comedy and ridicule, even by cartoon characters like The Simpsons and SouthPark.

It goes without saying – and no one can legitimately nor credibly challenge the fact – that the mainstream media, is not “objective,” is very liberal and supports their agenda and the candidates who champion that agenda. Don’t waste your time denying the facts. It’s been going on for decades, they can just come out a little more about it now, because their views are on the cusp of absolute victory. I mean, it is common knowledge among the “media elite” that supporters of such ministries as The 700 Club “are poor, uneducated, and easily lead.” No bias there.

And lately, the fault lines that run through the former Reagan Coalition are evident. Losing a big election tends to highlight such fissures. Faceless McCain aids immediately blame Sarah Palin for the election loss to Obama/Biden. “Conservative intelligentsia,” in an apparent effort to “triangulate” their views so that they are acceptable in the new political atmosphere, have blamed Conservative candidates (WHO, beside Sarah Palin?), Christians as a Conservative constituency, and now, G-O-D Himself. Oh for [He who shall not be named] sake!

This election cycle, the Blue-bloods actually got what they wanted. John McCain, the ticket topper, was one of their own. He ran a campaign built on his tradition of “reaching across the aisle.” His advisors at least did their best to run to the middle, to hide the “ugly duckling” Christian Conservatives unless and until McCain needed their vote. They obviously deplored the choice of Governor Sarah Palin – she of Christian faith, she who proved that abortion isn’t the answer to children with disabilities, she who was not educated in an Ivy League school, she who was from WAY outside the Beltway. No wonder they hated her. No wonder they hate her supporters.

What was the result of the great “middle way?” Republicans got trounced. They are in the worst shape they’ve been in since 1976. Standing for nothing gets you nowhere – fast. Trying to walk the “middle of the road” gets you run over – dead. And where were these so called “moderate Republicans” who’ve been screaming for a “reach across the aisle” candidate? William Weld supported Barack Obama. Chuck Hagel supported Barack Obama. Even someone from the fine stock of William F. Buckley – his son Christopher – supported Barack Obama. “If he goes all wacky socialist on me I’ll be disappointed,” said he. The apple DOES fall far, far from the tree.

Then one has to read Christians like Cal Thomas bad mouthing Christians active in the civic and political life of the nation? One has to be told they are peddling a bastardized “politico-theology” if they speak out on issues they understand are vital to the nation? One must endure the “neo-separatists” who have decided, as did their Fundamentalist forefathers, that if one could not be of the world, why be in it? If one could not transform the world, why would they want to be salt and merely “preserve” it? Why not just be “light?” Why not just partially obey Jesus?

Enough. The blue bloods in the Republican party need to have a “come to Jesus” meeting – in more ways than one. They were trapped in a pit constructed from a permanent 40 year minority. Then Ronald Reagan brought a new day. Those new voters who emerged from the “Moral Majority” wing pushed Reagan Conservatism into the majority. Only those voters – and the principles they stand for – will return Republicans to the majority.

The real “problem” that blue blood and country club Republicans face is that they would rather join Liberals than agree to really accomplish some of the social goals that Christian citizens want to see. They were in the minority, and they liked it! When winners came in, they had more responsibility. They had to keep promises. They had to DO things. They didn’t want to.

If Republicans want to return to the majority again, they’d better RUN back to the principles of Reagan Conservatism – INCLUDING the social agenda of the people of faith that have for so long formed their base. If not, if they are content in the minority, then perhaps traitors to the Conservative cause like Kathleen Parker are right. Perhaps it’s time for a new party, and a funeral for the Republicans.

JDW
(c) 2008, All Right Reserved

The John 3:16 Conference -- Southern Baptists and the Challenge of Calvinism: A Reformation Arminian Review

2008-11-19T13:26:00.003-05:00

The Southern Baptist Convention has been perhaps the greatest means by which the Gospel has been presented to the world, at least during the history of the United States. No other Protestant denomination has achieved as much in their 163 years of existence. Thus, all Disciples of Jesus should consider important the developments that occur within the Convention. If your particular groups or movements aren’t going through what the Convention has, they either already have or likely they will.

That is why a conference held last week was, in my view, important enough to for me to attend. The “John 3:16 Conference” was held Thursday, November 6 and Friday, November 7, 2008, at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia. The purpose of “John 3:16” was to construct a theological answer to the burgeoning resurgence of Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention.

There were two reasons I personally wanted to attend “John 3:16.” First, I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church. As a member, I have a vested interest in the direction, not only of my local congregation, but also in the Convention of which it is a member. Second, I am, admittedly, a minority within the SBC. I am a “Reformation Arminian,” so a primary reason I needed to attend this Conference was as an observer. Theologically, I was quite taken with the purpose of “John 3:16.” The intent seemed to be to establish or affirm a “majoritarian” view of soteriology (the study of salvation) that served as a “middle way” between the 5-point Calvinism of the vocal minority in the SBC and in Evangelicalism broadly, and between “Arminianism,” long viewed by most Southern Baptists as on (or over) the line of heresy.

“John 3:16” became a necessity because Calvinism has made such great inroads into Southern Baptist life. When the Conservative Resurgence began in 1979, a very small minority of its constituency were members of a group called “The Founders,” or were in some way dedicated to their theological principles and goals of “restoring” Calvinism as THE Southern Baptist theology. With the ascendance of Southern Baptist Conservatism, the Calvinists within the movement were emboldened. They began to take positions in Churches, colleges and Seminaries, and they indoctrinated their parishioners in their beliefs and principles. By early in this decade, they controlled one Southern Baptist Seminary outright, have made major inroads into several others, in dozens of colleges, and perhaps thousands of churches. According to some statistics, one in every three to four “Pastors” trained by SBC schools begins their ministries as 5-point Calvinists.

The stated goals, loud voices and [frankly] obnoxious attitudes of many of these Calvinists has produced divisions, diversions and doubts among many Southern Baptists and SBC churches. Thus, the “Old Guard” leadership of the Conservative Resurgence put together the “John 3:16” Conference, to answer the challenge of Calvinism in the SBC.

Although this Conference was held at the home church of the current President of the SBC, one shouldn’t read too much into that. “John 3:16” was planned months in advance of Dr. Johnny Hunt’s election. Additionally, Dr. Hunt has made clear for a very long time his opposition to 5-point Calvinism. Dr. Hunt’s opening remarks did not address the theological issues at hand directly, but were inspirational and meaningful to me. I believe Johnny Hunt is one of the most gifted and consistent expository preachers I’ve ever heard.

The following is a list of the speakers and the topics they were assigned to address in the eight sessions of the conference:

Dr. Johnny Hunt - Opening Message
Dr. Jerry Vines – “John 3:16”
Dr. Paige Patterson – “Total Depravity”
Dr. Richard Land – “Unconditional Election”
Dr. David Allen – “Limited Atonement”
Dr. Steve Lemke – “Irresistible Grace”
Dr. Ken Keathley – “Perseverance of the Saints”
Dr. Charles Stanley – “John 3:16 to the Entire World”

I will attempt to review the comments of each of the presenters and note the highlights and weaknesses of each as I perceived them during the Conference.

After Dr. Hunt’s opening comments, Dr. Jerry Vines, the host of the Conference preached a message on the text which provided the basis of the meetings. Dr. Vines broke down John 3:16 exegetically, theologically and systematically, demonstrated through each point the major principles upon which Southern Baptists have always built their evangelistic and missionary efforts, and defended this view against many of the common attacks launched by Calvinists against common Southern Baptist views of election, atonement, and the resistibility of salvific grace.

In particular, Vines strongly emphasized the theological meaning of the Greek terms pas and pisteuo, which are usually interpreted “all” or “faith” respectively, or some derivative of these words. As always, Vines was masterful in his proclamation of Scriptural truth. In sure some fine young Calvinist (plenty of whom were present) found things to nitpick, but other than one or two small and unrelated misstatements in examples or analogies, Dr. Vines set a strong tone to the meetings.

On Thursday Evening, the third and final speaker was Dr. Paige Patterson. Dr. Patterson was one of the original two “architects” of the SBC Conservative Resurgence, and I’ve always thought of him as an excellent preacher. I was interested to see how he would approach his assignment to tackle the issue of “Total Depravity.”

Turns out, Patterson approached the subject as, a preacher. Don’t get me wrong, Patterson’s message was very good, full of relatable and practical analogies, and brought home the meaning of “Total Depravity” to his audience. Preaching, however, is necessarily imprecise at times, and does not usually lend itself to clarifying the theological issues that are at hand.

Patterson affirmed the doctrine of Total Depravity – as does every Calvinist AND every true Arminian. And his text, Romans 1:18-32 and 3:1-26, is really part and parcel of the Christian understanding of “total depravity.” He also pointed out that alluding to sinners as “Dead” (Ephesians 2:1) is only a part of the story. The use of the term “dead” does not imply that we cannot “do” anything. He uses two illustrations to make his point. The first is that of Abraham and Sarah and the conception of Isaac, as promised by God. It goes without saying that, though God’s promise was sure, Abraham and Sarah had to “cooperate.” He also uses the illustration of a sailor who is badly wounded, blind, and unable to save himself. All he can do is call out for help. In the illustration, Jesus is the rescuer who hauls him into the helicopter and saves him. Aside from the fact that helicopters weren’t used for rescue in World War II, the analogy makes sense.

What can we “do,” in terms of Salvation? The inference of course is that we as humans are able to “believe,” to exercise faith. Patterson didn’t state it plainly, word-for-word, but is that ALL we can do? And if so, can we “believe” of our own natural ability, or is it a God-enabled ability? Patterson does not directly address this matter.

There were other elements of the message that left a number of questions. For instance, the most troublesome to me and I’m sure to my Calvinist friends [or foes], is the statement that humans “are not born guilty before God. I do not think that can be demonstrated from Scripture.”

Oh? The implications of this statement are myriad, and I won’t dare to guess exactly how Patterson arrived at such a conclusion. He does not give an explanation or evidence either. Nor does he answer questions that naturally rise from such a position. What happens to infants? HOW are we “born in sin” but not born “guilty” before God?

Patterson’s address on Total Depravity was inspirational, but the questions he left open needed to be more precisely addressed. I particularly have issues with the idea of human “natural ability” to believe and the idea that humans are not “born guilty.” At this point, I’m merely reviewing what I’ve heard, as these issues will be debated more fully in the aftermath of “John 3:16.”

On Friday morning, Dr. Richard Land was the first speaker, and he addressed the topic of “Unconditional Election.” Dr. Land’s address actually does more to establish a unique Southern Baptist view of election than any I have ever heard. His title was Congruent Election: Understanding Election from an Eternal Now Perspective.

As an historian, I appreciate that Dr. Land begins his address by looking back into the history of Southern Baptists. John Leland, a Baptist preacher who was a product of the Great Awakening, is quoted, and it is his quote that sets the tone and direction of Land’s address:

"These two propositions can be tolerably well reconciled together, but the modern misfortune is, that men often spend too much time in explaining away one or the other, or in fixing the lock-link to join the others together; and by such means, have little time in a sermon to insist on those but two great things which God blesses. I do not plead for implicit faith; let each man believe, speak, and act for himself; but when it is confessed that nine tenths of the scripture is best explained without descending to those points, a man must appear contracted who spends all his time in disputing about them; and more malevolent when he finds it tends, not to promote love and union, but rather a rancorous spirit. Let us then follow after the things that make for peace, and the things whereby one maw another, and strive who shall be the most humble, greatest affronts."

Dr. Land also cited a number of other sources in making his point that Calvinists have attempted to “abscond our history.” Within the sphere of Southern Baptists, the Calvinistic Charleston, said Land, was always “the harmony to the melody of the Separate (revivalistic) Baptist tradition.” I believe, historically, Land makes a very strong case for the Southern Baptist concept of election.

Theologically, Dr. Land also makes a good case. He points to a common error that Calvinists often make. Scripturally, Land makes the case that there are two types of Election. There is Abrahamic Election, which pertains to Israel as a national people, and there is Salvific Election, which pertains to all people in all times. Even those under the Abrahamic Covenant were “saved” through “salvific election,” not through being born sons of Abraham. Calvinists often confuse these two types of election, and thus misunderstand or misinterpret Romans 8, as well as Romans 9-11, which are parenthetical and deal with Israel as a nationally elect people, NOT with salvific election.

Land then moved on to explain his concept of “Congruent Election,” and the basis he cites for his theory is the “Eternal Now” understanding of God’s view of time and history. This view was most notably championed by C.S. Lewis. IN short, Land contends that “God is often disappointed, but never surprised…God knows the future perfectly, He knows our future decisions, He knows us better than we know ourselves…Time does not have cognitive content for God.” Land quotes Herschel Hobbs, who said, “The foreknowledge of God is based upon His omniscience.” Land infers from that (correctly) that God knows the Elect because He is eternally “Now,” yet this is consistent with Man’s free will, as both God’s sovereignty and free moral agency are asserted in Scripture.

Land concluded his address with three major points: (1) God experiences the rejection of the non-elect as eternally present with Him; (2) God always deals differently with the non-elect than with the elect; (3) From God’s perspective, that people won’t be saved is different than the idea that they can’t be saved.

Substantively, Dr. Richard Land’s address was probably the most satisfying of the Conference for me. His concept of Congruent Election was well presented and explained. In fact, I find myself in agreement with much of His viewpoint. I also affirm the “Eternal Now” view of God and His relationship to time. I also affirm God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, and that God’s sovereignty and omniscience are in harmony with the free will of men. I have a small hang-up with His conclusion that God always deals differently with the elect and the non-elect. But his statement does not negate that God offers salvation to ALL men, a point he made earlier in his address. Richard Land’s contribution to the Southern Baptist view of election is important and valuable.

Dr. David Allen was assigned the task of addressing “Limited Atonement.” His approach was excellent, although, as he himself said, his presentation would be “like drinking water from a fire hose.” In completely destroying the “Calvinist” concept of “Limited Atonement,” he cited ONLY Calvinists, their statements and works, to make his case. The quotes were too numerous and detailed to recount here, but among those he cited were John Calvin, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Augustus Strong, Charles Hodge, Zacharias Ursinus, and E.W. Bullinger. There were many, many more.

It was somewhat humorous to me that Allen pointed out most young Calvinists, particularly those in the SBC, have no idea what these “original” Calvinists actually said. Usually, they haven’t read them, and those they follow now won’t cite them. This is the “dirty little secret you’re not often told.” Most young Calvinists just read Piper and MacArthur.

Allen posits three possibilities with regard to the extent of the Atonement: (1) Arminians believe that Christ died equally for all; (2) “4 point Calvinists” claim He died for all, but especially for the elect; (3) Calvinism’s view that Christ died only for the elect. Edwards, as well as Richard Baxter and others are cited as affirming the mediating view, NOT the extreme Calvinist view of atonement.

Allen also cited three different sets of Scriptural texts to establish the correct understanding of words “all,” “”world” and “many.” The convenient and contorted misinterpretations of these words in Scripture are obliterated in Allen’s analysis.

Allen’s conclusion for affirming an “unlimited atonement,” are these: (1) Limited Atonement undermines God’s salvific will; (2) Limited Atonement undermines evangelistic zeal; (3) Limited Atonement means that we could not say to a sinner that Christ died for you; (4) Limited Atonement means that the preacher must speak to his congregation as if they can be saved, when he knows some cannot; (5) Limited Atonement concludes that we cannot or should not give evangelistic invitations – which a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Calvinist Professor stated point-blank at a recent conference.

Allen’s address received a standing ovation, and with good reason. Though he had limited time, his sources were “Calvinists” themselves, and clearly teased out some large inconsistencies among them, as well as with the clear teaching of Scripture. Allen’s differentiation between the Arminian view that “Christ died equally for all,” and the mediating position that “Christ died for all, but especially for the elect,” is another effort to establish a unique Southern Baptist idea of the Atonement. His position is not new, and is held by many Southern Baptists, and maybe even some shades of Arminians. My only critical question would be, in the end, how does the meditating position differ from that of Arminians? How does Jesus’ death of itself mean more to one than to another? Is it not faith that makes His death efficacious? Whence then the difference?

Dr. Steve Lemke next addressed the topic of “Irresistible Grace.” To me, the highlight of Lemke’s case was the first five minutes. He began by reading a lengthy quote, and he challenged the hearers to identify which Calvinist might have said this. I will reproduce the quote in full here:

"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ, but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places."

Sounds Calvinist, right? That statement was made by the “Remonstrant’s.” These were the Dutch Reformed Christians who followed the teachings of Jacobus Arminius. They were the “original” Arminians. They were also condemned at the Synod of Dort by “Calvinists,” who would not even allow them representation or the privilege of presenting their case at the meeting.

Dr. Steve Lemke pointedly put the lie to the myth so often perpetuated by Calvinists – and many Southern Baptists in the past – that Arminians are “Pelagians or semi-Pelagians.” Lemke noted that “the Remonstrant’s utterly rejected the idea that sinners could do anything to contribute to their own salvation; therefore, the Synod of Dort is wrong to label the Arminians either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.”

It did my heart good to hear Dr. Lemke begin his address in this way. Frankly, from my perspective, it shows a great deal of growth among Southern Baptists. When I began ministry – in a Southern Baptist church – in 1987, I was almost anathematized when I revealed that I was Arminian. Fortunately, God made a way for me to serve among Free Will (Arminian) Baptists for nearly 17 years after that. I can’t recount how many times over the years some Southern Baptists (and Independent Baptists as well) openly condemned me as a “heretic,” a “false teacher,” or a “false prophet.” That’s okay. I’ve learned to live with it. Still, it’s not true. Dr. Lemke’s words were most welcome and appreciated. That said, Lemke assured those at “John 3:16” that none of the Conference speakers were “Arminians, Pelagians, or Semi-Pelagians.”

The main thrust of Lemke’s address was to demonstrate the scriptural errancy of the Calvinist concept known as “irresistible grace.” He first made the case that it was on this point that the Synod of Dort became most obstinate and disagreeable with the Remonstrant’s.

So, what do the Scriptures have to say about “irresistible grace?” “Not a lot,” Lemke said, to the laughter of the congregation. He went on to point out that there were explicit examples in Scripture where it was stated that men “resisted God.” Take Steven’s preaching in Acts 7. In verse 51, he declared that the Jewish religious leaders “always resist the Spirit of God.” He also noted that in the Gospels Jesus stated the same thing on several occasions (Luke 7:30; 13:24; Matthew 23:37). He also used the parable of the vineyard owner among others to demonstrate that the “key differential” within the parables was not God’s sovereignty, but whether those in the stories were willing to respond.

Dr. Lemke summarized his address with a series of “concerns” he had about “irresistible grace”: (1) Irresistible grace can undermine the doctrine of conversion. He cites the fact that the Synod of Dort approved of baptism of infants and considered them “Christians” under a covenant without any kind of salvation experience or conversion. (2) Irresistible grace reverses the Biblical order of salvation. It places regeneration before faith, whereas Scripture always places faith before regeneration. He cited three scriptural texts to bolster this point, including the example of the serpent in the wilderness (John 5:40), coming to Christ precedes having eternal life (John 11:25), and the Gospel injunction that repentance and faith come before regeneration (John 20:31). (3) Irresistible grace weakens missions and evangelism.

Dr. Lemke closes with three simple, practical questions” (1) What are the implications logically if regeneration comes prior to faith? (2) Is it possible to be elect, but not saved? (3) Does God have a “secret will” that He really doesn’t love “everyone”?

Dr. Lemke made a good case for rejecting “irresistible grace” (or as the Calvinists prefer, “effectual calling”) from both a historic and Biblical perspective. The one major weakness in his address was that he didn’t really propose a Biblical alternative. He never mentioned the concept of “Prevenient Grace,” which Arminians hold to. Even Richard Land in his earlier address commented that he believed in “prevenient grace.” But Lemke left that unaddressed. Still, it was a good start. I hope in the future, Southern Baptists will further clarify their take on how God draws people, convicts them, enlightens then, and enables them to choose – either to receive or to reject – Christ. That is Prevenient Grace, and whether Southern Baptists know it or not, that’s probably what most of them believe.

Dr. Ken Keathley, Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, addressed the final topic of “Perseverance of the Saints.” This was the subject of most interest to me, because it is this subject more than any other that sets apart Arminians from Southern Baptists.

Dr. Keathley approached this topic to begin with, from the perspective of assurance of salvation. He noted two essential components of assurance: (1) certainty that one is saved; (2) certainty that once one is in a state of grace, one will remain there.

The most effective argument Keathley made was that, though the Reformers taught that assurance is the essence of saving faith, certain doctrines embraced by the Reformers undermine this assurance. Keathley identifies several of those doctrines: (1) the distinction between the revealed will of God and the “hidden” will of God; (2) The doctrine of limited atonement; (3) The doctrine of “temporary faith” given to the non-elect. He also pointed to the example of the Puritans, who based their assurance on sanctification rather than justification, had great anxiety about their assurance, and were very strongly invested in the doctrine of “temporary faith.”

Dr. Keathley also employed the use of syllogisms, one mystical and the other logical. While these were effective arguments, they don’t necessarily translate well on paper, or online, so I’ll just say that the syllogisms demonstrated the precarious logic of Calvinist concepts of assurance.

One note – it was about this point on Dr. Keathley’s presentation that he made (at least as I understood it) a point to say that it appeared both Augustine and Arminians taught the possibility of apostasy. In other words, that one may be saved, and later may be lost again. That got my attention. I know both Calvin and Arminius relied heavily on Augustine’s soteriological principles, but I’d always thought Augustine rejected the idea of Apostasy. Perhaps Augustinian scholars can clarify this point?

Keathley also noted that Karl Barth taught apostasy was impossible through implicit universalism, while Calvinists and Dispensationalists generally affirm the concept of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” He also contrasted the position of the Grace Theological Society which ignores or explains away the “warning passages,” and as a result seems to encourage laxity in commitment and give false comfort to “false believers,” with that of Bruce Demarest’ teachings that good works are a test of genuineness, as in the contrasts of Peter and Judas, and relegating the warning passages to discern between true and false believers.

Neither of these, however, seem wholly satisfying to some theologians. Here, Keathley directly takes on two prominent Southern Baptist Calvinists, Dr. Tom Schreiner and A.B. Canneday, and their take on Perseverance. He points to their “mediating view” that warnings of apostasy are genuinely threatened, but not possible. They actually teach in The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance, that perseverance is the basis of Justification. Wow! Schreiner actually says that “Yes, works are necessary to be saved. No this is not works righteousness, for the works are hardly meritorious.” Dr. Keathley succinctly critiqued this view when he said, “This is not close to Trent [the Catholic view], this IS Trent.”

Keathley closed his address by offering a “modest” proposal, in which he outlines his idea of a Biblical, consistent and Southern Baptist view of Perseverance:

(1) The only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ.
(a) Any model that begins with Christ and ends with man is doomed to failure.
(b) Christ and Him alone is the basis for assurance.
(2) Assurance is the essence of saving faith.
(a) Works provide “warrant,” but not a basis for assurance, Works are the buttress, but Christ and His work are the foundation.
(b) Assurance is analogous to how a Christian knows that God loves him even in times of suffering; the Christian may not feel loved, but the Bible reveals that God does love us.
(3) Saving faith perseveres or remains until the day when it gives way to sight.
(a) Perseverance should be viewed more as a promise than a requirement.
(b) Faith necessarily leads to good works.
(c) Indifference concerning godliness is more of a “red flag” that weakness in godliness.
(4) There are rewards to gain or lose subsequent to faith.
(5) Assurance comes from Christ alone.

I had never seen nor heard Dr. Keathley before, but I was very impressed by both his scholarship and demeanor. He knows his stuff, and it will be young SBC leaders in thinking and doing like him that will propel the Convention forward while preserving its theological heritage.

Dr. Keathley’s position is, in my view, vintage Southern Baptist. As a Reformation Arminian, I differ slightly on a couple of points, which goes without saying. One question I had was, (point 1.a) does a model that begins and ends with Christ regarding perseverance require ANYTHING from a “believer?” How about sustained faith? Another question is, if assurance is the essence of Christian faith (point 2.b) and assurance comes from Christ alone (point 5), then HOW does this assurance come? By works, as Schreiner contends? By some sort of “feeling,” or “still, small voice?” Or, perhaps, by the Word of God (I John 5:13,14)? I think Dr. Keathley would agree with me on this point, but it stands in need of clarification.

The final speaker what Dr. Charles Stanley. Dr. Stanley didn’t so much preach or teach, as he did share his wealth of wisdom and experiences in reaching the world with the Gospel. Dr. Stanley is the Pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and the voice of In Touch Ministries, which reaches around the world via TV, radio, CD, cassette and MP3, and the written word including books and his In Touch magazine. Millions have heard the gospel through the ministry of this man. He helped the conference attendees to be mindful of the worldwide impact of John 3:16, and to be about the business to which God has called the Church.

SUMMARY:

Five of the seven speakers at the John 3:16 Conference dealt with the Calvinist positions on soteriology often described by the acronym TULIP.

Dr. Paige Patterson tackled Total Depravity, and preached a message of rich and Biblical analogies demonstrating a commitment to the historical understanding of the doctrine. Patterson left unsaid some finer points, such as, does the individual retain freedom of the will by natural ability, or does he gain such freedom through God’s prevenient grace? And, what does it mean that we must “do” something for our salvation? Is that just a reference to faith?

Dr. Richard Land dealt with the concept of Unconditional Election. Dr. Land proposed a “middle way” as the Southern Baptist position on election, both historically and theologically. His concept of “Congruent Election” was excellent, and that it was based on C.S. Lewis’ idea of the “Eternal Now” view of God was personally pleasing, as I hold to that model myself. Clarification and explanation is necessary with regard to Dr. Land’s statement that “God always deals differently with the elect than He does with the non-elect.”

Dr. David Allen addressed the topic of Limited Atonement, and debunked many of the modern day “Calvinist” myths that claim the historic pioneers of that theological movement affirmed this idea. In fact, he used only the work of Calvinist scholars, historic and contemporary, to demonstrate the fallacy of the idea, and the false impression of Calvinist unanimity on “Limited Atonement.” His “mediating position” between the Arminian belief that Christ died equally for all and the Calvinist concept that Christ dies only for the elect, is to say that Christ died for all, especially for the elect. This idea needs to be clarified and fleshed out. How can one die more for one person than for another? If it’s just a matter of application, or is it somehow “predetermined?”

Dr. Steve Lemke answered the challenge of Calvinism’s irresistible grace, and did a good job at refuting its unscriptural nature. He also did a wonderful service in pointing out that Calvinism’s charge against Arminians (sometimes propagated by Baptists in the past) as “Pelagians” or “Semi-Pelagians,” is false historically and theologically. The main component Lemke left untreated was, if not irresistible grace, then what? He didn’t mention the phrase “prevenient grace,” that I recall, though it seemed he was hinting at it. Can Southern Baptists answer the question of HOW God draws one to salvation? If it is a resistible call, is it a “real” call, or is it a false call, as Calvinists insist?

Dr. Ken Keathley explained the Southern Baptist position on Perseverance of the Saints. I had always thought that Southern Baptists pretty much swallowed this point of Calvinism hook, line and sinker. Not so, from Keathley’s perspective. In pointing out some Calvinist’s extreme positions on Perseverance, he draws a distinction with both the Arminian concept of the possibility of apostasy, and the Calvinist concept that somehow justification is secured by or demonstrated in perseverance. Keathley indicates that the simple formula “once saved always saved” is simplistic, yet he concludes that our assurance and indeed, our perseverance, is the endeavor of Christ alone. This prompts me to ask questions like, “If assurance is in Christ alone, what role does personal faith play?” Or, “is my faith only necessary when I am initially born again, or may I cease to believe and yet still remain ‘In Christ’?”

CONCLUSION:

The John 3:16 Conference accomplished the goals for which it was designed. The speakers laid out a theological framework of unique Southern Baptist principles of soteriology as opposed to those of the Calvinists in their midst, and as a sort of “middle way” between Arminianism and Calvinism. But, this was only a first step. Southern Baptists majoritarians would do well to follow up on these efforts with further conferences, with theological forums and with publications for the laity. Calvinists have made inroads into Southern Baptist life because they never tire of making such efforts. It is easier for them to “find the elect” on the pews of churches than it is in the hostile world. The greatest antidote to Calvinists errors is education and discipleship of the people in the pews.

If one came to “John 3:16” to look for unanimity on all theological points, they were sorely disappointed. I have noticed this was quickly the charge of many of the fine, young Calvinists who graced “John 3:16” with their presence. Though all of the presenters were Southern Baptist to the core, none of them agreed with the others precisely on every single issue, or nuance thereof. To insist on that is to misunderstand who Baptists are, not to mention what all humans are like. Not even Southern Baptist Calvinists can pull off that kind of agreement. Let’s not be unrealistic in our expectations or demands.

I hope this Conference produces three things:

(1) A resolve to have more “John 3:16” conferences. Perhaps these conferences could grow to include non-Calvinists from beyond Southern Baptist circles, scholars who hold largely to the perspectives of Southern Baptists, but may vary on the finer points here and there. The church is not devoid of such people beyond Southern Baptist ranks. And, if the Founders can host the Piper’s, the MacArthur’s, and even infant baptizers and Covenantalists, I think the majoritarian Southern Baptists would do well to find those outside their common circles to complement their convictions.

(2) A book publishing the papers – as well as those of others, perhaps to allow the authors to revise and extend their remarks. I am happy that the audios and videos for this conference are available at www.jerryvines.com. I have also heard that there are plans to publish the papers in book form. It would be nice if they could address areas they hadn’t the time for during the conference, and if they asked other majoritarian Southern Baptists such as Michael Yarnell to contribute.

(3) A kinder, gentler attitude toward Arminian brethren who have been forced to deal with many of these issues long ago – and have been the victims of Calvinism and it’s distorted portrayal of their beliefs. A couple of years ago, Dr. Daniel Akin stated that “Pelagians, Arminians, and Open Theists will not feel at home in our Southern Baptist family.” As a Southern Baptist and Reformation Arminian, I felt distinctly unwelcomed by the words of Dr. Akin. It was as if he were equating Arminians with the heresies of Pelagianism and Open Theism. But at “John 3:16,” I felt no such rejection. Among the speakers I talked to, I found them refreshingly understanding of my position and kindly non-judgmental in our disagreements. I was among brethren and friends. I was among people striving to discover, live and teach truth. And that was, perhaps, the greatest success “John 3:16” achieved in my eyes.

*************************************************************************************

This paper was published at the Society of Evangelical Arminians website ( www.evangelicalarminians.org ).

Incidentally, anyone who knows how to get a computer to offset/indent long quotes correctly -- you are a billionaire. I hate this failure of every computer program I have and use. They simply don't allow for long, indented quotes. Sorry about that.

Blessings,

JDW

Addendum: The First 100 Days...

2008-11-05T19:24:00.002-05:00

Urgent: Fire ALL the Federal Prosecutors appointed by the Bush Administration. Remember, the eight that Bush fired who were holdovers from the Clinton Regime? Well, if Bill Clinton could get away with it in 1993, Barack Obama can do it in
2009. In fact, get rid of most of the Clinton appointees as well. No use worrying about potential political threats from the Clinton Camp. This way, all those investigations and cases filed against my buddies in ACORN will simply -- vanish. "Poof!" Not a word will come from the press, and ACORN will be back in business in the 21 states in which they were being investigated in no time. Federally funded of course.

Also, encourage Congress to "act quickly" to pass a law nullifying the referenda banning "same sex marriage." Also order my newly appointed Federal Prosecutors to file Federal court injunctions against the states where "same sex marriage" bans have been passed or implemented, on the basis of violations of Federal "civil rights." Thus, the laws will be tabled and in short order, Congress can federally legalize "marriage" for my GLBT friends....

NOVEMBER 5TH: THE CALL SARAH PALIN SHOULD MAKE

2008-11-05T12:13:00.001-05:00

Governor Sarah Palin: “Hello, Governor Jindal? I hope you’re doing good today.”

Governor Bobby Jindal: “Hello Governor Palin! I appreciate your call! I’m so sorry you and Senator McCain didn’t pull it out last night.”

Palin: “Well thank you Bobby – may I call you Bobby?”

Jindal: “Of course, Governor.”

Palin: “No. Sarah, please. Yes, we worked hard. I was honored to stand beside Senator McCain, but the tide was going against us this time around.”

Jindal: “I agree. It would have been difficult no matter who the nominee.”

Palin: “And that’s the reason I called. Bobby, we both know that the next four years will be tough. As charismatic as Barack Obama is, he’s just as much a Socialist. We, as Republicans, as Conservatives, have to think about the future.”

Jindal: “I agree Ma’am.”

Palin: “Sarah, please. The reason I’m calling may seem a little mercenary, but I want you to think about something.”

Jindal: “Alright Sarah. What do you have in mind?”

Palin: “In four years, the United States will have had enough Socialism, at least as things are now. I don’t imagine higher taxes, weak foreign policy and redistribution of wealth will go over for long with all the “Joe the Plumber’s.”

Jindal: “Not when they figure it all out. Not at all.”

Palin: “I want to run this by you, just to keep in mind. In four years, the Republican Party is going to need new faces. They will need new ideas, fresh blood. But they will also need leaders who are tied to the Reagan principles that made our party succeed in the past. To sort of translate those principles into a vision of the future.”

Jindal: “I think you’re right Sarah. Without new faces, even the message of Conservatism won’t fly. Not in this environment.”

Palin: “I didn’t expect to be put in the national spotlight this election. I was happy being the governor of Alaska. But I also think I was put in this position for a reason. I hope you don’t take that wrongly.”

Jindal: “Not at all Sarah. I would agree. There’s no question you helped the McCain ticket.”

Palin: “Well, thank you. I hope that, in four years, you and I are well into our second terms as governor’s of our states, and that we’ve done good jobs in taking care of our state’s business – like the way your handled the hurricanes earlier this year. Have you all recovered?”

Jindal: “We’re getting there. We really had a mess, but it wasn’t like Katrina, and I think we were better organized.”

Palin: “There’s no question you handled it more than competently.”

Jindal: “Again, thank you Sarah.”

Palin: “You’re welcome. Well, as I was saying, I’m on the national stage now, and I want to use that to do what’s best for the country. I believe in four years that may mean I seek the Republican nomination. I don’t want to be presumptuous, because I know you must be considering a run too, but--.”

Jindal: Well, the thought had occurred to me, but I haven’t given it any serious consideration yet.”

Palin: “Well, I respect your position, and if you decided to run, I’d understand. But, I just want to throw this out to you. If I decide to run, I’d like you to consider the possibility of supporting me – maybe even being my running mate.”

Jindal: “Wow. I wasn’t expecting that. I don’t know what to say.”

Palin: “Well, I suppose you could cuss me out. I just ran on a losing ticket and you have as much experience as I do.”

Jindal: “Oh no. It is an honor. It’s something to think about. I just don’t know what will happen between now and then.”

Palin: “You’re right. I’m not asking for any kind of promise, I just wanted you to give it some thought. I believe that as honorable as the others who ran for president are, and as much service as they’ve rendered, that they are the faces of yesterday. I respect Governor Romney, Mayor Guiliani, Senator Thompson, Representative Hunter. They all have a role to play, but the future belongs to a new generation.”

Jindal: “I agree with you on that Sarah. The message and the faces of the Republican Party have to be new and to look forward.”

Palin: “Good. I hope that, if things went somewhat as I’ve mentioned, that I could win and then support my Vice President for two terms as well. I know it’s too early to plan, but the future belongs to those who think ahead.”

Jindal: “No argument there Sarah.”

Palin: “Bobby, whatever you decide, I hope you’ll give it some thought. I believe we’d make a formidable team. Maybe we could reintroduce Conservatism to a new generation.”

Jindal: “We absolutely have to do that. I agree.”

Palin: “Well, if you decide to run, or to support someone else, I respect you and your leadership abilities. I hope we will be working together in some way in the future.”

Jindal: “Oh I don’t doubt for a second that we will, Sarah.”

Palin: “Okay. Thanks for taking my call Bobby. I appreciate your hearing me out, and I look forward to talking to you in the future.”

Jindal: “I appreciate the call Sarah. I’ll look forward to talking with you again too. In the meantime, you and Todd and the children take a break! You’ve earned it, enjoy some rest.”

Palin: “Oh we will. I wish you and your family well. Talk to you soon.”

Jindal: “Thanks Governor Palin. Good-bye.”

Palin: “It’s just Sarah, Bobby. And thanks again. Bye-bye.”

JDW
2008 Copyright, all rights reserved

Election 2008 - Final Projections

2008-11-03T10:10:00.002-05:00

www.270towin.com

The map I link to above is my final projection for the Electoral College 2008.

In about 30 hours, Election day will officially begin. I've spent several hours today looking at polls & trends. Unfortunately, I can find no great groundswell of support for McCain/Palin that will power them over the finish line first.

I expect McCain to win GA, ... Read MoreIN, ND & MO. It appears FL, VA, OH, NV, NM & CO are breaking to Obama. Obama will also retain PA, NH & IA, which will give the Obama/Biden ticket the largest electoral victory since Bill Clinton's reelection in 1996.

Summary: Popular vote - 52.1% Obama/Biden, 47.3% McCain/Palin. Electoral College - 338 Obama/Biden, 200 McCain/Pailn.

God help us all....

The current compostition of the US Senate is 49 Dems, 49 Reps, and 2 Inds who caucus with Dems. Thus, Dems have a 51-49 controlling majority in the Senate.

The current composition of the US House is 235 Dems, 199 Reps, and 1 vacant seat.

As of today, the best I can tell, the Democrats are likely to pick up 7-8 Senate seats, including those in the states of AK, CO, NH, NM, NC, OR & VA. The one questionable race that would give them 8 would be Minnesota. But, if Norm Coleman is defeated by the arrogant, Liberal, Hollywood "comedian" wannabe turned failed radio talk show host Al Franken, then the US deserves total destruction.... Okay, leaving my soapbox now.

I expect the next Senate to be 59 Dems to 41 Reps, just short of the magic "60" needed to be filibuster-proof. If so, that would be a God-ordained miracle. Also, Joe Lieberman may be shunned by Dems, and so may caucus with Republicans, meaning 58-42. That may be just an outside personal fantasy at this point though. AND, Dems are notorious for picking off weak RINO's and getting them to switch parties for some kind of power or perk in the Senate, or at least to sign on to a filibuster-proof majority on an issue by issue basis. So Election Day may not remove that possibility for weeks -- or for 2 more years.

In the House, I believe it's a fairly safe bet that the Dems will pick up at least 20 seats.
That could reach as high as 40 or 42 seats, if Obama were to win an overwhelming Reagan-type landslide -- but I think that's unlikely. A more accurate projection is very difficult in the house, because there is a lack of polling and research data in some of the races, and local events can have a profound effect on individual races.

Bottom line in the House races, though... I expect the New balance in the house to be 259 Democrats, 176 Republicans. That would be a commanding control of the House, and Obama, Pelosi, et. al. coudl have virtually anything they wanted in the "lower chamber."

I sincerely hope my conclusions are incorrect. Anything can still happen until the polls actually close, but time is almost gone. And, if I am right, I have a deep and abiding conviction that the United States we once knew will be gone in short order.

Again, God help us all.

JDW

On Socialism....

2008-10-28T23:58:00.000-04:00

Socialism taxes the productivity of achievers, and funds the idleness of the slothful.

Socialism robs from the entrepreneur, and rewards those who feel "entitled."

Socialism plays the business owner against his laborers -- not for the workers good, but to increase governments power.

Socialism substitutes mandatory government redistribution for heartfelt and Godly charity.

Socialism is antithetical to both Scripture, and to the Constitution -- it replaces the heart of a cheerful giver with the imposition of Government confiscation, and it is centered around a government of men rather than the goodness of God.

Socialism is a form of idolatry, implementing the biases of certain classes of men, against other classes of men -- with the criteria of thier judgments based on wealth and economic condition, rather than on righteousness and faith.

Socialism robs the poor man of incentive and initiative, and it robs the rich man of opportunities to create more wealth -- for himself and those who work for him.

Socialism has never worked anywhere it's been tried; Capitalism -- when tempered by the principles and prayers of the Godly -- has never failed anywhere it's been tried.

Choose wisely, as this choice may be your last.

JDW
copyright 2008, all rights reserved

Barack Obama is a Marxist

2008-10-27T17:09:00.003-04:00

There is no way to deny it. In a 2001 interview with a Chicago radio station, he speaks repeatedly of "redistributing wealth," and clearly posits the idea that not only did the Civil Rights movement fail, but the Founders who wrote the Constitution failed. Listen to the short interview excerpts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

What say you?

I'll have plenty more to say later....

JDW

The First 100 Days.... Obama's Agenda Should He Be Elected...

2008-10-24T14:12:00.002-04:00

Men like Barack Obama don't do things without planning ahead. He is a "community organizer" after all. BHO has been working on becoming President perhaps longer than Bill Clinton did. He's read Marx, he's studied FDR, he's listened to Wright and Farrakhan for 20 years. IF he's elected, he won't enter office clueless. He will, of necessity, have to strike while the iron's hot. He'll have to accomplish much before anyone "important" catches on and starts to raise the alarm. He'll have a plan -- something like the one below:

First, rescind ALL laws and regulations restricting the abortion industry -- because he promised to do so as his first executive order.

Second, propose and have Congress pass the "Fairness Doctrine." Bye-bye Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Conservative talk radio, and even The O'Reilly Factor and other news commentator shows.

Third, pass sweeping regulations, fees, fines and taxes on the internet, including empowering the FCC to begin "monitoring" websites for "hate speech," and leveling fines and injunctions on posters and webhosts for "offensive" posts and comments.

Fourth, begin introducing anti-gun legislation meant to gut the 2nd Amendment bit by bit -- including "assualt weapons bans," "military ammunition bans," "weapons and ammunitions taxes," mandatory weapons registration with the government, manditory limits on weapons purchases (no more than 1 a month -- 14 day waiting period), overrule and declare illegal all concealed carry laws and permits, mandatory confiscation of firearms from criminals, including those fined or cited for "hate speech"...The ultimate goal, to ban all weapons within the term -- or terms -- of an Obama administration.

Fifth, "nationalize" 401K's, converting them to the Social Security system, offering a gauranteed 3% return on funds to all retirees (401K funds's will no longer "belong" to the individual, but will be owned by the Government and used to prop up ailing Social Security program now -- don't WORRY about the future).

Introduce socialized medicine plan -- single payer, government-run. Urge Congress to force this -- and all the previous components -- through within the first 100 days.

Increase taxes. All taxes. Payroll. FICA. Income. Everything.

And, if there is still time, have Congress introduce legisation to rescind the "Defense of Marriage Act," making the legalization of "Gay Marriage" by states binding on all other states via the "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution as it is interpreted by liberal, activist judges. This can certainly be passed in the second 100 days. This will inevitably lead to the challenge of discriminatory religious practices among traditional churches, which will lead to lawsuits, criminal cases and regulatory fines over the next 4-8 years, depriving churches of tax-exempt status if they violate the "human rights" of homosexuals.

If worse comes to worst, and there is "civil unrest" or active resistance (American sheep are too fat and lazy for that, right?), or should there be a major terroist incident -- we'll just declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and stay in power "until we fix the problem."

***********

I'm just speculating out loud....

JDW

If Obama Should Win….

2008-10-24T08:56:00.001-04:00

Best Case Scenario: Obama doesn't get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so his grand plan is muted from the beginning. He fails to get the "Fairness Doctrine" reinstituted and is not permitted to regulate (and/or tax) the internet, thus, Freedom of Speech survives, and opposition to socialized medicine, welfare state entitlements and abject military retreat rise steadily. He also fails to replace wholesale the judiciary, and though he names 2 SCOTUS justices, cannot replace every Federal judge with his hand-picked Liberal judicial activists. In two years, the Republicans regain 5 Senate and 28 House seats, and Obama's approval rating falls to 13%. The US is fortunate that there are no terrorist attacks during Obama’s term. The next 2 years Obama is unable to accomplish anything of significance, and in 2012, the Conservative Republican ticket of Palin/Jindal are elected by a landslide, and the Republicans regain Senate control 51-49, and regain the house by 5 seats.

Worst Case Scenario: Obama is elected by a landslide, and the Senate secures a filibuster-proof majority, 60-40. The House shifts more than 30 seats to Democrats, giving them an unstoppable machine to implement their agenda.
They pass the Fairness Doctrine, and in short order, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are a thing of the past.
They regulate and tax the internet, and "hate speech" legislation allows the FCC to "monitor" certain websites and fine (or perhaps prosecute) those who post objectionable materials online (goodbye FreeRepublic, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily).
Handgun and other weapons bans are passed by Congress, signed by the President and permitted by the courts, as are new "user fees" and taxes, driving up the price of weapons so that Americans generally cannot afford them, or are not allowed to possess them. Even then, much of the ammunition is deemed illegal or is too expensive to buy (though the Black Market flourishes).
Due to the exorbitant spending and careless handling, the already weak and stressed economy finally collapses, and the Fed prints dollars unendingly leading to hyper-inflation, high unemployment, and another spike in foreclosures and bankruptcies.
With OPEC boycotting oil and Iran sealing the Persian Gulf, due to Israel's attack on their nuclear facilities, and Obama's unwillingness to deploy military force against them, oil prices go out of sight, and gas, at $7 a gallon is too expensive to buy.
These several crises create supply shortages of food and gas, which leads to civil unrest, riots and looting in a number of cities in the US. Finally, President Obama activates the National Guard in Washington and other major cities. In Washington, a protest of hundreds of thousands against the government leads to riots, and conflict between National Guardsmen and Police, and the many angry protestors. Some die, many are arrested, and several blocks of DC are burnt down.
A month before the first midterm election (2010) for Barack Obama, Los Angeles, California is the site of the first major terrorist attack since 9/11. Al Qaeda terrorists based in Phoenix, Arizona and Dearborn, Michigan, manages to construct a "dirty bomb" and detonate it in the heart of LA. Thousands die as a result of the radiation, and tens of thousands more are seriously sickened. Several square miles of downtown Los Angeles are deemed uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. As a result of the panic and unrest, President Obama declares martial law; "temporarily" suspends the Constitution and "delays" the elections, nationalizes most state law enforcement agencies, and puts in place strict curfews and regulations. Those found armed on the street after curfew are shot on sight, or imprisoned without trial. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America....

JDW
copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved

Biden to Supporters -- The Justification for the Rise of Liberofascism

2008-10-20T11:45:00.002-04:00

Excerpts from a speech by Senator Joe Biden (my title, the "Gird your Loins" speech), VP Nominee for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party (10/19/2008):

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy....

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, and he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right....

"Gird your loins,we're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy....

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it. This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us....

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound....

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region [Afghanistan & Pakistan]. The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real. We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it....

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here....

"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place. We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."

I think most people across the nation are missing the points of Joe Biden’s warning here. This isn’t about just some “international crisis” he knows — GAURANTEES — is coming. Neither is it just about our the supposed “systemic” failure of our economic system.

What Biden is not so subtly telegraphing is the groundwork and justification for the “change” he and Great Leader Obama have promised — the abandonment of capitalism and the Republic for socialism and one party rule.

The crisis — or crises — that are already upon us or just now appearing on the horizon will give Barack Obama and the Democrat party all the “reason” they need to solidify their power, enact new rules and regulations and and take from American citizens the rights they have taken for granted away from them. And it will all be the Conservative’s fault, of course.

And of course, many of the moves Obama will make will be unpopular — but his ACORN pals and community organizer friends WILL support him and give him cover, no matter what. It’s the recipe for Liberofascism to rule in the United States.

In my next post, I'll give you three or four things Barack Obama will do in his first 100 days, if he should win the election....

JDW

A Liberal Supermajority -- Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

2008-10-17T08:57:00.002-04:00

NOTE: This is an article I found today, and it says best what we ought to expect from an Obama administration with a filibuster-proof Democrat Congress. It should scare every American. read on, please...

Wall Street Journal - October 17, 2008

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Hope, Change, Believe....The Troubling Trend of the Popular Messiah

2008-10-10T20:41:00.003-04:00

I remember, some 15 years ago, the first time I heard Bill Clinton lie. I mean, he'd certainly lied during his first campaign for the President -- but I sadly expect that from all politicians. But the first time he lied AS President came just a couple of weeks after his inauguration.

Clinton bit his lower lip, claimed he'd "never worked harder on anything in his life," but that instead of the tax cut he'd promised during the campaign, he'd have to increase taxes. I was incredulous. I laughed in disbelief. But the response of most Americans was to adore Clinton, to swoon over his "honesty," to give him the benefit of the doubt.

For the next eight years, I listened as Bill Clinton lied. He lied about tax cuts, he lied about universal healthcare coverage, lied about Whitewater, lied about sex with a young White House intern, lied on the witness stand in a sworn deposition (that's called perjury -- it's a High Crime and/or misdemeanor), and encouraged the intern to lie under oath as well (that's subborning perjury -- also a High Crime)... All this, and the majority of the American people supported him. After he was impeached, they RALLIED to him.

The Senate was unable to do their Constitutional duty and convict him, and Bill Clinton remained in the White House, despite his guilt, an illegitimate, impeached criminal -- more popular than the day he was first elected. Even when the majority of the American people saw that Bill Clinton was lying, STILL they believed him, or at least went along with him.

So, it does not surprise me that now, not a decade later, many Americans are treating Barack Obama as the new Messiah. Considering all the novelties of an Obama candidacy: his race, his marxist ideology, his association with radicals and terrorists, his ability to speak dynamically without actually saying anything, and his charisma, he is a natural for the role of the Socialist wonderboy.

Consider, if you will, some of the praises heaped upon the "anointed one." Loius Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has actually identified Barrack Obama as "The Messiah": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dV_VRrMDU0

And, even these school children have gotten in on the Obama coronation, singing of the glories of change and hope, and "yes we can!": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrtppY2Dc

There are even militant youth corps and drill teams paying homage to His Holiness Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvBCBnulLs

Obama, for his part, isn't helping any with the "rhetoric, when he suggests a "Civilian National Security Force" that is stronger than the standing military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s I wonder if it occurred to Barack before he called for a formation of this "Civilian National Security Force" how similar this force would be to the brownshirt of Adolf Hitler's imfamous "Waffen SS?"

Now, being somewhat a student of history, when I saw these clips, the first thoughts that came to mind were of the Maoist parties in Communist China. Young people wear their oilve uniforms with that little red star, and they read Mao's words in their little red books... The drill team is reminiscent of the Hitler youth of 1930's Germany, who sang, chanted and marched of the greatness of Adolf Hitler, vowing to build a greater Germany for the Nazi's master race. And the quasi-Islamic Farrakhan's declaration of Obama as Messiah -- well, it speaks for itself.

I won't belabor the point. These images are disturbing. They are very troubling. With the uncertain and indeed desparate economic conditions Washington has created for our nation, and the hunger of so many to find a "leader," a deliverer, and the promises he's made without any details on how they will be met... The stage is set in the United States for such a "Messiah" to arise. By the time he arrives in office, our economy will be virtually nationalized, most of our financial system Socialized.

The old and very accurate addage is "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Barack Obama may just be naive, putty in the hands of malevolent handlers. Or, he may be the one running the whole show. But all signs point to his election on November 4th -- Acorn is doing yeoman's work for him, having flooded the system with fraudulent ballots in a dozen states. He's from Chicago -- he got it honest.

The question: If Obama IS elected, what will the people of "flyover country" do? As mad as the Liberals were over a 2000 Bush victory, imagine the rage when in 2008 Barack Obama is empowered not only by winning the Presidency, but also by likely gaining a veto-proof Congressional majority? Do we really want one who is worshipped as "Messiah" to have that kind of power in our nation?

That's beyond dangerous. That's tempting fate in an almost too tantalizing way for fate to resist...

JDW

Quotes Worth Noting -- Reagan on the Revolution

2008-10-07T00:12:00.001-04:00

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years."

-President Ronald Reagan, 1988

Why I'm Voting Democrat

2008-10-04T23:42:00.000-04:00

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, they'll come over here, and I don't want to have any guns in the house to shoot them with. I will have a no preconditional discussion with them.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry one of my dogs. Don't get excited – I’m not gay. My Golden is a bitch.

I really wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican.

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan
__________

Now, no one really seriously thought I wrote this, did you? Saw it at www.FreeRepublic.com... Loved it. Too true...

JDW

You Say You Want a Revolution: Thoughts on Revolution in Light of Current Government Treachery

2008-10-04T00:12:00.002-04:00

When we "throw around" terms like "revolution" we have to understand the gravity of their meanings. "Revolution" is not a word to be used lightly -- because "revolution" inevitably becomes violent, particularly when an increasingly tyrannical and "entitled" central government has for so long run roughshod over the People and the Law [Constitution] itself. A "revolution" in the real sense would NOT be pretty, neat, or amicable, and even the mention of that term could in current circumstances draw unwanted attention from Federal "law enforcement."

Okay, do I sound too "conspiritorial?" Well, that's because I am. Big Government is too big, has access to too much technology, and wants all that power (& money) to RULE us, not to SERVE us. My view is that a "revolution" is not going to be planned, or organized, or even foreseen. Sure, there will be small groups of "tax protesters" here and there, and maybe the ocassional "gun rights" fanatics or "religious zealots" who dare speak out for their faith, and even some so-called "militias" that will cause trouble... But they will immediately be labelled "racistsexisthomophobes," "hate groups," "cults" and so forth, and the Feds will take them out in short order.

No, it's going to take something major -- REALLY major -- to be the catalyst of a real "revolution." If the economy actually DID crash -- THAT might do it. If there was a nuclear strike on American soil, that would probably provoke it. Something heavy like that, and "We the People" would simply lose it. We would have a collective "psychotic break," and we would take it out on anything remotely related to "the government." Marches/riots on Washington, resistance to Federal authority and "law enforcement" by individuals, communities, political and/or religious groups -- maybe even cities or States... Martial Law would lead to gun confiscation and shootouts/battles, the National Guard would be called out... Would they fire on the American People? Would the regular Military? Would the people be able to bring themselves to fire on our military...? And what of the future of the "Union?" If it ever came to this kind of "revolution," there would be no more Union. Look at the Red and Blue map. The South, Southwest and Rocky Mountain States are far more Conservative in general, the West Coast and of course New England and the upper MidWest are way more Liberal.... The sections would divide -- they couldn't live together anymore in a "Union."...

When the word "revolution" is mentioned, the implications are immense, the effects staggering, and the results NOT peaceful or positive (at least not in the short run). And though it may in light of this sound strange to say, I think "revolution" is something the American People had better start contemplating, considering, thinking over, praying over. I say that NOT to advocate violence or support some ill-conceived coup d'etat, but to prepare the People for what appears to be the inevitable, if the Washington government should stay on its current path.

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry arose to address the Virginia House of Burgesses in St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, regarding the encroachment of the British forces on Virginia and other Colonial cities. The Burgesses were being asked to field troops, should it become necessary, to resist the British militarily. Most believed the idea foolish, however, and any kind of "rebellion" or "revolution" in the far distant future, if ever. Among Henry's comments, delivered dramatically and with force on that day, he said:

"This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery...

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings....

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House....

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other....

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope....

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.... It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Less than one month later, on April 19th, 1775, the British in Boston marched on the nearby towns of Lexington & Concord to confiscate the arms and gunpowder of the "citizen's militia" [aka "Minutemen"], and being warned by Paul Revere among others, the Militia met the British Army on the town greens. And the "Revolution" indeed had begun. Patrick Henry's words were prophetic. The war would not end for almost eight bloody years. Most of the men who later signed the Declaration of Independence lost everything in the struggle for liberty.

"Revolution" should be considered -- but the American People are far from the mindset of Patrick Henry, even if the storms of circumstance gathering about them leave them little time to ready themselves. It is time now for prayer. The time for action may come. But it is not yet. And if we pray and fast now, perhaps God will turn aside this storm which will otherwise surely come...

JDW
Copyright, All Rights Reserved

Throwing Sarah Under the Bus

2008-09-27T19:52:00.002-04:00

I opened up my newspaper while enjoying breakfast Friday morning, and quickly turned to my favorite page, opinions & editorials. I immediately saw a piece by one of my "favorite" Conservative columnists, Kathleen Parker. What I read soured my stomach. What I read angered me.

Said Ms. Parker: "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League....If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself. If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes.But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

Not content to simply insult Governor Palin, she suggests subtle ways for the obviously weak-minded "pit bull with lipstick" to crawl away like a frightened little poodle.

"McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden. Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

D.R. Tucker of Human Events noted that "Kathleen Parker has joined the ranks of anti-Palin conservatives George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat(as well as moderate-conservative David Brooks" in their criticism and negative views of the Republican VP nominee.

Tucker also observes that "Movement conservatives and the “conservative intelligentsia” are united in their desire for a McCain victory—but if that desire is not fulfilled, one hopes that the dream of harmony between these two conservative factions will not be deferred as well."

Well, now it's MY TURN. First, some clarification. I have been a "movement conservative" since the first term of Ronald Reagan. While other "College Republicans" were out getting drunk to celebrate the 1984 Reagan victory, I was planning to attend the inauguration, cooperating with conservative candidates for the Legislature in North Carolina on local elections and issues, and working to implement the Reagan agenda.

As a bona fide "movement Conservative," up until late August, I had NO plans to vote for John McCain. While I respect D.R. Tucker and agree with the overall premise of his column, I think he is DEAD WRONG that "movement conservatives and the “conservative intelligentsia” are united in their desire for a McCain victory." Many of the Conservatives I know vowed, as I did, not to be "Bushed or Doled" again.

Then, the unthinkable happened. John McCain, in what can only be called an epiphany, chose the governor of a small state, FAR away from Washington, who is an "outside the box" reformer, a pro-life mother of five children including a Downs Syndrome baby, a hunter, and worst of all (*GASP*) and Evangelical Christian! Short of resurrecting Ronald Reagan himself to replace McCain at the top of the ticket, Palin was the ONLY thing that swayed me to support a McCain bid for the White House. I remain -- as a "movement Conservative," loyal to Sarah Palin. Period.

The so-called "conservative intelligensia" who have come out against Sarah Palin should be examined to determine whether they are actually either "conservative" or "intelligent." George Will hasn't been "conservative" since the Reagan era. Charles Krauthammer, despite being spot on in matters of defense and the War on Terror, is pro-abortion and generally socially liberal. I don't really know WHAT has gotten into David Frum (just being frumpy?) and WHO the heck IS Ross Douthat?

These so called "conservative intelligensia" are actually from the more libertarian wing of Conservatism -- more interested (supposedly) in economic and civil liberties than in social conservatism and values. They offered up McCain in 2000. They offered up Dole in 1996. They offer only defeat and permanent minority status for Conservatism.

So here's the newsflash. The Parker's and Krauthammer's and Will's and Doughnuts and Frumpy's need to understand that without us ignorant, "God and Guns" Reagan Conservatives from flyover country, Republicans can't WIN this election, or any other. And if these folks succeed in scuttling Sarah, not only will they not win this election (because I won't vote for a single Republican!) but they will ensure a schism that will split and likely kill the Republicans for good.

So, a note to the so-called "conservative intelligensia": Get off your high horses and help the ticket, rather than cowering in fear to your former masters, the Democrats. If you don't the only thing you all will have left is your lucrative jobs. Real conservatives will be LONG GONE.

JDW
copyright, all rights reserved.

It’s Broke: But this ain’t the way to fix it!

2008-09-25T13:30:00.001-04:00

How we got here

The current financial crisis the United States finds itself in is something relatively responsible adults have seen coming for many years. Of course, many in the media, and certainly Democrats have been quick to lay the blame at the feet of George Bush. And while he and the Republicans deserve their share of blame, that’s not where this colossal problem began.

“To hear today's Democrats,” said Terry Jones in a September 18th Investor’s Business Daily piece, “you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.”

Jones continues, “Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

“These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

“Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance….Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.”

Jones has further noted that this crisis did not just pop up unexpectedly. There were warnings. There were calls for reform. “President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become,” Jones reported. And indeed, The New York Times lead story on September 11, 2003 began, “The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

John McCain stated just two years later, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.” McCain said that over three years ago, and I could be considered a prophet, because he was right on.

Still, Congress would not act. Republicans, who were in the majority until 2006, were paralyzed by fear that they would be accused of “protecting the rich” or being “racists” who didn’t want the poor to own their own houses. In the end, their timidity cost the Republicans both the 2006 elections and control of both houses of Congress. It also all but insured the current crisis.

Then Congress fell into the hands of the best friends these irresponsible government programs ever had. Terry Jones notes that Democrats, flush with the “deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored agencies, Fannie and Freddie,” came to the defense of their bosom buddies.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Exaggerate, Mr. Frank? Really?

That’s the reason the United States financial system now stands on the precipice, and may very well topple over the edge into depression. Not recession, depression.

How do we fix it?

Last night (September 24th), President Bush addressed the nation, and basically said ‘It’s a bailout, or a disaster.’

Really, Mr. Bush? One or the other?

Why does the idea of giving the Federal Government a $700 Billion blank check make me certifiably anxious? And, simply examining history will show that if the Government tells us it will cost “no more than $700 Billion,” the actual cost will almost certainly surpass $2 trillion.

Also consider the ramifications of this so called “bail out.” What this implies, on its face, is that the Government is about to nationalize the majority of our financial system. Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning mourned a few days ago on the Senate floor that this was “the death of free market capitalism.” And in fact, if US banks and financial institutions are taken over by the government in the fashion this bailout demands, our economy with be converted to state Socialism virtually overnight. The heart of Capitalism and a free market is an independent banking and finance industry. If that industry is overseen by government bureaucrats, the heart of Capitalism stops beating.

So, a summary of this “bailout plan” goes something like this: Over the last 2-3 decades, Congressional Democrats devised a way to use taxpayers money to create Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which allowed them to simultaneously buy the votes of their “underprivileged” constituencies by allowing them to purchase housing they could not afford, enrich their buddies who were running these programs into the ground, enjoy hefty campaign contributions and Lobbyist perks from those same wealthy friends, and now that these entities have collapsed, they demand $700 Billion MORE of the taxpayers money to fund the SAME system that has screwed us already – and they are holding our retirements, savings accounts and investments as hostages to get what they want.

I’m sorry, Mr. President. I trust neither you, nor Secretary Paulson, nor Ben Bernake, nor Congress with that kind of money and power. The answer is NO.

This problem cannot be fixed by MORE government control. In fact, some economists and financial experts say there are far simpler and less intrusive ways to preserve the free market, restore the integrity of the financial system, and thaw out the frozen credit system. The following are a few excellent ideas which are so simple and basic, most politicians probably haven’t even thought of them. But then, if they did, they would probably reject them because nothing would be in it for them.

First, financial expert Dave Ramsey points to a single “rule change” that could potentially free us from as much as 60% of the problems that created this financial crisis. Ramsey says, “Remember Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and other companies had artificially put assets on the books? They'd say something was worth $10M when they bought it, but eventually it decreased in value, and they never updated the value in the books. That was part of the fraud. Under current laws at that time, they were all convicted and put in jail for fraud.

“Then we got all mad and made all these new laws that are coming out the wazoo called sarbanes oxley. It's a huge, massive law but the idea is that we were going to mandate ethics to corporate America because apparently they didn't have any, according to the Enron failure. It's now a total pain in the butt to execute it in a publicly traded company.

“It didn't work because you can't cause ethics to happen. However, it does make each company each day restate what their assets are worth if sold on the market. This accounting procedure is mark to market accounting--you need to remember that. It's a good concept and keeps companies from having loaded balance sheets….

“Economist [Brian] Wesbury is saying that if we change that one rule and don't force [the banks and mortgage holders] to mark down to market value and just let them hold on to all the stuff, and say just on sub-primes for this period of time you can change that rule -- a temporary change -- that'll free the market up. It's seized right now; it's frozen. This will thaw it out and get it going again. He says that'll solve 60% of the problem ... and I think he's right.”

Dave Ramsey’s proposal, which he picked up from Economist Brian Wesbury to just change one accounting rule, makes a lot more sense than the Government taking over the majority of mortgages in the nation! But that’s not the only possible fix-it that can be made easily. The next is SO simple – but the Democrats would literally rather die in a bloodbath of the House and Senate floor than to let it happen.

Ready? Suspend the Capital Gains Tax. That’s it. Right now, taxes are 15 percent on invested money and assets. If the capital gains rate is suspended – say, just until the end of 2009 – money would RUSH into the troubled markets by the dump truck loads. If people knew their gains on investments would NOT be taxed, they would be happy to take a little more risk – because the reward will be greater. Otherwise, expect further stock market loses as people pull their money out for fear of losing it.

Another possibility suggested by Dave Ramsey is to provide government “mortgage insurance,” but not to outright “buy” the mortgages. “Why don't we just take the FHA insurance program and extend it across these sub-primes? What that means is that you and I are guaranteeing the lender that they're not going to lose as much or any money on those mortgages. Now I don't like guaranteeing them, but I like it better than buying them. In other words, instead of $700 billion in tax-payer debt going out there to bail out these companies, just extend the insurance out. You could probably do that for less than $40 billion. It's like a 95% savings!” I think this idea has merit as well.

Yet another possibility is to allow states to set up “mortgage arbitration” plans, where a bank and/or mortgagee can appeal to have their loan terms restructured to make the loan perform again. Banks don’t want non-performing loans nor real property on their books. That’s what bogs them down and drives us to the point of financial collapse. Some banks have figured this out and have tried to renegotiate with borrowers, because “a little is better than nothing.” However, two problems have plagued these banks – many of the unfaithful borrowers have simply walked away from their responsibilities to repay the loan, and left the property on the books. Also, some borrowers are actually expecting the Government to swoop in like Super-Bureaucrats and save their bacon by buying their loans and letting them stay in “their” houses virtually for free.

Mortgage arbitration would allow for easier terms of repayment for borrowers, while requiring them to meet their responsibility to pay their debts. It would also allow the banks to have performing loans rather than dead loans and abandoned properties on their balance sheets.

Finally, the financial system as we know it now has no integrity. It has been abused by politicians and their patrons who have profiteered on the desires of the poor and on the dime of the taxpayers. The last element to fix this financial crisis, is the perp-walk. That’s right. Congressmen like Barney Frank and Charles Rangel, and Senators like Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer, all of whom sit on banking, finance and ways and means committees, who protected these blood sucking entities, should be investigated for possible fraud and bribery.

Additionally, Senators and Congressmen who have received large campaign donations from these entities should also be investigated for malfeiscence. Incidentally, Barack Obama has received more contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than any other politician. His VP running mate, Joe Biden is third on that list. A coincidence? I think not.

In addition to these crooked politicians, those “executives” who oversaw the collapse of the financial institutions should be tried for violations of public trust and even outright theft. If they have received “golden parachute” deals when they left or retired from the institutions they’ve run into the ground, that money should be taken from them and distributed to those they stole it from – TAXPAYERS.

The United States financial system is in a place it has not been since October 1929. Government control will not solve the problem. FDR’s New Deal proved that. Even after 10 years of his virtually socialist economic policies, the Depression continued, and only the advent of American involvement in World War II brought the nation out of Depression. But this time, we’ve already had our “Pearl Harbor” on 9/11. This time we are already involved in a Global war. And our politicians did not learn. They did not stop spending. They did not stop playing the game. And that’s what brought us here.

Giving them ALL that money as a reward for their treachery would spell doom for us. And the People with any sense know it.

JDW

Barack Obama: The Alinsky Connection

2008-09-25T00:23:00.002-04:00

Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
Mystery man in senator's memoir now revealed as disciple of socialist agitator

September 24, 2008
8:54 pm Eastern

In a revelation tying Barack Obama even closer to radical community organizing, WND has learned that a renowned disciple of the late socialist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinksy wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied to Harvard Law School.

Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics – to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.

Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight – whom he describes as an "older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties" – but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as "my friend."

But McKnight, who enforced affirmative action for Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was far more than that to young Obama. He helped trained him in the agitation tactics of Alinsky, who wrote the organizing manual, "Rules for Radicals," which he dedicated to mankind's "very first radical, Lucifer."

The Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation lists McKnight as a board director. From1985 to 1988, Obama worked for a subsidiary of Gamaliel, where he cut his teeth as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. McKnight and Gamaliel, which was founded on Alinsky's principles, provided training for the budding radical.

Before leaving for Harvard, Obama wrote an article published in a journal titled, "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he praised McKnight and his organizing strategies. He also decried "institutional racism" and called for more "power" to put in place "a systematic approach to community organization."

While at Harvard, he found time to take advanced training courses at the Industrial Areas Foundation, a group founded by Alinsky and affiliated with Gamaliel. He also would return to Chicago to work as a consultant and trainer for Gamaliel.

Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama says he got the "best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." He made the remark last year while campaigning in Iowa.

His mentor McKnight also sits on the board of a militant leftist group called the National People's Action, the professor's curriculum vita reveals. NPA employs the hardball street tactics of Alinskyite organizing.

NPA claims to be simply a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago, but conservative analyst Michelle Malkin describes it as a "left-wing goon squad." She says NPA has been known to bus hundreds of angry protestors to the homes of business and government leaders to demand "justice" for inner-city blacks.

While preparing to intimidate the families of officials and trample over their private property, she says NPA picketers belt out the following battle cry:

Who's on your hit list, NPA?
Who's on your hit list for today?
Take no prisoner, take no names.
Kick 'em in the a-- when they play their games.
"NPA's militant tactics cross the bounds of decent political debate," Malkin wrote in 2004.

Obama, in his 1995 memoir, said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to "learn power's currency in all its intricacy," with the goal of "making large-scale change" as a national politician.

Before writing his recommendation, McKnight, a former ACLU director, advised Obama not to "compromise" his principles.

While Obama says he's perhaps more tolerant of compromise than McKnight, he says his views haven't really changed from his days organizing on behalf of radical Alinsky groups like Gamaliel and ACORN in Chicago.

"My views are not so much more refined than they were when I labored in obscurity as a community organizer," he averred in his 2006 autobiography.

Socialist dream

Alinsky, the father of community organizing, dreamed of socialism one day replacing the "jungle" of American capitalism. He wrote that he hoped "for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."

Alinsky dedicated the first edition of his book, "Rules for Radicals," to Satan: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

McKnight has advocated for another war on poverty, something Obama is proposing with his "Urban Prosperity" plan.

_______________________________

Any astute and somewhat well read political observer could have seen the Alinsky-esque campaign tactics being utilized by Senator Obama's campaign. "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky's classic book of how to organize political extremists to destroy their competition and the case they attempt to make to oppose their radical agenda is demonstrably on display in Obama's strategy. This connection comes as no surprise to me.

Incidentally, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky is one of the best books I've ever read. If you read that book, you will understand many of the tactics, actions and ultimate goals Marxists, secularists and other assorted Leftist wing-nuts have and wish to impose on YOU. Alinsky was brilliant. In dedicating his book to "the first rebel, Lucifer," we also know his source of inspiration.

JDW

Barack Obama: Just Poor Judgment, or a True Radical Marxist?

2008-09-24T23:12:00.002-04:00

Top Obama Campaign Member Met With Ahmadinejad in New York Tonight
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 | Kristinn

Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:42:49 PM by kristinn

A founding member of the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois met in New York City tonight with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Jodie Evans, who co-hosted Obama's first major fundraiser in Hollywood in February 2007 just after Obama announced his candidacy and is a top fundraiser and donor to Obama's campaign, led a delegation of leftist anti-American groups that held a private meeting near the United Nations. The stated purpose of the meeting was to "serve as an opening for diplomatic resolution" to prevent war between Iran and the United States.

The government of Iran is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department and is strongly believed to be developing nuclear weapons.

Obama has stated that he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad and other enemies of the United States without conditions. Evans met with Obama in Beverly Hills last week at an exclusive $28,500 per person fundraiser. As a bundler for Obama, Evans is granted regular briefings with top Obama staff members and meeting with Obama and his vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Obama has come under heavy criticism from military families and troops support organizations over his alliance with Evans.

Evans is co-founder of the pro-terrorist group Code Pink and works with state sponsors of terrorism to undermine America in the war on terror. She also has publicly announced her support for the terrorists in Iraq, her sympathy for Osama bin Laden and her "love" of Hugo Chavez.

Given Evans' closeness to regular contacts with Obama and his campaign, it is fair to ask if she is acting as an intermediary for Obama.

Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans' attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.

Others attending the meeting with Ahmadinejad included anti-American activists who support the terrorists in Iraq and work anti-American governments: Medea Benjamin, Brian Becker, Leslie Cagan, Larry Holmes and Ramsey Clark.

The press release announcing the meeting can be found below:

FOR convenes meeting of peace activists and President Ahmadinejad

Posted September 24th, 2008 by FOR.

BREAKING ANNOUNCEMENT: FOR convenes groundbreaking dialogue between President Ahmadinejad and American peace activists
Media Advisory - Wednesday, 9/24/08 5:00pm

What: The Fellowship of Reconciliation will convene a meeting between U.S. peace activists and the President of Iran.

Who: Over 150 leaders of the U.S. peace movement (see selected list below) and Iranian leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee.

When: Wednesday, September 24th from 5:00 to 7:00 pm.

Where: Mid-town Manhattan, in a location convenient to the United Nations.

Why: The Fellowship of Reconciliation sees connection between people as a constructive way to address the conflict between our governments. While we have disagreements with President Ahmadinejad, we believe there is value in engaging him in dialogue so that we all have the opportunity to better understand each other's perspectives. Public conversation between civil society and policy-makers is a goal we also seek here at home in the United States. We hope that meetings like this may serve as an opening for diplomatic resolution of our problems, so that we can avoid military solutions. We are united in our desire to prevent a possible war with Iran.

Selected list of participants:

Leaders of all three national peace and anti-war coalitions: United for Peace and Justice (Leslie Cagan, national coordinator; Judith Le Blanc, national organizing coordinator; George Paz Martin, national co-chair); Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (Brian Becker, Sarah Sloan, Monica Somocurcio); and Troops Out Now Coalition/Stop War On Iran Campaign (Larry Holmes, director; Sarah Flounders, campaign director; Dustin Langley; Joyce Chediac Wilcox).
Leaders of religious organizations: Rev. William Sinkford, president, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; Marie Dennis, president, Pax Christi International; Rabbi Michael Feinberg, executive director, Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition; Joe Volk, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation; The Rev. Rick Ufford-Chase, executive director, Presbyterian Peace Fellowship.
Leaders of advocacy & activist organizations: Rostam Pourzal, president, U.S. Coalition Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran; Medea Benjamin, cofounder, Global Exchange and CodePink; Jodie Evans, cofounder, CodePink; Nick Jehlen, founder, Enough Fear
Leaders of policy organizations & NGOs: Robert Naiman, national coordinator, Just Foreign Policy; Jonathan Granoff, president, Global Security Institute; Vicente Garcia, program director, Americans for Informed Democracy; Ambassador William Miller, Search for Common Ground.
Plus leaders in Iranian-American organizations (American-Iranian Council, American-Iranian Friendship Committee, American Iranian Friendship Council); peacemaking groups (Peace Action, Nonviolence International, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Women Against War); professional networks (Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists); former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark; and many more.
More information about the meeting's proceedings and outcomes will be released on Thursday, 9/25/08.
(www.forpeace.net/news/2008/09/24/convenes-meeting-peace-activists-and-president-ahmadinejad)
_____________________________________________

The Evans lady was one of the women who stormed the stage during Sarah Palin's Republican Convention speech -- and Obama welcomed her with open arms to his $28.5K per plate fundraiser -- in Hollywood shortly thereafter. And Ramsey Clark was a founding member of ANSWER, and was Saddam Hussein's defense attorney at his State trial in Iraq.

Either Barack Obama is so terminally stupid about whom he associates with that he cannot possibly have the judgment to be President, or he thinks Americans too terminally stupid to figure out with whom he associates. Either way, Barack Obama in the White House spells a complete disaster at the hands of both Jihadists and neo-Marxists.

Why does it bother me even more that Obama seems completely at home in this kind of company?

JDW

COLD WAR II: The Axis Comes Together - Part 2

2008-09-24T15:23:00.010-04:00

More from the last couple of weeks:

India to Order 29 MiG-29Ks in Russia

September 19, 2008 - India intends to order additional consignment of 29 MiG-29Ks in Russia, Lenta.ru reported with reference to defense sources of Indian Express. The cost of the order is estimated at around $2 billion, but the negotiations with Moscow haven’t been launched yet.

In 2004, India ordered 12 one-seat MiG-29Ks and four two-seat MiG-29KUB under the complex contract for supply of Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier cruiser. The deal budget amounted to $1.6 billion.

The purchase of the second consignment will enable India to create additional squadrons. India plans to extend the 50 MiG-29K fleet to 50 jets.

Russia deploys warships to the Caribbean

Russian warships are sailing towards the Caribbean for the first time since the Cold War to take part in a joint naval exercise with Venezuela.

September 22. 2008 - In a display meant to show off Russia's military resurgence and to provoke the United States, four vessels from the Northern Fleet set sail on a mission replete with an atmosphere of Soviet-era bombast and brinksmanship.

Symbolically at least, the manoeuvres represent the Kremlin's boldest challenge yet to US military hegemony. By sailing so close to the American coastline for a series of exercises with Washington's principal detractor in Latin America, Russia seems to be deliberately attempting to irritate the White House.

The flotilla that left the northern port of Serveromosrk on Russia's Arctic coast was lead by the guided missile cruiser Peter the Great, one of the largest warships of its kind. The Kirov-class warship is equipped with cruise missiles that can be armed with nuclear warheads.

It was accompanied by the Admiral Chabanenko, an anti-submarine destroyer, and two support vessels.

Although navy chiefs insisted that the exercises had no political overtones, most analysts believe the Kremlin is signalling its determination to challenge the United States and retaliate for Washington's support of Georgia during last month's war in the Caucasus.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, vowed that Moscow would respond in kind after accusing American naval vessels ordered to Georgia to deliver aid of carrying weapons to re-arm the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.

The mission, which will formally begin in mid-November, will delight Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President, who has already revelled in the presence of two Russian bombers in his country earlier this month.

"It is a message to the empire that Venezuela is no longer poor and alone," Mr Chavez said last week.

Over the past 18 months, Mr Putin has unnerved the West by ordering the resumption of long-range bomber patrols close to the airspace of several countries, including Britain and the United States.

Whatever their private reaction, American officials are likely to mock Russia's latest attempt at swagger. The White House has already derided the Kremlin's attempts to court Latin America's socialist states, including Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as part of a newly assertive foreign policy that again has many echoes of the Cold War.

There were also insults from the Pentagon over the state of Russia's ageing air force and those jibes are likely to be revived with even greater intensity over the feeble condition of the country's navy.

According to some military analysts, about half of Russia's navy is in dry docks at any one time undergoing repair. The Peter the Great itself was put out of commission for several months in 2004 after Russia's navy chief warned it was in such poor condition it could "explode" at any moment.

Last week two sailors were killed aboard another Russian ship after it caught fire - a regular hazard on many vessels.

Even so, Russia is undergoing a rapid modernisation of its armed forces. While the focus has been on upgrading the country's nuclear capability, Russia unveiled plans last week to increase its defence budget by 50 per cent over the next three years.
Moscow is also seeking the international presence of its navy by building naval bases outside Russia for the first time since the Soviet Union collapsed and could build a new port in Syria, another close ally.

As it tries to reassert itself as a power, Russia has offered itself as a champion of many countries that are bitterly opposed to the United States, among them Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe.

Many of Russia's new friends will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York, which convenes on Tuesday. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will address delegates in a speech that is expected to echo Russia's demands for an overhaul of the world order.

Mr Chavez will make his speech on Wednesday, with President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe due to talk on Thursday.

_______________________________________
Stealth in Venezuela
by Michael J. Economides and Nate Evans
09/23/2008 - Nearly five decades after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians are once again trying to increase their influence in Latin America. On September 11 (which is fascinating timing), two Russian Tu-160 long-range nuclear-capable bombers arrived in Venezuela, along with a contingent of Russian warships. The jets and 1,000 Russian troops were there to begin training exercises with Venezuelan forces.

Much of Venezuela’s weaponry is Russian-made, a result of a $3 billion arms deal between the two in 2006 that allowed Hugo Chávez to purchase 53 Mi-28N helicopters, 24 Su-30MK2 jet fighters, TOR-M1 anti-aircraft systems, and 100,000 AK-47s. A more recent arms deal calls for Venezuela to buy Russia’s Varshavianka-class (aka Kilo-class) submarines. Chávez, never at a loss for blustery rhetoric, declared after the Russians’ arrival: “Yankee hegemony is finished.”

The reaction of the United States to all this has been rather muted. Because the U.S. is so heavily committed in other parts of the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, Chávez believes he has free rein in South America. But while the international community has come to expect bluster and aggression from him, it is Russia that has surprised many. First came the invasion of Georgia. Now it appears that Russia is directly challenging the U.S. in Latin America.
____________________________________________
Mighty Russian Black Sea fleet making waves

By Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers – Fri Sep 19, 2008

SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine — As the Kremlin seeks to reassert its sphere of influence around its borders and beyond, this home port for Russia's Black Sea fleet — marooned in the south of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union — has moved to the center of tensions between Russia and U.S. allies in the region.

Some Ukrainian politicians worry that Russia will stoke anti-Western sentiments in Sevastopol and cities around it on the Crimean peninsula to create an opportunity to annex the area, the same way Moscow did with two breakaway provinces in Georgia last month, or at least use its considerable influence here to push the central government in Kiev to drop plans to join the European Union and NATO.

Either move would heighten the rising tensions between Russia and the United States , which have returned to Cold War levels over the past year.
Georgia and Ukraine , with American backing, angered the Russian leadership with their NATO aspirations. If they were to join, Russia's Black Sea coastline would be surrounded by members of the military organization.

Sergei Zayats, the administrator of Sevastopol's largest district, said he thought the Russians would be willing to resort to force to keep their ships docked in Crimea, where their fleet has operated since the 1780s. "The events in Georgia show that this may happen at any time," said Zayats, who was appointed by Kiev .
Russia has said it has no plans along those lines.
________________________________________________________
CANADA BOOSTS ITS FRONTIER TROOPS AS RUSSIA EYES ARCTIC

OTTAWA (September 19, 2008) - Canada is stepping up its military alertness along its northern frontier in response to Russia’s “testing” of its boundaries and recent Arctic grab, the prime minister said yesterday.

“We are concerned about not just Russia’s claims through the international process, but Russia’s testing of Canadian airspace and other indications ... (of) some desire to work outside of the international framework,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
“That is obviously why we are taking a range of measures, including military measures, to strengthen our sovereignty in the North,” he said, highlighting a new sensor net, navy patrols and a military training camp in the Arctic.

Five countries bordering the Arctic – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US – claim overlapping parts of the region, which is estimated to hold 90bn untapped barrels of oil.
____________________________________________________
Russia's envoy mocks NATO rapid-response force plans

BRUSSELS, September 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's envoy to NATO dismissed on Monday the military alliance's plans to create a rapid-response force to be deployed in member states that feel threatened by Moscow.

Dmitry Rogozin called the plan a "noisemaker," and said it was nothing but part of the 'arsenal of weapons' used in the current U.S. presidential campaign.

NATO defense ministers considered at an informal meeting in London on September 18-19 the creation of a rapid-response force that could be deployed to threatened member states.

The Russian envoy said the idea was destined to fail as there was no major European country that feels threatened by Russia.

"I am very skeptical about this idea," Rogozin said, going on to say that the idea was "a distraction from the real work of the rapid-response forces."

Though the plan is widely supported by NATO member states, it is still unclear who would staff and equip the force, as well as who would have the authority to deploy it and under which circumstances.

The plan was formulated in the light of the five-day Russia-Georgia war over South Ossetia.
_________________________________________________________
France-Russia business booming despite Georgia crisis

Published: Monday 22 September 2008

French Prime Minister François Fillon and his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin met in the Black Sea Resort of Sotchi on Saturday (20 September). Unveiling an impressive bilateral economic package, they seem to have put disagreements over the recent Georgia crisis on the back burner.

Putin described the energy sector as "the locomotive" of bilateral economic relations, announcing French confirmation that Total would participate "at all stages" in the development of the Shtokman gas field in the Barents Sea, one of the biggest offshore gas fields in the world.

Total has a 25 percent stake in the Shtokman Development Company, the company which is to develop the 3.7 trillion cubic metre field. The rest of the company is controlled by Gazprom (51%) and StatoilHydro (24%). Faced with the need to address huge technological challenges, such as developing floating platforms, for when global warming unleashes huge icebergs, Gazprom badly needs Western expertise to develop the Shtokman field.

Nuclear energy also featured at the top of the bilateral agenda, with Russian company Atomenergomash and French firm Alstom to jointly develop steam turbines for nuclear power plants, Putin said, quoted by the Russian government's website. The Russian prime minister also announced plans to further develop cooperation between the two countries' electricity giants – Electricité de France and Inter RAO UES, as well as a series of projects in the transport sector. French companies Vinci and Bouygues will be building roads in Russia, while there are "big plans" for carmakers Renault and Peugeot in the country, Putin said.

He also highlighted cooperation in the space sector, with French company Arianespace, the world's first commercial space transportation company, to buy ten Russian booster rockets.
___________________________________

Russian warships in Syrian waters
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:15:34 GMT

Ten Russian warships have been deployed at the Syrian port of Tartus based on an accord reached by the two sides after the August south Caucases conflict.
Rear Admiral Andrei Baranov, head of the Russian Black Sea Fleet's operations directorate, said Friday the Russian engineering crew was at Tartus to expand the capacity of the harbor to host additional fleet vessels.

The teams will also be working on expanding Latakia, another Syrian port, possibly for aircraft carriers or guided missile cruisers, said Baranov.

On Sept. 12, nearly one month after the south Caucases conflict broke out, Russia and Syria reached an agreement that would provide Moscow with a long-term base rights at Syrian ports.
____________________________________________________

DEBKAfile's military sources reported that Israeli military leaders were stunned at the news of the Russian fleet being deployed near Israeli shores.
The Moscow Times
Israel Says Russia Feeds Tips to Syria

22 September 2008JERUSALEM -- Israel believes that Russia passes intelligence it gathers about the Jewish state to Syria and indirectly to Hezbollah guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon, a senior military officer said Friday.

"My assessment is that their facilities cover most of the state of Israel's territory," Colonel Ram Dor, chief of information security in the armed forces, told Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, describing Russian spy ships that dock in Syria and Russian personnel who he said serve in electronic eavesdropping stations on the Syrian side of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

"The Syrians share the intelligence that they gather with Hezbollah, and the other way around. This we know, because we know how to build a mirror-image that shows us what enemy intelligence knows about us," Dor said.

"So if the Russians help the Syrians get information, and the Syrians constantly pass it on to Hezbollah, it is a reasonable supposition that the information gathered by the Russians also reaches Hezbollah's hands."

Russian officials were unavailable for comment. Moscow has denied providing Syria or Iran with support that could boost their offensive capabilities and in recent years has offered to host Israeli-Arab peace summits.
______________________________________________________________

Russia plans delivery of more air defense systems to Iran

Source: Press TV 9/21/08

Russia is negotiating the delivery of more air defense systems to Iran in defiance of Western pressure to halt the move, an official says.

General Director of Russian arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, made the remark while talking to reporters at the Africa Aerospace & Defense-2008 (AAD-2008) exhibition near Cape Town in South Africa.

According to RIA Novosti, , Anatoly Isaikin added that contacts between Iran and Russia on the delivery of air defense systems are continuing and Moscow sees no reason to suspend the negotiation.

""Deliveries of Russian anti-aircraft weaponry to Iran were aimed exclusively at increasing its air defense capability and were not subject to international restrictions,"" he reiterated.

The report said that Iran recently took delivery of 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defense missile systems under a USD 700m contract signed in late 2005 and trained Iranian Tor-M1 specialists, including radar operators and crew commanders.
At the same time, Israel has urged Russia to halt its sale of advanced weapons to Iran and Syria.

This is while the U.S. and Israel have consistently refused to rule out the possibility of military action against Iran.

Iran, however, has denied reports that it has purchased the advanced Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft defense system.

S-300 surface-to-air missiles could greatly improve Iranian defenses against any air strike on its strategically important sites, including nuclear facilities.
The advanced version of the S-300 missile system, called S-300PMU1 (SA-20 Gargoyle), has a range of over 150 km (100 miles) and can intercept ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high altitudes, making the system an effective tool for warding off possible air strikes.

Tehran has carried out several high-profile war games this year, including a three-day series of Air Force and missile defense exercises on September 15-18 aimed at achieving preparedness against all possible threats.
_________________________________________

Russia courts leftists in Latin AmericaU.S. influence dwindles
Friday, September 19, 2008

EXCLUSIVE:

Russia is expanding its presence in left-leaning Latin American nations, with an offer of aid to Bolivia to replace drug-fighting money cut off by the Bush administration - the latest expansion of Moscow's ties with a region beset by declining U.S. influence.

Iran and China are also actively courting several nations in the region. The efforts typically target nations that have turned leftward in democratic elections, with Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela among the most prominent.

"The Embassy of Russia has officially requested that a government delegation come to Moscow to discuss cooperation in anti-drug efforts," Felipe Caceres, Bolivia's drug czar, told The Washington Times in a telephone interview Thursday.

"There are two kinds of support we are talking about. First is support for officials and personnel, and the other is the possible use of high-altitude helicopters."

Tensions between Bolivia and the United States neared the breaking point this month, when dozens of people were killed in a battle between loyalists and opponents of the government of leftist President Evo Morales for control of natural gas exports.

Bolivia and the U.S. have expelled each other's ambassadors, and the U.S. has begun evacuating nonessential personnel from its embassy in La Paz amid bloody battles that pitted Morales supporters - mostly Indians from the nation's eastern highlands - against Bolivians of European descent in the energy-rich east.

As the battles raged, the Bush administration "decertified" Bolivia as a nation cooperating in the U.S.-led war on drugs, putting up to $30 million in U.S. aid in jeopardy.

Mr. Caceres said proposed cooperation with Moscow was not intended as a slight to the U.S. and that Bolivia welcomes help "from any state that does not put conditions on us."

In recent years, Russia has stepped up its outreach to Latin America, as has China and, to a lesser extent, Iran. Efforts typically include foreign aid, joint ventures to develop energy resources, technology transfers and weapons sales - developments that defy centuries of U.S. domination of the Western Hemisphere under what is known as the Monroe Doctrine.
_______________________________________________
Russia Successfully Fires New Ballistic Missile
By VOA News
18 September 2008

Russia has successfully fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Russian Defense Ministry officials say the Bulava missile was launched Thursday from a Russian nuclear submarine. Its warheads struck their designated targets on Russia's far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula.

The Bulava missile has a range of 10,000 kilometers and can carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads. Some previous tests of the missile failed and Russia appointed a commission to investigate.

Bulava missiles will be deployed in new Borei-class nuclear submarines - the first of which is to be commissioned this year. News media reports in Russia say the Bulava missile has the ability to penetrate any future missile shield.

The Bulava test comes as the United States has reached agreement on deploying an anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The plan to put 10 missiles in Poland and tracking radar in the Czech Republic has angered Russia. But U.S. officials say the system is designed only to counter potential threats from rogue states that develop missiles that could threaten the U.S. and its allies.
________________________________________

CHRISTIAN APPEASERS WELCOME AHMADINEJAD

September 24, 2008
On September 25, there will be a press conference and a rally outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City at 5:30 p.m. to protest the five Christian organizations that are welcoming Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Those organizations are the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace, the Americans Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee and the Quaker United Nations Office; they are hosting a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner (Iftar).

Over 50 organizations have now joined the protest, which is being sponsored by Women International; see www.925rally.org for more information. Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why his organization is participating:

“The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has secured evidence from 10 countries demonstrating Iran’s nuclear development activities. Because Iran is not cooperating with IAEA inspectors, the U.N. Security Council has thrice imposed sanctions on Ahmadinejad’s regime. The concerns are obvious: the Iranian president has said that Israel ‘must be wiped off the map.’ Moreover, Iran is now about to formalize its stricture on apostasy: this would mean certain death to any Muslim who converts. But none of this matters to the Christian appeasers who will greet him tomorrow.

“The most prestigious organization welcoming Ahmadinejad is the World Council of Churches (WCC). Its politics are so radical that its agenda could easily be endorsed by any Marxist atheist. It was not for nothing that Jewish interreligious leader Israel Singer once branded the WCC ‘the head office for the dissemination of antisemitic statements.’ Indeed, after Yasser Arafat died, the WCC stated that the Arab terrorist ‘came to the recognition that true justice embraces peace,’ something that many Israeli mothers must have found mind-boggling.

“To appease someone like Ahmadinejad is sickening, but for it to be done in the name of Christianity is enough to induce vomiting. We strongly encourage Catholics and others to attend the rally.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

And the good news keeps on rolling in.....

JDW

COLD WAR II Update: The Axis Comes Together - Part 1

2008-09-24T14:43:00.002-04:00

Russia's Medvedev:armed action on Iran unacceptable
09.12.08

MOSCOW, Sept 12 (Reuters) - A military solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions is unacceptable and there is no need at the moment for new sanctions, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday.

But Medvedev said Russia continued to support a diplomatic drive led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to offer Tehran a package of incentives in return for it reining in some of its nuclear activities.

Western states are anxious that a rift between Moscow and the West over Russia's intervention in Georgia may shatter the fragile international coalition that has been applying pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.

'We should not take any unilateral steps. It is not acceptable to opt for a military scenario. It would be dangerous,' Medvedev told the Valdai Club, a panel of journalists and academics who specialise in Russia.

'The key is that negotiations be pursued... They have been quite positive,' Medvedev said. 'We should not adopt any additional sanctions now.'

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was in Moscow on Monday for talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, the two countries' first high-level contact since Russia angered the West last month by sending troops and tanks into Georgia.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said Western states will have to tackle Iran without Russia's help if they withdraw cooperation in other areas as punishment for the Kremlin's actions in Georgia.

The United States and other Western powers say they suspect Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb under cover of its civilian nuclear programme.

Tehran denies it has any such intention. It says it is exercising its sovereign right to develop nuclear technology for generating electricity.

U.S. President George W. Bush has refused to rule out the use of force against Iran, though he has said he favours a diplomatic solution.

Russia has consistently opposed military action against Iran and has also used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to dilute U.S.-led attempts to impose tougher sanctions.

Existing U.N. sanctions include financial and travel curbs on a list of Iranian individuals and companies linked with the nuclear programme.

'We will use only proportionate sanctions. They will be aimed at individuals and organisations involved in Iran's nuclear programme,' Lavrov told the Valdai Club at a separate session earlier on Friday.
_________________
Answering Iran

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Foreign Policy: Tehran has elevated its effort to become a member of the nuclear arms club. That leaves our government with a tough choice: Will it make a firm stand or be rolled over by a lawless regime?

Our own media haven't been paying much attention lately to Iran, but a couple of enterprising reporters in England have been keeping up with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration. What they found is alarming:

"With almost every day that passes, the crisis over Iran's nuclear program appears to move a step closer to what looks increasingly like its inevitable conclusion — military action," Con Coughlin writes for the Telegraph.

Meanwhile, frontpagemagazine.com reported Friday that the Russian who is president of the state-owned company building Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr says Iran will not be stopped from becoming an atomic nation.

"I think that in December, January and February, a whole range of technological events will be conducted that will demonstrate the irreversibility of the plant's physical launch in the foreseeable future," said Leonid Reznikov, president of Atomstroiexport.

Is it all just an innocent commercial reactor, as Iran claims?

Coughlin and a colleague report that international inspectors, whose movements in Iran are restricted by the government, believe the Iranians have moved 50 to 60 tons of uranium from a complex in Isfahan to a covert site, where inspectors won't have access. The amount of material is enough, once processed into weapons-grade uranium, to build five or six nuclear bombs.

As one International Atomic Energy Agency official said, if Iran's nuclear ambitions are only peaceful, why would they have moved the uranium? Don't expect answers later this month when IAEA governors meet to talk about Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA, an arm of the United Nations, is as feckless as the U.N. itself.

The most likely entity to take action against Iran is Israel, which helped the world avert an inevitable crisis when it disabled Iraq's Osirak atomic reactor with an air strike in 1981. The bold raid justly derailed Saddam Hussein's goal of developing nuclear weapons.

But the U.S., if a report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper is true, has Israel on a short leash. No U.S. bunker-buster bombs to destroy hardened nuclear facilities in Iran. No permission to use Iraqi air space, under U.S. control, as a flyover space into Iran. And no advanced tankers for refueling Israeli fighters for their return flights.

We have no way of knowing if this is true, or if, as Haaretz says, the U.S. is still seeking a diplomatic resolution. We hope the U.S. isn't holding back Israel. Yes, we recognize an attack during the current campaign would be questioned, and that Israeli warplanes flying over Iraq is a sensitive issue.

But the ugly wound on our planet that is Tehran's deranged regime can't be allowed to fester much longer. A nuclear-armed Iran may just try to act on its threats to raze Israel. And it will certainly try to bully intimidated nations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Diplomacy can be effective if both sides are rational. But when outlaw governments are in control, as in Tehran, diplomats' failures turn up as legions of battlefield corpses. Sometimes a short burst of force is the only way to ensure a long spell of peace.
_____________________________

CAUCASUS CRISIS
Turkey Walks a Tightrope Between Russia and the West

By Daniel Steinvorth in Istanbul

Turkey was traditionally adept at maintaining good relations with both Russia and the West -- until the Georgian crisis came along. Now both sides are making demands on Turkey. Has the time come for Ankara to choose sides?

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, 62, is Russia's most flamboyant far-right politician and professes to be big friend of Turkey. "No one loves you the way I love you," the thick-set populist who speaks fluent Turkish, recently sang before a Turkish audience in Istanbul.

Zhirinovsky, a graduate of Oriental studies, visited Turkey for the first time in 1962 as a translator for the Soviet Union's State Committee for Exports. During his visit he was arrested for spreading "communist propaganda" and spent 17 days in jail. Later he wrote a pamphlet about his experiences and recommended that his country annex all Turkic countries because the Russian soldier "must clean his boots in the Indian Ocean."

Now Zhirinovsky's passion for the southern neighbor has been reignited once more. "Learn Russian, don't look to the West, look north," the troublemaker preaches during his regular visits to Turkey. "The EU doesn't want you, but we want you. We'll give you gas, you give us nuts!"

Russia is Turkey's Biggest Trading Partner

It's true that Turkey and Russia have moved closer to each other recently, and not just because of energy resources. Russia is the NATO member country's biggest trading partner. Turkey imports almost 70 percent of its gas requirements and 50 percent of its coal from Russia. On Turkey's riviera, in Antalya and Side, Russian tourists now outnumber Germans.

And whenever the Europeans criticize his government, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan grumbles that Turkey has an alternative and could align itself with another country. There's little doubt he's referring to Russia.

If he were to pursue an alliance with Russia, Erdogan would be turning history on its head, though. The Crimean War of 1853 to 1856 was the ninth war between the two countries. More followed, until eventually the Ottoman Empire lay in ruins after World War I. Then Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, did what he could to shield his country from Stalin's agents. Atatürk's successor later allowed the US to station nuclear missiles in Anatolia, along with whole forests of aerials to eavesdrop on the Soviets.

Turks as Model Europeans

Turkey has always looked westward, an aspect that has been overlooked in Europe in the debate about Turkey's bid to join the EU. The Turkish government in 1999 offered ground troops in the conflict with Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Turkey, like Europe, maintains good relations with Israel and opposes Iran's nuclear ambitions. Last week Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan signed an agreement with the Arab Gulf states which is aimed at curbing Tehran's influence.

And it was the Turks who pushed for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline through which Caspian oil is pumped to Europe, bypassing Russia and Iran. Aside from the Cyprus conflict, the Turks are, in foreign policy terms, model Europeans.

But their balancing act between Europe and Russia has rarely been as difficult as after the Georgian war. Erdogan's government had no choice but to join the EU and US in supporting the territorial integrity of the small republic. The pipeline from the Caspian Sea means there are common interests with Tbilisi. That has led to consequences for Turkey.

In mid-August Russia began to punish Ankara. Since then customs officers at the Georgian-Russian border have been scrutinizing Turkish trucks with unprecedented thoroughness, causing a tailback of several hundred trucks and $500 million in losses. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has promised that the "technically necessary" controls will soon be lifted.

'Welcome to the Lukewarm War'

Russia is also angry about Turkey's stance on the presence of American and European naval ships in the Black Sea, regardless of the fact that those vessels were supposedly delivering aid to the Georgian port city of Poti. Lavrov described the West's ships as a form of "gunboat diplomacy" and called on Turkey to tighten control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits. Under an international agreement dating back to 1936, naval vessels must spend no longer than 21 days in the Black Sea.

But the US was also angry because the Turks -- referring to the same agreement -- were refusing to allow the passage of further warships, saying they were simply too big.

"Welcome to the lukewarm war," wrote Turkish columnist Cengiz Aktar about the new dilemma facing his country. Ever since the end of the Cold War Turkey has been putting its feelers out in all directions. But now the time had come to set priorities, wrote Aktar. "Do we want to behave like our northern neighbor and create peace by means of war?" he asks. "Or do we want to be like the European Union and conduct policy by peaceful means?"

Flexibility is Turkey's trump card. All doors are open to it. It has always pursued good relations with the US, Europe and Israel. And after the end of the Cold war it extended its sphere of influence among its "Turkic brothers" in Central Asia.

Friend to All

Even the Islamic-Arab world has moved closer to Turkey since the moderately Islamic AKP party of Erdogan came to power. Turkey's move to initiate secret talks between Syria and Israel is regarded as the biggest foreign policy success of the conservative government.

And the Georgia conflict? The Turkish prime minister responded with a suggestion that could have come from German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He proposed am international forum -- a "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform" -- in which all states could resolve their differences.

The forum is to include Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, Georgia and Armenia -- the country Turkey has been in dispute with for decades over the massacre of Armenians by Ottoman forces in World War I. To this day Ankara refuses to recognize the killings as genocide.

But diplomatic relations between the two countries weren't broken off until 1993 after Armenia seized control of Nagorno-Karabach, an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, the fact that Turkish President Abdulla Gül flew to the Armenian capital Yerevan last weekend to watch a football match with his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian is being seen as the beginning of a thaw in relations.

And Zhirinovsky? The Russian nationalist recently travelled to Turkey again. He called the NATO an "imperialist club" and once again urged Turkey to forget about Europe and forge an alliance with his country -- the peace-loving Russia.
____________________________

US stops being polite as spat with Venezuela grows
By FOSTER KLUG and IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008
WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The United States stopped trying to be polite Friday in an escalating diplomatic shoving match with the populist leaders of Venezuela and Bolivia. Washington slapped new sanctions on three aides close to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and called him weak and desperate. The Venezuelan ambassador got the boot for good measure, a move that was purely for show. Chavez had already brought his man home.

"Those who shout the loudest are not making the real news in the Americas," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said after Chavez used bathroom profanity to accuse the Americans of meddling in Latin America.

The rupture began Wednesday when Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador there, accusing him of inciting violent protests. Chavez followed suit Thursday, accusing the "U.S. empire" of helping plot a coup against him. He later gave the American ambassador 72 hours to quit the country.

McCormack adopted a grave tone to read a long defense to reporters Friday.

"The only meaningful conspiracy in the region is the common commitment of democratic countries to enhance opportunities for their citizens," he said. "The only overthrow we seek is that of poverty."

Separately, the United States accused three members of Chavez's inner circle of aiding Colombian rebels known as the FARC by supplying arms and helping drug traffickers.

Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement that the "designation exposes two senior Venezuelan government officials and one former official who armed, abetted and funded the FARC, even as it terrorized and kidnapped innocents."

Violent clashes over Bolivia's future have claimed eight lives. U.S. diplomats say Chavez and Morales are punching the United States to distract attention from mismanagement and unpopularity at home.

"This reflects the weakness and desperation of these leaders," McCormack said.
Not long after he spoke, Honduras announced that it will hold off on the accreditation of a new U.S. ambassador in solidarity with Venezuela and Bolivia. Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said the Central American nation is not breaking relations with the United States.

Zelaya said small nations need to stick together. "The world powers must treat us fairly and with respect," he said. Zelaya previously planned to receive credentials Friday from U.S. diplomat Hugo Llorens.

Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega, a close ally of Morales, has not announced yet whether he will take any action against the U.S. ambassador in Nicaragua.
"Dark forces of the empire are conspiring against the government of Morales," Ortega said Thursday, referring to the United States.

By the end of the week, it was clear that the Bush administration's second-term strategy to get along with many left-leaning governments in Latin America while saying as little as possible about Chavez had fizzled.

Chavez and Morales suggested they had no interest in improving ties with Washington until a new administration takes over in January.

Chavez has made a specialty of anti-American broadsides, including an infamous 2006 reference to President Bush as the devil. Morales, on the other hand, was seen by Washington as a potential partner. The former coca growing union boss campaigned with a mild anti-American edge, but shook hands warmly with Rice at a much-watched get-acquainted session in 2006. He gave her a present she couldn't keep: A traditional Bolivian string instrument plastered with coca leaves.

A two-week protest against Morales' plans to redo the constitution and redirect gas revenues turned violent this week as demonstrators in the country's energy-rich eastern provinces stormed public offices, blocked roads and seized gas fields.
His surprise move Wednesday to kick out the U.S. ambassador drew a mild response from Washington at first. The State Department said the diplomat had done nothing wrong, and then stalled for time to see if Morales was serious.

All hesitation was gone Friday.

"The charges leveled against our fine ambassadors by the leaders of Bolivia and Venezuela are false — and the leaders of those countries know it," McCormack said.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said Bush's government is "the only one responsible for the state of deterioration" of its relations with Latin America.
The government said it will "submit all its relations with the United States to an intense process of evaluation."

The new sanctions target Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Henry Rangel Silva, both chiefs of Venezuelan intelligence agencies. A former government minister, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, was also named. The officials have served as Chavez's most trusted security chiefs.

U.S. drug czar John Walters has said Venezuela, which suspended cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 2005, is failing to take action against a sharp rise in cocaine smuggling. By U.S. estimates, the flow of Colombian cocaine through Venezuela has quadrupled since 2004, reaching an estimated 282 tons last year.

U.S. officials said the sanctions had been in the works for some time and are unrelated to the diplomatic dispute.

************************************

Watching the developments both internationally and here in the United States economically and politically, it is not difficult to see the design of the enemies of our country to bring us to our knees.

The shear weight of financial pressure that a War such as we must fight against Islamofascism has placed on our nation, as well as the unyielding greed and vote-buying of both political parties that has gone on for decades, is finally catching up to us.

Hate Bin Laden, but don't underestimate his intelligence. He knew the vices of our political system, and the fragility of the house of cards they've built. He also sensed the indecision or apathy of the American people. And he accurately observed that the generations of history during which the American nation and her principles have crushed their ideological foes has left wreckage and carnage out of which new generations of hate could be harnessed to bombard the United States here at this time.

And indeed, our enemies are piling on -- economically now, but how much longer before a China lunges for the wayward Taiwan? Or a stricken North Korea strikes South Korea? Or the Fascist thugs in charge in Russia now take out another former "satellite state"? Or Iran develops nukes and tries to take out Tel-Aviv to kill all the "Zionists"? Or all of the above -- at the same time?

More to follow....

JDW

Yet Another Liberal Speaks!

2008-09-12T20:51:00.002-04:00

I'm so thankful for Pam Anderson. The Scandal-ridden, multi-married (and divorced) Animal rights PETA supporting Bottle blond Hollywood Liberal shared her profound view of Sarah Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3vEfvpHDd8

Enjoy!

JDW

Please, Liberals, Keep Talking...

2008-09-11T12:30:00.002-04:00

Just like this from Matt Damon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

Matt, you are awesome as Jason Bourne. When not on the set, you should just shut up. But between now and November 4th, PLEASE keep talking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_bDX8wv ... re=related

Barack Obama may not have meant his comment about Governor Sarah Palin. BUT, the crowd certainly thought they knew what he meant. Which indicates his absolute lack of judgment...

Apparently Representative Steve Cohen (Democrat - Tennessee) has become a theologian! Just 17 seconds -- ya gotta see this one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmnbTBCktoM

Don't ya love it!? On the FLOOR of the House of Representatives no less!

We just LOVE the Fowler's here in South Carolina! A prominent Democrat family, they supply us with no end of little verbal gems! Like this one!

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78

Can't hear it? Here's a cleaner version:

Audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86km6gPWuV4&NR=1

Yeah, gotta LOVE them Fowler's! Honest Democrats!

THEN, we have Carol Fowler, Democrat Party Chair for SC -- and WIFE of godd ole' boy DON, saying this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8iZgapf3Y

If I can actually find the audio or video of Carol's statement, I'll post it. There are numerous affirmations of it's accuracy, and just as many liberals falling all over themselves to apologize -- like a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign and another big named Democrat from here in SC, Dick Harpootlian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwpz-HsQPEo

Senator Joe Biden is so shaken by what's happened in the campaign over the last week or so that he's decided there may be a better VP candidate for Barack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NdkTVIK0D0

Ah, yes. And this is just from the past few days! PLEASE, liberals, keep talking like this! Keep it up and the Wellstone Memorial a few years ago will pale in comparison!

JDW

Cold War II -- Ralph Peters Weighs in on Russia

2008-09-08T14:34:00.001-04:00

RUSSIA 1, FREEDOM 0
TANKS ROLL IN, AND EUROPE ROLLS OVER

IN the wake of Russia's ruthless invasion of Georgia, the United States sent relief supplies on military aircraft and ships. Our vice president went to Tbilisi. And we promised a billion dollars in reconstruction aid.

The European Union sent a get-well card. With no return address.

Washington asked that Georgia and Ukraine be put on the fast track to NATO membership to deter further Russian aggression. The EU suggested sending unarmed civilian observers, instead.

The Bush administration begged for a unified front against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's barbarism. Rejecting any penalties for Russia, the EU took the bold step of postponing talks on a trade deal.

Within the EU, Britain and Poland insisted that Russia needed a good slap for its latest strategic tantrum. Other Europeans found that ill mannered.

As I'd predicted, the Europeans found the rape of Georgia an embarrassment, nothing more. The odious former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, even took Russia's side. (Of course, Schroeder also took a highly paid job with Russian energy interests, so he may not have been entirely impartial.)

Back when the United States went ahead with the liberation of Iraq over protests from France and Germany - whose corporations made money off Saddam - Washington was damned for going it "alone." Now, as we try to build a consensus to respond to brutal aggression, the same countries want no part of it. (Financial interests are involved again - this time, it's gas, not oil.)

Russians are not by nature disposed to much happiness, but Putin and his paladins must be downright gleeful.

The tragedy is that the West could have made Putin pay. And we didn't need a military confrontation. We needed unity.

Together, the Euro-American democracies had the power to inflict serious economic and political pain on the Putin regime. But Europe lacks a conscience - and, without Europe, we lack the clout.

This is all going to end badly. Putin's feeling invincible now, and, just to keep in practice, he's gone back to killing journalists who criticize the czar. Last week saw the murder of two more Russian-citizen media figures.

Magomed Yevloyev, a Web-site publisher from Ingushetia, was abducted from a commercial airliner by the police. The cops shot him and dumped his body.

Two days later, TV reporter Abdulla Alishayev was shot and killed in the nearby "republic" of Daghestan. Russian government sources blame "Wahhabis."

Plus, a reporter and editor, Milosla Bitokov, from the Karbardino-Balkar "republic," was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized. But, given all the journalists Putin has murdered since he came to power, a few broken bones or a fractured skull hardly count.

This recent violence suggests an effective response to resurgent Russian imperialism: Each of those journalist critics of the Putin regime came from a different, but equally restive, province on the northern slopes of the Caucasus. (Historically, Daghestan was a tougher nut for czarist troops to crack than Chechnya.)

The dominant Muslim populations - and some Christians - in the region view today's ethnic-Russian presence as an unbroken extension of Soviet and czarist tyranny. And the locals are tough customers - even Stalin couldn't break their will completely.

Given Putin's brutality and the belligerent threats from his gang (including Flunky, the eighth dwarf, a k a President Dmitri Medvedev), it may be time to dust off our anti-Soviet strategy from Afghanistan: Arm and fund militant separatist movements in the Russian-occupied Caucasus.

Yes, there are risks. Some of those local nationalists are also Islamists. Well, just don't give them another batch of stingers until they can prove they've expended the previous lot.

Sometimes, the best way to take down Lucifer is to back Beelzebub.

Let's face it: We've got Islamist extremism on the defensive. That's one thing the Bush administration got right. The Muslim-terrorist problem will be with us to some degree for years to come, but it's not remotely as great a threat as a resurgent militarist Russia bristling with missiles and led by a reincarnation of Ivan the Terrible.

The Russians chose to play hardball with Georgia, a democracy allied to the United States. They won the first inning. Now it's time to dust off our Louisville Sluggers.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."

Cold War II -- Update

2008-09-08T12:59:00.002-04:00

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will send a nuclear-powered battleship to the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela, Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

The maneuvers later this year will be the first Russia has conducted in Washington's traditional sphere of influence since the end of the Cold War.

Russia has heavily criticized the United States for sending a sophisticated command ship and two other naval vessels to Georgia, on its southern border, to deliver aid and show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili after Moscow sent troops into Georgia.

Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev asked on Saturday how Washington would feel "if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean...using our navy."

Later that day, a Venezuelan naval official said four Russian warships would visit the Caribbean in November.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said on Monday that the naval mission to Venezuela would include the nuclear-powered battle cruiser "Peter the Great," one of the world's largest combat battleships.

Moscow's most modern destroyer, the "Admiral Chabanenko," will also steam to the Caribbean, along with other ships, including a fuel tanker, he added.

Russia denied that the move amounted to retaliation against the United States over its action Georgia.

"We are talking about a planned event not linked with current political circumstances and not in any way connected to events in Georgia," he told a news briefing. The exercises "will in no way be directed against the interests of a third country."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of the United States, said during a visit to Moscow in July that Russian warships or warplanes were welcome to visit.

"If some day a Russian fleet arrived in the Caribbean, we will raise flags, we would beat drums and play the national anthem of Venezuela and the national anthem of Russia because it would be the arrival of a friend," he said.

Chavez is a major arms client of Moscow, saying he needs Russian weaponry to dissuade "the North American empire" from invading his country.

Medvedev responded by declaring that Venezuela was "the most important partner" of Russia in the region.

Chavez has bought fighter jets and submarines from Russia to retool Venezuela's aging weapons and says he is also interested in a missile defense system.

The Torchbearers: The Future of Conservatism

2008-09-05T12:54:00.003-04:00

When John McCain won the nomination of the Republican Party earlier this year, many pronounced Conservatism -- the vision of Ronald Reagan -- dead. I never bought that, but I did conclude that the Republican Party had shelved it indefinitely, preferring to attempt to out-Democrat the Democrats.

Since that time, McCain has done little to convince me any different. His constant drumbeat to "reach across the aisle" is worn and faded, and will obviously follow the same trajectory as did George W. Bush's early strategy of "working together" with Democrats -- right into the trashcan of history. One does not "work with" Liberals, nor does one engage in "bipartisanship" with Democrats. One simply surrenders to them. THAT is their definition of "bipartisanship." If John McCain doesn't know that by now, he's too dense to be President.

But I digress. McCain did manage to impress me with his performance at the Saddleback Valley Church forum a few weeks ago. He said all the right things to Rick Warren, and he did so with conviction and candor. He did what he HAD to do to impress Evangelicals -- and me. I'm really not sure it was anymore than that.

However, with his pick of Sarah Palin last week as his running mate, he started something I don't know that he entirely foresaw. I'm sure he was going for the Hillary Clinton female demographic, and he certainly scored with the Conservative base, Christian voters, pro-lifers, gun rights advocates, etc. But the enthusiasm demonstrated for Palin was more than just the satisfaction of the various "special interest" groups.

Sarah Palin embodies the vision of the late and great Ronald Reagan. She embodies Reagan's trajectory to power as well, though his base was California, and hers is Alaska. Her resume is a bit slimmer than was Reagan's when he made his definitive bid for the presidency in 1980; yet, she has clearly demonstrated the strength of her principles and their solidarity with the Reagan vision. In four, or perhaps eight years, she will be prepared to appear at the top of the ticket. And it appears at this point that Republicans can only benefit from it.

John McCain has, perhaps unknowingly, re-launched the Reagan Revolution. In Sarah Palin, Conservatives finally have one of their own on the ticket, and they have someone to look to in the future. McCain has virtually sealed his fate as a transitional figure in Republican politics -- a bridge between the Reaganism in the 1980's and the New Reaganism a generation later. The bridge has produced potholes and detours like Bushes, Doles and McCain's. But in Sarah Palin, the far shore may be coming into sight. And she may be the one to bear the torch over.

Another Governor has been prominent recently in the media -- but for far less glamorous reasons. Three years after Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Gustav took aim once again at the Louisiana coast. New Orleans was again threatened. As Gustav approached, day after day, Governor Bobby Jindal appeared before the press, outlined and detailed all the work and organized preparation for the coming storm, and clearly demonstrated that he was in charge. He was in charge of the facts, he was in charge of the process, he was in charge of the people. He worked WITH others, rather than laying blame after things went wrong. He demonstrated responsibility and capability.

Thankfully, Gustav was not quite the storm Katrina was. Thankfully, the rebuilt levees were strong enough for the task. Thankfully, the evacuations and aid was orderly, sensible, well thought out. The steady hand of a young governor with a lot of potential should not be dismissed.

Bobby Jindal, like Sarah Palin, is in his first term as a Governor. He has already faced "crisis" in his leadership. He shares the values and convictions of Governor Palin. He has many of the same excellent characteristics as Palin, and stands upon many of the same principles. Bobby Jindal is, like Palin, one to watch. He, too, is a worthy torchbearer.

Whether or not McCain wins the election this year -- and his choice of Palin only HELPS -- he has secured a place for the return of Reagan Conservatism to the leadership of the Republican Party. If that's ALL that John McCain does, it is enough. In four, perhaps eight years, one or both of these young Conservatives will -- and MUST -- be at the top of the Republican Party ticket. If that does not happen the Party will not survive.

At least now, Conservatives can see the distant light of the torch, and we know who is bearing it.

JDale

Sarah Palin: Zing! Pow!!

2008-09-03T22:57:00.003-04:00

It is no secret that I do not like John McCain. I opposed him in the Republican Primaries, and when he won, I declared I would not vote for him unless something changed.

Something changed.

No, John McCain didn't admit he was wrong on illegal immigration. He didn't change his mind about embyonic stem cell research. And despite his excellent appearance at the Saddleback Valley Church Presidential Forum with Rick Warren a few weeks ago, I didn't trust him. Honestly, I still don't.

HOWEVER, I have to say that John McCain's choice for his Vice Presidential candidate, the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, was inspired. No, excellent! Not even close!.... Dare I say perfect?!

Back in the spring, when it became clear that McCain would be the candidate, I prognosticated as to whom he might choose as a running mate. I figured, in keeping with his maverick tendency to "reach across the aisle," he would choose a Joe Leibermann. I feared he might decide to play the "big tent" Republican and choose pro-abortion Tom Ridge. The name of Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, came to mind. But he was deeply needed in his home state in the aftermath of the Katrina debacle. I thought about Sarah Palin, but as quickly as she crossed my mind, I dismissed the possibility. Too Conservative for McCain, too far away from Washington.

McCain finally, happily, surprised me. And tonight, having just watched Governor Palin's acceptance speech at the Convention -- wow. WOW. The whole hockey mom = a pit bull with lipstick... It works! Can she lay it all out! Excellent! Effective! Honest! And did she ever get it right about Barry Obama! I felt like I was watching an old Batman episode -- Zing! Pow! Smack!

I left the Republican Party in 1996. The Republicans have not given me many reasons to return to the party in the last 12 years. If Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party, however, I could reconsider my future affliation. At least, I would entertain the idea at the moment.

No, I haven't definitely decided I can vote for John McCain. He is still on the top of the ticket after all. But if he was really "talking straight" at Saddleback Church, and if Governor Sarah Palin is an example of the kind of people he will bring into his administration, I might be able to work with him. We shall see. Regardless, however, I think we will see much more of Governor Sarah Palin, whether as Vice President or in future races for national office. And that's a GOOD thing.

JDW

Cold War II Watch

2008-08-28T12:03:00.002-04:00

Few Reports Of Russian Withdrawal In Georgia
by Renee Montagne and Ivan Watson

August 18, 2008 · Russia said it would start withdrawing its troops from Georgia on Monday. But so far, there are few reports of that happening. Over the weekend, the West warned Russia that it would pay a diplomatic price if it didn't abide by the cease-fire agreement signed by both countries last week.
**********

Defense Official: Russia Has Short Range Missiles in South Ossetia
Monday, August 18, 2008

Russia has placed short range SS-21 missiles in South Ossetia, that could pose a threat to most major Georgian cities," including the capital, Tbilisi, a U.S.Defense official confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

"Anything such as that, or any other military equipment that was moved in would be in violation of this cease-fire and should be removed immediately," Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "The only forces that are permitted to remain under the cease fire agreement are the forces that were in there at the Aug. 6 time frame."
**********

Russia Claims Right to Increase Troop Strength in South Ossetia
By Peter Fedynsky
Moscow
22 August 2008

Russia is claiming the right to increase the number of troops it has in and around South Ossetia, where it is also establishing additional checkpoints in response to what it says is a "continued Georgian threat." VOA correspondent Peter Fedynsky has this report from Moscow.

Just hours before Russia was scheduled to withdraw its troops to a buffer zone in and around South Ossetia, the deputy head of Russia's General Staff, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told a Moscow news conference the situation in Georgia can hardly be described as stable. General Nogovitysn accused Georgia of concentrating its forces in preparation for renewed fighting, but based the claim on intelligence he said was four days old. There are no independent reports of Georgian troop concentrations.
***********

Russia recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia to save people’s lives
Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

August 26, 2008

“The people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have repeatedly supported their independence. We understand that they have a right to determine their fate themselves after what happened recently,” Medvedev said in a televised address. “They addressed to Russia with a request to recognize their independence. Taking into consideration the free will of the peoples, the UN Charter and OSCE documents, I have signed decrees to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on behalf of the Russian Federation. This is the only way to save people’s lives,” Medvedev said.
**********

You'd better get used to scenes like these again.

JDW

A Preview of the Coronation tonight...

2008-08-28T11:56:00.000-04:00

In Mile-High Stadium, they are building the "Barackopolis." It is there that, tonight, Lord Messiah Barack Obama will accept the coronation as Democrat nominee in front of 75,000 screaming, applauding, fainting worshippers.

In classic teleprompter style, Barack Hussein Obama will simultaneously channel the spirits of Martin Luther King, Jr. on the 45th anniversary of his "I Have a Dream" speech, the "Camelot" portrait of the JFK White House days, and Apollo, the most virile and desired of Greek gods.

Fawning all over him with phrases like "home run," "out of the park," "tingles running down my spine," and "If he wasn't already married..." will be his well-heeled sychophants in the media. I could not bear to watch the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews in the middle of their Obama mindtrip.

If you somehow manage to watch tonight, be on the lookout for the tell-tale signs that Barack Hussein Obama IS a god of Greek proportions.

Look for the overwhelming Hubris, the "overweaning pride" that says, "this belongs to me." That yells "audacity is a virtue." That demands power as an entitlement rather than that achieved through experience or earned through service.

Listen to the cries of the crowds, as they lift up such chants as "Clinton hath slain [or fed] his thousands, but Barack his ten-thousands!" (NOTE: Be sure Bill doesn't have a spear nearby.) Watch the tears of ardent adorers as they weep in joy and rapture.

And remember. Remember that you were there when the new Great Leader was coronated. Bow, genuflect, acquiesce.... All Hail!

JDW
(c)2008, All Rights Reserved

CWII - The Russia That Never Died

2008-08-17T22:18:00.003-04:00

On November 1, 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Soviet KGB spy, had just become a British citizen and was living in London. He was involved with his sponsor Boris Berezovsky in several business ventures -- some reputable, some perhaps not. He was meeting two former "associates" known as Lugovoi and Kotvun, for lunch at London's Pine Bar in the plush Millennium Hotel. Twenty-two days later, he died.

It isn't startling that he died, even though he was only 43 and until then in good health. It is HOW he died that should give us pause. He died of poisoning. Specifically, he died of NUCLEAR poisoning -- with Polonium 210. British Doctors noted Litvinenko's death as the first in the era of "nuclear terrorism."

To his credit, Litvinenko did not go quietly into that good night. In fact, he clearly and plainly declared from his deathbed on worldwide TV and in print media, that this was the doing of agents of President Vladimir Putin of Russia. In an article attributed to Litvinenko anddated two dated after his death, November 25, 2006, he wrote:

...this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.

You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.

You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.

Perhaps Litvineneko's last words should have been taken more seriously, rather than dismissed by so many in the Western Media as a vindictive paranoid who hated Vladimir Putin. In fact, there have been several signs of the intentions of the Kremlin's intent on the past two or three years. Consider the following events of the last four years:

(1) October 8, 2004: CARACAS - The Venezuelan army plans to acquire 40 Russian helicopters within the next few months in the first step towards a new "strategic alliance" with Moscow promoted by President Hugo Chávez, who is further marking his distance from Washington.
The deal was agreed this week in the Russian capital by Vice President José Vicente Rangel, a veteran politician of the Venezuelan left, and army commander General Raúl Baduel as part of business and bilateral economic and technological cooperation accords worth around $1 billion.

(2) July 27, 2006: The Russian Federation and Venezuela on July 27, 2006 have negotiated and approved the sale of 24 aircraft and 53 helicopters—about a $1 billion (U.S.) deal—to Venezuela, as part of an ongoing landmark event, defying the American threats and demands to halt all weapons transfers and any future deals between Russia and Venezuela. Russia has already supplied and started delivering portions of a 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles ordered by Venezuela and Russian attack helicopters to Venezuela. This deal has further entrenched Russian-Venezuelan cooperation, partnership, and the strategic shift of Russia replacing the United States as the military hardware supplier of Venezuela. The securing of this military hardware agreement between Russia and Venezuela is a sign of the fermenting geo-strategic confrontation or rivalry between the Russia and the United States.
The United States slapped the weapons embargo onto Venezuela referring as justification to the strategic partnerships and alliances of Venezuela with Iran and Cuba. The U.S. weapons embargo on Venezuela started in May, 2006, and has including the U.S. putting pressure on Spain and Brazil to halt their agreements to supply military equipment to Venezuela. Venezuela has responded that the U.S. embargo is illegitimate in violation of previous agreements between Venezuela and the United States, and based on a premise for an American offensive against Venezuela.

(3) January 09, 2007: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso have criticized Russia for shutting down a pipeline pumping oil to Europe. Russia's move has dented its image as a reliable energy supplier, said Merkel. She also hinted that Germany may reconsider its phaseout of nuclear power....
Her remarks came in reaction to Russia's decision to shut off the Druzhba ("Friendship") pipeline running to western Europe on Monday over a dispute with Belarus. Russia has accused Belarus of illegally siphoning off crude oil and the two countries have imposed punitive oil levies on each other.
The pipeline is the source of 20 percent of Germany's oil imports. Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have been affected by the shutdown.

(4) February 20, 2007: The Czech Republic and Poland on February 19 voiced willingness to host parts of a U.S. missile-defense system on their territories -- prompting a strong response from Russian officials....
assurances did little to soothe Moscow, which has vehemently objected to having the shield on its doorstep.

(5) August 15, 2007: MOSCOW: A proposed contract between Russia and Venezuela that could transfer thousands of sniper rifles to Venezuela has raised concern in the United States about the potential use or regional distribution of the weapons by the socialist-inspired government of President Hugo Chávez.
The rifle in question is the latest variant of the Dragunov, a long-barreled, semi-automatic design with an optical sight. It is derived in part from the much more widely circulated Kalashnikov assault rifle...Because sniper rifles are specialized infantry weapons and not typically issued to large numbers of soldiers, diplomats and military officers and analysts said, a purchase of several thousand Dragunovs would not seem to have a conventional military use for Venezuela's armed forces.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today reiterated Moscow's concerns. "We are seriously concerned about plans to deploy elements of a U.S. missile-defense system in Europe and the critical situation that threatens the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty," Lavrov said.
Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces, said on February 19 that Russia may withdraw from a 1987 treaty with the United States limiting short- and medium-range missiles in Europe if the U.S. plan goes ahead.
Solovtsov also warned that hosting the U.S. shield could make the Czech Republic and Poland targets of a Russian missile strike.
"If there is a political decision [made by Russia] to withdraw from [the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty] that was signed between the United States and Russia, the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of carrying out this task [targeting sites in the Czech Republic and Poland]," Solovtsov said.
This was one of the toughest comments yet by Russian officials on the issue since President Vladimir Putin warned of a "new Cold War" in a speech in Munich on February 10.

(6) August 17, 2007: President Vladimir Putin said Friday he had ordered strategic bombers to resume regular long-range patrols as Russian and Chinese forces held their first joint military exercise on Russian soil — a show of armed muscle aimed at sending a pointed message to the United States.
The resumption of bombing patrols, which analysts say signaled a significant change for Russian military policy, comes amid a growing chill in U.S.-Russian relations, strained over Washington's criticism of Russia's democracy record, Moscow's objections to U.S. missile defense plans and differences over global crises.

(7) July 23, 2008: The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defence bases in Eastern Europe.
The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.
The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily: “While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.” The Russian Defence Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.
The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba - which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast - would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.

(8) July 22, 2008: MOSCOW: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia said Tuesday that their countries would more closely coordinate their actions on global oil and gas markets and that they would work together on foreign policy, a sphere in which both countries have sought to counter U.S. influence.
Chávez, who is expected to sign contracts to purchase more than $1 billion worth of Russian arms, called for the two nations to become "strategic partners" to defend against what he called a U.S. threat to his country.
"That will guarantee the sovereignty of Venezuela, which the United States is now threatening," Chávez said at the start of two days of planned meetings, according to the official Russian news agency RIA-Novosti.

(9) July 08, 2008: MOSCOW — Russia will be forced to make a military response if the U.S.-Czech missile defense agreement is ratified, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.
The statement came hours after U.S. and Czech officials reached an initial agreement on deploying elements of a missile defense system in the Eastern European country.
Russia says the system would severely undermine European security balances by weakening Russia's missile capacity.
If the agreement is ratified, "we will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods," the Foreign Ministry statement said. It did not give specifics of what the response would entail.
In February, then-President Vladimir Putin said Russia could aim missiles toward prospective missile defense sites and deploy missiles in the Baltic Sea region of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland, if the missile defense plan went forward.
The U.S. has pushed the plan as necessary to prevent missile attacks by rogue nations, pointing to Iran as a particular concern. But Russia dismisses the likelihood of such threats....

(10) July 2, 2008: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States and Poland have reached a tentative deal to place part of a ballistic missile defense system on its territory, a plan that has drawn sharp objections from Russia, a senior administration official said Wednesday...
The Bush administration has long pushed to base missile interceptors in Poland. The interceptor rockets would be linked to an air-defense radar system in the Czech Republic, where officials agreed in April to take part in the system.
The interceptors in the Czech Republic could identify and shoot down missiles fired by Iran at Europe or the United States. Russia fervently opposes basing the interceptors right across its border and says the system's real target would be Russian missiles, according to Time magazine.
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek made the announcement in Warsaw following talks with his Polish counterpart Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

(11) August 4, 2008: MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, Russian news reports said Monday.
The statement comes amid persistent speculation about whether Russia is seeking a military presence in a country just 90 miles (150 kilometers) from the United States in response to U.S. plans to place missile-defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.
"We should restore our position in Cuba and other countries," Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency....

(12) August 8, 2008: Oil prices held around 120 dollars a barrel in Asian trade Friday on jitters sparked by the disruption of a pipeline carrying crude from Central Asia to the West.... One supply side risk comes from the shutdown of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline due to a blast at a pump in eastern Turkey, Shum said...."The BTC pipeline outage could last up to five weeks. That represents a significant disruption to non-OPEC supply," Shum said...

(13) August 11, 2008: CUBA has backed Russia in its conflict with Georgia, saying Russia's demand for Georgia's full pullout from South Ossetia before agreeing to a ceasefire was "just".
"The demand for prior withdrawal of the invaders is just, and our government supports it,'' Cuban President Raul Castro said in a written statement.
Mr Castro said Russian troops had been deployed in South Ossetia legally as a peacekeeping force.
"Therefore, it is false to assert that Georgia is now defending its national sovereignty,'' he said.
Russia sent its tanks and troops to pro-Moscow South Ossetia on Friday in response to pro-Western Georgia's military offensive to take back the province, which broke away in the early 1990s after a separatist war.

(14) August 12, 2008: Crude-oil futures rose early Tuesday, getting a boost from dollar weakness and news of the temporary shutdown of the South Caucasus Pipeline transporting Azerbaijani natural gas through Georgia. Crude oil for September delivery rose $1.21 to $115.65 a barrel in electronic trading on Globex. Earlier Tuesday, oil had fallen on news that Russia's president has ordered an end to military operations in Georgia. The South Caucasus Pipeline transporting Azerbaijani natural gas through Georgia has been closed temporarily as a precaution due to recent fighting between Russia and Georgia, a spokesman for its operator BP

(15) August 13, 2008: The world's second largest oil pipeline goes directly through Georgia -- and its construction was pushed through by the US against Russia's will. Reports about attacks on the pipeline have alarmed the West.

(16) August 15, 2008: MOSCOW - A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.
The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.
Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.
"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.
He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

(17) August 17, 2008: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pentagon chief Robert Gates dismissed as "empty rhetoric" on Sunday Russian warnings that Moscow would target Poland for a possible military strike because Warsaw agreed to host part of a U.S. missile shield.
"Russia is not going to launch nuclear missiles at anybody," Defense Secretary Gates said on ABC News' "This Week." "The Poles know that. We know it."
Col-General Anatoliy Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian general staff, told Interfax on Friday that Russian military doctrine would allow for a possible nuclear strike, after Warsaw agreed to deploy 10 interceptors at a site in Poland as part of the missile shield.
This was "strident rhetoric and probably fairly empty rhetoric," said Gates, a former CIA director and expert on Russia.
"I'm not quite sure why this deputy chief of staff felt compelled to make those kinds of threats," Gates said, adding that the threat was a throwback to the days of the old Soviet Union, when Moscow was Poland's overlord in the Warsaw Pact…..
*********************************************

The foregoing events and comments are only a representative few of those one might find if looking for them. I’ve left out any mention of Russia’s “alliance” to provide technical support to Iran in its fledgling nuclear “industry,” and their sale of dozens of 2nd generation Soviet Subs to Iran for use in the Persian Gulf. I haven’t gone into depth about the aggression demonstrated in the last 10 days or so against the small neighboring nation of Georgia in a fashion and with similar “justifications” and tactics as those used by Hitler’s Nazi Germany in Austria and the Czech Sudetanland in the days leading up to WWII.

I know that seven years ago, President Bush said he looked into the eyes of Vlad Putin and “saw his soul,” and that he was “a man that could be trusted.” President Bush is from Texas. I’m sure he now recognizes when someone has just peed down his back and told him it’s raining. So, he might want to pin back the ears of his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. If Gates doesn’t take seriously the threats of the “new oligarchs” of Imperial Russia as the pattern establishes above, he needs to be thoroughly examined in a mental health ward for the next 72 hours, at least.
Russia is reemerging as a world power because: (1) they are flush with oil money.(2) They have built pragmatic alliances with other dictatorial/Socialist inspired governments, such as China, Cuba, Venezuela, Peru and Nicaragua, AND with dictatorial Islamofascist states such as Iran and Syria. (3) These “allies” have a common enemy – The United States -- and they control most of the worlds currently produced oil supply, and nearly a third of the global population. (4) They have “allies” in the United Nations, the World Court, the Western News Media and, yes, the US political and governmental structure who see to it that through “political correctness,” foreign policy defeatism, environmental regulatory policy and the global warming hoax that the ability of Americans to free themselves from dependence on foreign oil and to limit America’s influence and aid to foreign democracies keeps us weak, ripe for being taken advantage of.

This sets up any number of interesting scenario’s by which Russia and her client states could bring the United States to our collective knees, they can do it slowly – as the last year or two has indirectly shown them – or they could do it with a relatively quick, coordinated move orchestrated with their allies. Care to speculate how it might go down? For me, there are simply too many different ways we are at risk to know. But in the next few days I might “war game” this NEW Cold War II that we are in, whether we want to admit it or not.
Sasha Litvinenko tried to warn us….

JDW

2008-08-14T23:44:00.001-04:00

Secret Transcript - Saddleback Valley Faith Debate Questions

2008-08-11T20:53:00.002-04:00

Welcome to our evening “Faith Debate” with Presidential Candidates Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. Pastor Rick Warren welcomes all guests to our church. And now, without further delay, we get into the questions for our candidates. Gentlemen, the people of Amerika wrote or emailed in the following questions, and we are very interested in hearing your answers. So, let us begin. The first question is for Senator Messiah – oh, er, Barack Obama…

(1) Senator Obama, will John Edwards be your Attorney-General? In what role or position will Reverend Wright serve?

(2) Senator McCain, do you realize how STUPID possibly picking Governor Tom Ridge of PA as your running mate would be for you?

(3) Senator Obama, do you know that if you choose Hillary as your running mate, your life expectancy plummets roughly to that of a point man on a combat team in the Vietnam War?

(4) Senator McCain, do you realize how much MORE STUPID possibly picking Senator Joe Leiberman (DEMOCRAT - CT) as your running mate will be?

(5) Senator Obama, is it ever justified to the people of a nation who disagree with their government to resort to violence to overthrow said government?... Oh, no sir, not in IRAN, here in the US..?!

(6) Senator McCain, are you sleepy sir?

(7) Senator Obama, do you plan to order the treasury to issue new dollar bills with Presidents faces that look "more like yours" once you are in office -- or will the faces of George, Thomas, Ben and Abe suffice?

(8) Senator McCain, si habla espanol?

(9) Senator Obama, if -- or when -- the Iranians nuke us, will you vigilantly pursue vigorous diplomatic remedies for their dastardly deeds. or would you merely apologize to them for what obviously was a provocation on our part, and totally our fault?

(10) Senator McCain, if given the opportunity to "cross the aisle" in cooperation with the rightful rulers of Amerika (aka the Democrats) and have all your judicial nominees -- including those to the SCOTUS -- confirmed, will you promise not to nominate Conservative, originalist, constructionist or [Clinton forbid!] Christians to the bench, so as to ensure the right of women to murder their unborn children with legal impugnity?

(11) Senator Obama, has your wife ever had a "shoutin fit" during one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons sir? And a follow-up -- has she ever been to a "Black Panther Party?"

(12) Senator McCain, do you think Rick Warren's Hawaiian flowered shirts are important to a "Green" policy meant to stop global warming, and if so, how effective have the shirts been so far?

(13) Senator Obama, does your standing in Rick Warren's church imply in any way that you SUPPORT the wearing of Hawaiian shirts as a means of combatting global warming?

(14) Senator McCain, regarding illegal immigration -- with 20 million illegals in our country, and your support for the Immigration bill in 2007 which would have allowed literally 60 million plus more into the nation without consequence and WITH government approval, do you favor the idea that EVERY American family simply adopt an illegal alien and eliminate the Government as the "middle man," or do you think illegals should belong directly to corporations as the permanent, indentured servant underclass?

(15) Senator Obama, if Israel should act to take out Iran's nuclear capability on your watch, will you seek a declaration of war against Israel, or just authorize a resolution calling for limited strikes against Israel as a nation, and Jews here in Amerika?

(16) Senator McCain, as an old man, can you tell us what Abraham Lincoln was really like, and was it true that he and Ronald Reagan were really friends as kids when they grew up back in Illinois?

Gentlemen, thank you for coming to Saddleback Valley Church tonight and sharing your views on these important issues. I'm sure that regardless of who wins this election, we will have a much more bi-lingual, green, egalitarian and love-centered nation in 4 years.

I would like to remind all who have joined us this evening that, just after our closing praise song -- Kum-by-Yah -- you can purchase the exclusive Rick Warren Hawaiian shirt designs in our campus bookstore and giftshop. Also, be sure to pick up CD's of this exciting "faith debate" for a small price and share it with all your friends -- whether leftist Amerika haters or stodgy white Fundamentalists who dress in boring white button down shirts.

For Rick Warren, have a purposeful, positive, life-affirming evening!

:-D

JDW

copyright 2008, all rights reserved

If The Righteous Scarcely Be Saved...

2008-08-06T22:02:00.002-04:00

In the past week, I discovered that two men -- both of whom I've known for 17 years -- have suffered the lost of their marriages since I last talked to them. Now, let me stress that I don't know any of the details, and I am NOT judging either these men or their spouses. That said, I have dwelt upon these two men, their wives, their families, and how these marriages crashed and burned.

One of the gentlemen was an Elder in his church, a father of six, and had been married upwards of 30 years. The other man had been married around 25 years, had four children, and served as a missionary in South American. I knew their wives. I knew some of their children. I RESPECT (present tense!) these men. And that's what prompts me to ask, "How?!"

No, I don't mean all the "ugly" little details that inevitably must emerge when a marriage crumbles. I mean, how do marriages survive today? How can they? How do Christians, married before God and the Church, "put asunder" what God has joined together? Again, no, I'm not looking for a debate of the Biblical grounds of divorce. I'm not looking for someone to wax eloquent on the "sin of divorce."

No one (at least not sincere Christians) would argue that divorce is a good thing. No Biblical Christians would say they entered marriage with the idea that it was a "temporary arrangement." And I also understand that divorce does not carry the social stigma it once did in the world, or even in the Church. In some ways, I think that is a good thing. In other ways, it's very, very bad.

This coming week, my wife and I will celebrate our 20th anniversary. Many of the couples we've known in that time -- at least half -- are now divorced. Most of these couples were also Christians. Dedicated Christians. Serving Christians. Godly, joy-filled people. Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Missionaries, laypeople.... Now divorced.

Forgive my exasperation, but, where are all the Godly married couples who've made it, and who've done so joyfully? People who've moved past the faults of their spouse to a place of peace and joy, love and acceptance, commitment and success? There are those like myself that need to find these jewels, so that they can be held up and admired. So that their lives could teach and inspire.

Life is hard. Marriage is harder. When I see so many so much like me who lose that sacred relationship... It reminds me of that scripture from Romans I believe, that goes "If the righteous scarcely saved, what of the sinners?" Or, maybe the old standby proverb, "there but for the grace of God go I..."

It leaves one very discouraged. It forces one to ask, "could I be next?" It makes one consider, "what would I do if this befell me?" Not pleasant things to contemplate. I pray for all these broken families....and I pray God preserves my relationship, and those of my friends.

JDW

Observations of the Evolution of Rock Music from the 1980's to Present

2008-07-17T14:36:00.002-04:00

In our culture and society, observing music can tell us alot about the times in which we live, the condition of our society, and even about ourselves. That was no less true in the 1950's and 60's than it is today. Attitudes are communicated through many media, but none so clearly as in music. I first noticed this when I was a teenager, because music indelibly impacted my life. Let me explain some observations I've made over time about music...

Having "been there" in the '80's, I can say that most of the hair bands had a "positive attitude." Their cry was, "sex & drugs & rock -n- roll! YEAH!" But their over abundance of happy go lucky wailing and jamming over the length of the decade became so self indulgent and arrogant that it got old and cheesy. Can you say "Motley Crue?" Someone could also point out "Twisted Sister." We can probably add Krokus, WhiteSnake, maybe G&R, and a host of others.

Finally, in the early 1990's, along came a brooding, introspective, unkempt rocker who let loose another cry. It was no less self-centered, but it was anything but positive! Kurt Cobain cried out, "Sex & Drugs & Rock-n-Roll! WHATEVER!" And the "grunge" era was born. It became about the music again -- a dark, negative, and tightly wound Rock that didn't care about -- and even hated -- the Glam Rock of the hair Bands. With Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit," grunge was off and running...

Then came Pearl Jam and their "Jeremy," and Queensryche whose evolution from the 80's to the 90's gave us "Silent Lucidity," along with the Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden and others. As the 90's came to a close, Cobain finally ended his misery with a shotgun to his head (he was married to Courtney Love, after all!) and grunge gave way to a musical form best described as Alternative Rock, or "New Rock," which kept much of the tightness of the musicality in Grunge, but these band's learned to "have fun" again, or to be at least a little upbeat and positive sometimes. The Foo Fighters, Creed, and Three Doors Down represent a good cross section of these bands.

But, music is not static. And Rock -n- Roll is always evolving. It's art reflects society and in some sense prods it on -- whether the message is good or bad. While leftists had every reason to be happy in the Clinton 90's, the music of this crowd tended to be downcast and dark. And in light of the challenge of our days, it's no wonder the bands of today sound and "uncertain trumpet," or rather, lead guitar, that alternates between vicious anger, vile living, and sometimes almost spiritual positivism.

Music has been said to "tame the savage beast." But I believe it can also "inflame the savage beast." That's why if we ignore it, we do so at our own risk. But at the same time, if we LISTEN to it, we do so at our own risk as well.

JDW

c . 2008, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Music with a Message - Everything by Lifehouse

2008-07-06T18:12:00.002-04:00

Lifehouse is an alternative rock band. They have had several "hits" in the popular FM Alternative radio format. But two members of the band -- the two that do the most writing --
Jason Wade and Sergio Andrade, are Christians. Their music and lyrics have been described as "profoundly lyrical," and they aren't disengaged, as they attend the Vineyard Church in Malibu, California.

That by no means indicates that they are "on board" with the "institutional church" as it exists today. Wade in particular points to the divorce of his parents when he was 12 as the time he became accutely aware of, and angry about, the way the church treated those who didn't conform, and couldn't forgive. Perhaps that's one reason they reject the title, "Christian band." though Wade and Andrade are open about their faith.

Since 2001, I have enjoyed their music, and especially their lyrics. While they aren't overt in an "in your face" way, listening to the words crafted within the flow of their gifted musicianship will clearly show where these guys are spiritually. Their lyrics speak of something -- SOMEONE -- greater than themselves. Below are the lyrics to a song from their first CD released in 2001, No Name Face. I understand it was written during their youth group days, as a praise song. The words make it clear -- and the music sets the perfect tone. Give it a listen online sometime. I think you'll be blessed.

Everything

Lifehouse

Find me here
And speak to me
I want to feel you
I need to hear you
You are the light
That's leading me to the place
Where I find peace again

You are the strength
That keeps me walking
You are the hope
That keeps me trusting
You are the light to my soul
You are my purpose
You're everything

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

You calm the storms
And you give me rest
You hold me in your hands
You won't let me fall
You still my heart
When you take my breath away
Would you take me in take me deeper now

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

Cause you're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
Everything, everything

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this
And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better any better than this
And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

Johnny Hunt elected president of SBC on first ballot

2008-06-10T22:37:00.000-04:00

Posted on Jun 10, 2008 by David Roach
INDIANAPOLIS (BP)--Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., was elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention June 10, receiving 52.94 percent of votes (3,100) cast on the first ballot.

Five other candidates were nominated. Frank Cox received 1,286 votes (21.96 percent); Avery Willis, 962 votes (16.43 percent); William (Bill) Wagner, 255 votes (4.35 percent); Les Puryear, 188 votes (3.21 percent); and Wiley Drake, 45 votes (.77 percent).

A total of 5,856 ballots were cast, and 20 (.34 percent) were disallowed. At the time of the election, there were 7,196 registered messengers at the annual meeting.

Hunt was nominated by Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla.

Traylor said he was nominating Hunt because of his "heart for the nations" and his "heart for the next generation." Hunt will unite the convention and "forge a hopeful future" focused on the Gospel and connected to local churches, Traylor said.

Hunt's heart for the nations has been demonstrated in his church's missions giving and participation, Traylor said. Last year alone, he said, First Baptist gave $3.3 million to Southern Baptist mission causes.

Over the past 28 years, the church has been responsible for planting 78 new churches and during Hunt's 22-year tenure has seen hundreds of people surrender to full-time Christian ministry and mission service, Traylor added.

Hunt's heart for the next generation, Traylor said, has been illustrated through his work with conferences that have reached 25,000 young leaders during the past 20 years.

"As you elect him today, you will send an instant message to that young generation that they have a place at the SBC table," Traylor said. "They love him. You know him. And I believe it's time we elect him as our convention president."

----------

I can only add, "YAHOO!"

My "Big Chill" Moment

2008-06-03T23:05:00.003-04:00

Last Thursday, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I learned that a former girlfriend from High School, then close friend, who grew up in the same church as me, and was a member of the Youth Group, whom I hung around with at school, at church, on weekends.... Robyn passed away last Tuesday.

I wish I could say since then that I've felt better every day. But I haven't. In fact, until yesterday, I felt worse every day. I had written a letter to Robyn's Mom on Sunday, and as I re-read it Monday morning, a song came on the radio from the time we had dated. I lost it. It was a "catharsis," I suppose. Throughout the day, I was in contact via email with Robyn's best friend, whom we both had been friends with. She also was in that Church Youth Group, and High School, and group of friends. I found comfort in talking with her. And yet another friend from that group during that time emailed, then called me. We hadn't talked in 20 years.

As I was talking to a friend here today, and I described the events since last Thursday, he told me that there are generally two types of people when it comes to the High School experience.

The first group, when they graduate, look at High School and say, 'there are 6 or 8 or 10 people here I care about. But High School is over, and it's time to move on.' This group may or may not keep up with the people they cared about, for a variety of reasons.

The second group, when they graduate, look at High School and say 'I love these people, I love this place, and no matter where I go I will always look back to these friends and this time as the best days of my life, and I will remain in contact with them forever.' Some of these folks even settle down right there, near the school, or in that town -- often their "hometown." And, they usually try to keep that same group of friends, or at least stay in touch.

My friend told me today that there is also a third group. This third group leaves thinking they are in the first group, and though they plan or think about keeping in touch with the people they cared about, over the years, they get so focused on the events and changes and circumstances in their own life that they mostly lose touch. Then, one day, someone from back in those High School days, someone they cared deeply for and who greatly impacted their life, suddenly is gone. Then this person wishes they had been in the second group instead of the first. My friend called this their "Big Chill moment."

This is of course a reference to the 1983 motion picture, which was both popular at the box office and lauded by the critics. In the movie, a group of college friends reunite for the funeral of one of their college buddies, who has died (in the film he committed suicide). This turns into a weekend reunion of sorts, and the drama develops around this reunion, the resolution of past conflicts and the realization that some relationships are too important to neglect or forget.

My friend told me that I'd had my "Big Chill moment." I was in that third group he described that for a multitude of reasons left behind people I cared about, only to discover later that some of those friendships were worth sustaining. That's the lesson the characters in "The Big Chill" learned.

It's ironic, but my senior year in college, I was part of another group -- 3 guys, 3 girls -- who became incredibly close friends. We did everything together, from playing racquetball to going to movies to going out to eat and to the mall...We even did an all night "Star Wars" movie marathon. Hey, it was 1987, the VCR was a relatively new thing, and so were video rentals. I know I'm dating myself.... Anyway, one of the girls, Leigh, dubbed our group "The Big Chill Gang."

I haven't spoken to Leigh in at least a dozen years. I've got to catch up with them too. Why?
Because life, friendships, are too precious to let go for so long that when your friends are gone, you find out and wish you'd tried more diligently to keep up with them. To wish you'd had that one last conversation and told them what a difference they'd made in your life.

I won't be watching "The Big Chill" on DVD anytime real soon. I couldn't take it. And besides, I'm going to try to live so that I never have another "Big Chill moment." I can at least try -- because there are some people in this world I need to thank, and hug, so they'll know... Just how much they've meant to me.

JDW

MORE Straw Men of Dispensationalism's Critics

2008-05-30T19:34:00.003-04:00

Another wave of protestations arose after my last post regarding Dispensationalism as a viable, biblical understanding of God's unfolding plan. Allow me to relate them to you, then , if you like. choose sides! This could be fun! :-D

The words of the Critic:
According to dispensationalism, the way to salvation is unique according to each specific dispensation.
For example, dispensationalism claims that salvation

in Adam's time was by works only;
from Adam to Moses it was by faith plus works;
from Moses to Christ it was by faith plus Law;
from Christ till the rapture it is by faith;
(“The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ...” Schofield Reference Bible, 1115, note 2.)
and in the millennium it will be by works, not by faith.

(This is one of the major doctrines of dispensationalism; dispensations are what give dispensationalism its name.)

Below are some false teachings of dispensationalism:

Dispensationalism has a pre-determined hermeneutic. (Dispensationalism maintains that only the writings of Paul are specifically for the church.)

“The epistles of Paul ... are totally adequate for the growth and glory of the heavenly Body of Christ.” Dispensationalist, Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“The only way to keep the Church totally free of Israel is to center in Paul, because Paul’s source and center is the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, at the right hand of the Father.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“it is our solemn responsibility to pay particular attention to the Word of God through Paul, in order that we may understand it thoroughly and obey it fully.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“Our “private mail” is to be found in the Epistles of Paul.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

In "Judaism or Christianity," William Kelly taught that ‘rightly dividing’ means the Church is heavenly and Israel is earthly.

Dispensationalism believes that Paul had a different message than did the other apostles and Jesus.

Some “have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

The commission of “going into “all the world” with “the Gospel” is a “failure to see that this commission has been superseded by that later given to Paul . . .” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"
“God had since brought in the dispensation of grace through Paul.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“And what of Israel’s Sermon on the Mount in relation to the Church? Why should the heavenly Church be subjected to Jesus pre-Cross message of the kingdom to Israel? What He gave to Israel in His humiliation does not compare with what He gave to His body in His glorification, from His heavenly position via Paul in the Church Epistles.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“There is nothing in all of Scripture to compare with what the Church’s glorified Head has given to her through Paul, so why wander into the far country for sustenance? The Sermon on the Mount is directed to earthly, not heavenly people.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

Blessings in the Sermon on the Mount “are won through personal merit.” Miles J. Standford quoting Lewis Sperry Chafer's comments on the Beatitudes in Systematic Theology, IV, 216-218.

Dispensationalism says that believers in the church and Jewish believers are separated by different futures, different kingdoms, different covenants, and different ways to salvation.

“Pauline Dispensationalism disassociates the Church from Israel, including her New Covenant, her Sermon, and her Kingdom.” Miles J. Standford, in "Pauline Dispensationalism"

“Israel’s New Covenant will neither be inaugurated nor fulfilled until after the Great Tribulation (Jacob’s trouble), nor until the Deliverer returns to earth, nor until Israel’s sins are forgiven.” Miles J. Standford in “The Two New Covenants”

“Israelites are appointed to be subjects of the King in His earthly Kingdom. Members of the Body of Christ are to reign with the King as His Consort in that Kingdom.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Systematic Theology," IV, 47-53

“The very tense of the verb used is important. Under grace, the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessing through pure grace; whereas under the kingdom, the blessing shall be to such as merit it by their works.” Miles J. Standford quoting Lewis Sperry Chafer's comments on the Beatitudes in Systematic Theology, IV, 216-218.

“The essential elements of a grace administration - faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and enabling power of the indwelling Spirit are not found in the kingdom administration. On the OTHER hand, it is declared to be the fulfilling of “the law and the prophets” (Matt 5:17, 18; 7:12), and is seen to be an extension of the Mosaic Law into realms of meritorious obligation.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Dispensationalism," 416.

After the law of Moses and grace and truth by Jesus Christ “there will be a return to the legal kingdom grounds and the exaltation of that nation to whom pertains the covenants and promises.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, "The Kingdom in History and Prophecy," 70.

My Response:

First, the main source of your statements is "Miles J. Stanford." I have been a Dispensationalist for 25 years -- and I've never heard of this fellow in all that time. I do not recall ANY of his works, or references to his works. Oh, and WHO is "William Kelly," whom you also cite?

Second, the statements that you DO quote from Stanford typifies HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM, which is a heretical departure from Biblical Dispensationalism. That I DO NOT agree with these statements is witness in itself that it is NOT typical of Dispensationalists. Neither would Ryrie, Pentecost, Holbert, and a host of others who have been and are now representatives of normative Dispensationalism.

Third, whoever said Scofield's notes were infallible? I know some hyper-fundamentalists who might try to push that -- along with KJV only, etc. -- but not one Dispensationalist I know accepts Scofield's notes as authoritative, much less infallible.

Fourth, Chafer's comments you quote on the "Sermon on the Mount" are taken out of context. I cited Chafer in my previous post giving a definitive answer to those critics who would charge him with teaching "multiple ways of salvation." It is disingenuous to charge Chafer with that in light of his clear and direct refutation of such allegations.

Fifth, No Dispensationalist I know teaches that the essential tenants of the message of Jesus and Paul were "different." The "Gospel" was THE SAME. Certainly, the audiences and timing made the APPLICATION of the Gospel different -- but the message and the principles were THE SAME. Paul in many cases simply amplified or detailed how these principles were to be applied in terms the predominantly Gentile Christian culture he ministered to. As you may recall, Jesus' ministry while He was on earth was predominantly to a Jewish audience.

Sixth, the only "pre-determined hermeneutic" I am familiar with is the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic. It essentially looks to the passage and considers the grammar and word-usage, as well as seeking to understand the audience it was written to, the political, cultural, geographical and historic setting of the writer and the readers, in order to determine the original intent of the author. To me, this is THE PROPER method of exegeting the Scriptures. The plain, literal [unless otherwise indicated by the text], and contextual interpretation is the most logical and Biblical "hermeneutic." How does one disagree with that and remain true to the text?

Seventh, hyper-Dispensationalists are extremists in their understanding of the "discontinuity" between Israel and the Church. While Israel and the Church [as I explained clearly in my earlier post] have different roles in God's unfolding redemptive plan, they share the same ultimate destiny -- that is eternity with God. They may be redeemed at different points in His plan -- and in human history -- but they will ALL be redeemed by the same means -- Jews and Gentiles ALIKE. Most normative Dispensationalists are not that extreme in their conceptualization of discontinuity between the peoples of God.

I would suggest that you go back and read my previous post. I'm not convinced that you even read it. It seems you have chosen primarily obscure examples of hyper-Dispensationalism and attributed to ALL dispensationalists their radical and in some cases heretical views.

After I have clearly told you that I as a Dispensationalist do not hold to these rather far-fetched teachings of hyper-Dispensationalists, are you prepared to continue to attribute them to me, and to conclude that I am a heretic as well? If so, that would be a bit intellectually dishonest, since I have rejected all their teachings just as you have.

I hope we can continue to discuss these issues, because it is clear from your post and others that there are a whole lot of misunderstandings and false portrayals about what normative, Biblical Dispensationalists really believe.

Blessings,

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Do Apostles & Prophets Exist Today? A Biblical and Evangelical Answer

2008-05-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:11-16).

Ephesians 4:11-16 absolutely rules out the idea that the gifts of apostle and prophet have "ceased." Or do you believe that we've "all come in the unity of faith?" Or "in the knowledge of the Son of God?" Or "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?"

In light of this passage, then, how do we properly understand these gifts in the Body of Christ?

First, these are functions, not "offices" or titles. These gifts are not capital "A" apostles, ot capital "P" Prophets. These are men given to the Body of Christ for its maturing, its edification, its education. In fact, even Paul never referred to himself with the title "Apostle." He begins all his epistles simply, "Paul, an apostle..." So the folks running around saying I'm "Apostle so and so," or "I'm Prophet this and that," is, to say the least, in error.

Second, The "apostles" of the Lord were obviously unique in that they were "with Jesus" during His Earthly ministry -- although Paul was an exception, sort of...He was, however, given the message he preached directly by Jesus - "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:11-12, 16-19). When Paul went to Seminary for three years, it was in the Arabian Desert, and his instructor was Jesus Christ Himself!

In this sense, the first apostles were exceptional, unique, and different, in that they became the foundation on which the whole Church was to be built. Certainly they operated with a special anointing under direct inspiration to acheive such a task. At the same time, others are called "apostles" in that they are the "sent ones" of the Church. They are charged with a specific message or mission, and are sent out to complete it. The "apostles of the church" serve the same role in preaching the Gospel in mew fields, and establishing the church on the frontiers. In other words, today's "missionaries" function in the role of "apostles" in the biblical sense.

Prophets were charged primarily with the task of forthtelling the message of God, more so than "foretelling" future events. Prophets are confrontational in pointing out the sin of God's people, and of the surrounding culture of which they are a part. They exhort and reprove. And usually, they are not well liked. Speaking truth to power can be...problematic for them -- and the people they confront. I know some preachers who try to "pastor" churches though they really have a prophetic anointing -- which explains why they can't stay at a church for more than 2 years without being fired or finding a way to leave.

Obviously, Evangelists are still a functional gifting in the Church today -- though often we confuse the "Revivalist" with an evangelist. The evangelist wins souls. His primary task is to "recruit," to reach out, to bring the lost to Christ and saving faith. While we all are to "do the work of the evangelist," these folks are particularly gifted, equipped and anointed for such a task.

Pastors/Shepherds lead, feed and protect the flock. That's their calling, and their task. Often, prophets or evangelists try to be pastors -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing if they've got supportive staffs who compliment his gifts. But if he is the single pastor of a small church, it won't take long for him, or the congregation, to see it isn't what he's suited for in ministry.

Teachers are always needed in the church to educate the people. There are those within the ministry who are called to this task specifically -- whether in the local church setting, or in parachurch ministries, or in colleges an seminaries.

These ministry gifts not only DO, but MUST, exist if the church is to carry out its great commission. Often, the reason the church fails to carry out its primary task is due at least in part to ignorance of misunderstanding of these essential functional ministries in the Body of Christ.

A simple (though not entirely perfect) understanding of these functions is:

Apostles govern the Body (particularly new works, church plants, etc.)
Prophets guide the Body
Evangelists gather the Body (from among the lost)
Pastors gaurd the Body
Teachers grow the Body

Just my take.

Blessings,

JDW

For Robyn...

2008-05-29T17:37:00.002-04:00

She was 14, I was 16. We had known each other for years, both kids at the Parkwood Baptist Church in Durham, NC, where our families attended. We dated for a few months during my Sophomore year in High School. Robyn was always sweet, beautiful, and had a great sense of humor. For the life of me now, I don't remember why we broke up.

But we were only teenagers. After we broke up, we remained close. We still attended the same youth meetings, we went to the same High School, we went to the same summer camp -- Fort Caswell Baptist Assembly near Ocean Isle Beach in North Carolina. She was among the group of friends that hung out at "the wall" at Jordan High School during my senior year, 1982-83. She also dated a good friend of mine that year.

Bill was Roman Catholic. When he invited her to go to the beach with his youth group, she pulled me aside and said, "Dale, you have to go! I don't want to be the only Baptist there!" Bill invited me along too, and it was a very interesting experience. I learned alot about Catholics. I learned that Bill was passive/agressive. And I learned that Robyn was even easier to talk to than when we had dated.

After I entered Wingate College in 1983, we saw each other only a few times. At Homecoming in the fall of that year, and a few times over the next three years or so. She graduated from Jordan in 1985, and went on to College and then Pharmacy school at Campbell University in Benson, NC. She became a Doctor of Pharmacy -- the last time I remember seeing her was almost 20 years ago, and that's what she said she was going to do. She was working at the Kerr Drugs there near Lowes Grove in Durham. I think it was the summer of 1988 -- though it could have been 1987. She was at that time also dating the man that she would eventually marry. That was the last time I saw Robyn. I thought about her once in a while, and thought about trying to reconnect with her, and others, with whom I grew up, or went to school or church with. I thought about it....

This morning, my Mom sent an email, with an attachment. Robyn died Tuesday. She was just 41. She had battled breast cancer for eight years. I didn't know.

Strange as it may seem, when I read the obituary, it threw me for a loop. It had been 20 years, but for some reason, it was like I'd seen her just last week. She wasn't "supposed to go" that early. She was younger than me. She had two boys. I remember calling her a "force of nature" one time in school. She was. Nature won't be quite the same.

I know that hindsight is always 20/20. Still, I wish I had tried to find Robyn. I know now I'm going to look up some old friends. I'm also going to pray for Robyn's husband, Tim Tilley, and her two boys, Jake and Triston. I'm also going to pray for her Mom Wanda and her Brother David, both of whom I knew. I can't imagine how they feel. I hope you'll pray for them with me.

Robyn, you were a gem. You will fit right in there in Heaven. I'll see you again. Enjoy your rest, my sister....

JDW

The Churches of Podunk Township -- A Parable for our Time

2008-05-26T23:04:00.003-04:00

I'm sure you've heard the old story about the churches in Podunk township....The first Church was "The First Church." But, they split and the new Church went down the road and became "The Second Church." But then that Church split and that little group formed a new Church and called it "Peace Church." Meanwhile, the First Church after years of relative peace (as in "rest in...") had another big fuss and they split again, and the little dissedent group went out to the edge of town and they started "Harmony Church." After a couple of years several families from each of the churches -- First, Second, Peace and Harmony -- found that their current churches were no better, and much smaller than was First Church. Not only that, but they weren't growing because the members were all fussing with each other. So this little group started a few "fellowship groups" and before long, they left their respective churches and planted "Unity Church."

Now, consider for a moment "church math." Back when the First Church was the "only" church, it ran 500 on Sunday mornings -- quite respectable for a town of 1800 people! But when they split, 100 folks formed the Second Church, and that left ony 300 at First Church....? Then, when Second Church split, 35 people founded Peace Church, and that left 50 at Second Church....? And when First Church divided again, 75 went out to start Harmony Church, and that left 150 in First Church...? And finally, when those noble folks saw all the carnage of the years of division and strife, 50 of them went out and started the Unity Church, leaving 110 in First Church, 45 in Second Church, 25 in Peace Church, 50 in Harmony Church, and 50 in Harmony Church. So now, 280 in Podunk attend church on Sundays -- 220 less than attended 20 years ago. During the same 20 years, the population has grown to 2000. There are literally 5 times more churches than there were 20 years ago, yet 44% less people in church....?

The Pastor of First Church says people don't come to church anymore because they are no longer loyal. The Pastor at Second Church preaches that people don't come to church anymore because they don't like it when the church preaches truth and takes a stand. The Preacher at Peace Church says that people don't come to church anymore because the world has got too much to offer and they indulge in the pleasures of the world rather than seeking peace with God. The Pastor at Harmony Church says people don't come to church anymore because the church isn't doing enough to make them comfortable and at home in the church. The Pastor of Unity Church (and his board of Elders) agree that there is just too much divisiveness and bitterness in the Body to attract people to the Churches.

So, the Churches of Podunk Township continue to hold "revivals" at which no one is really "revived." They hold "Evangelism Rallies" at which no one is saved. They have "Church Growth Conferences" after which no churches grow. They even have Christmas cantatas, and Easter Sunrise Services, and Homecomings, which pack out the Churches -- for one Sunday. And they still have Wednesday potluck suppers followed by prayer meeting -- and they gain weight, but not many people come to pray, and not very much happenswhen they do.

Is your town "Podunk?" Are you a member of one of these churches?

Blessings,

JDW
copyright 2008, J. Dale Weaver, M. Div. All rights reserved.

The Straw Men of Dispensationalism's Critics

2008-05-22T21:36:00.004-04:00

As some know, I am Dispensationalist in my view of theology, history and eschatology. There exists today both misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the theology of Dispensationalism. In a forum I frequent earlier today, I ran across a poster who is just such a critic. Whether he is truly ignorant of the bedrock principles of Dispensationalism, or he purposefully misrepresents the view to bolster his own viewpoint, I do not know. Of course, there is always the possibility that he has read someone who claims to be "dispensational," but who in actuality is hyper-dispensational, or just a complete nut. In any case, the critic shall remain anonymous, but I will use his "straw men" to answer some of these common mischaracterizations of the theological system known as Dispensationalism:

Critic:

Actually, theological dispensationalism teaches a way of salvation for each so-called dispensation.

For instance, Chafer taught that salvation in the kingdom dispensation (era) will be by obedience to the Law of Moses. (Dispensationalism, 416; The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, 70.) He also taught that the future of believing Jews is different than the future of believing Gentiles. (Systematic Theology IV, 12, 47-53, 248)

I am glad if Ryrie denies some distinct and main doctrines of dispensationalism. However, if he does, then what he believes is not the same as historic dispensationalism.

A second shot from the Critic:

Following are some major perils of dispensationalism:

a different gospel - In contrast to the Biblical truth that salvation has always been completely by grace, historic/classic dispensationalism teaches that there have been different ways to salvation.

racial disunity - In contrast to Scripture (such as Ephesians), dispensationalism teaches that Jewish believers and Gentile believers will be separated for eternity.

hermeneutics - Dispensationalism is based on isegesis; it determines in advance how Scriptures are to be understood. The dispensational hermeneutic taints how the reader is to view all parts of the Bible.

origin - The origin of dispensationalism is not the Bible, its origin is a dream of a woman.

novelty - Dispensationalism does not have historical support; it is a relatively new theological system.

My Response to the Critic:

As is common with critics of Dispensationalism, [this critic] has thrown out five straw men that are simply not true of Biblical Dispensationalism.

First, as to the charge that Dispensationalists teach "that there are different ways to salvation":

WRONG.

(1) "Let it be said up-front that normative dispensationalism has never taught anything other than a single way of salvation" (Anthony C. Garland, "Does Dispensationalism Teach Two Ways of Salvation?" March 2003, 1)

(2) "Are there two ways by which one may be saved? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific character is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. This is to assert that God never saved any one person or group of persons on any other ground than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but one way to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Editorial," Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 102, No. 405 (1945); 1).

THe Gospel of the Dispensationalist is the Gospel of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To charge ALL dispensationalists with preaching a "false gospel" is to cause unnecessary dissention in the Body of Christ.

Second, you charge that Dispensationalists teach "that Jewish Believers and Gentile Believers will be separated for eternity."

WRONG.

(1) "Dispensationalism recognizes differences within the company of the redeemed...Among the redeemed there are different roles which are played out in God's program leading to His Kingdom. These role distinctions [e.g. Israel and the Church] are akin to the role distinctions between male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free among the elect. They do not reflect different standing or value, but rather differences in purpose according to God's unfolding plan" (Garland, 7).

(2) "One might expect that since Israel is in unbelief, and that so stubbornly, this branch [Romans 11:17ff] will remain cut off forever...Or ...that since this is the apostle to the Gentiles who is writing, and since he stresses so the unity of the Body of Christ, we are about to read of [a] hybrid tree developing. But this is precisely what we do not read. God's purpose is defined otherwise. There is distinction within unity" (Fred G. Zaspel, "Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History," Interdisciplinary Bible Research Institute, 1995, 19).

There is no "racial disunity." Within the Body of the Redeemed, God has a distinct purpose for Israel and for the Church. They are no less redeemed, and they are not redeemed in a different way -- only through Jesus. But their roles, and the timing in God's unfolding plan is different.

Third, you state that "Dispensationalism is based on isegesis [sic]; it determines in advance how Scriptures are to be understood. The Dispensational hermeneutic taints how the reader is to view all parts of the Bible."

WRONG.

(1) "Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scriptures....[Literalism] does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation" (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 1965, 86).

(2) "The historical-grammatical method, also referred to as grammatico-historical or grammatical-critical, is a component of Biblical Hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text" (Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984).

(3) "The text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations" (Elliot Johnson, Expository hermeneutics: an Introduction, Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990)

Finally, you charge that “Dispensationalism does not have historic support; it is a relatively new theological system,” and another charge that goes hand-in-hand with it: “Dispensationalism does not have historical support; it is a relatively new theological system.”

WRONG – and WRONG.

“The ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium was intimately connected with the second coming of Christ….The Assurance of such a Millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of the [Early Church] fathers from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostle, down to Lactantius, who was the preceptor of the son of Constantine” (Edward Gibbon [1737-1794] noted English historian, in History of Christianity, New York: Peter Eckler Publishing Co., 1916, 141-142).

"Chiliasm [the name initially given to Premillennialism] was entertained in the second century not only by the Ebionites, and by writers who, like Cerinthus, mixed with their Gnosticism a large element of Judaism, but by many (very likely the majority) of the Catholic [meaning universal] Church” (Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886, 145).

“The most striking point in eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius” (Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973, 614)

The ideas that form the basis of Dispensationalism were present in the earliest times of the Church, among many if not most of the Early Church Fathers. That dispensationalism did not appear throughout Church History, and in its fullest and developed form, is not an argument that it never existed, or that it is “a relatively new theological system.” I would point to the fact that the concept of Salvation by Grace through Faith was practically lost to a millennium of Church history in the medieval age, yet was rediscovered and more fully developed by Martin Luther and the Reformation saints who followed in his wake!

These charges made by critics of Dispensationalism are straw men that they knock down, often to justify their own views and/or demonstrate contempt for those who do not agree with them. Such ought not to be the case on the part of true followers of Jesus – even when they honestly disagree.

A Brief Foray into Southern Baptist Convention Politics

2008-05-15T17:37:00.002-04:00

Anyone who knows me, knows that I deplore "denominational politics." In fact, I deplore "church politics" of any kind. It all looks like the process of sausage making behind the scenes. After my long experiences with the SBC back in my College days during the heat of the "Conservative Resurgence," and then for 17 years among two different Free Will Baptist denominations, I've had my fill of any kind of politics in the name of religion. Believe me, if Free Will Baptists can't break you of the lust for popularity and position, nothing will -- and you might even fit in perfectly there.

But enough about that. This isn't about Free Will Baptists, it's about the Southern Baptist Convention. Specifically, it's about this year's SBC Presidential election. As a member of an SBC Church, I suppose I have an interest in who becomes the Convention President. Normally, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to me. After all, Southern Baptists affirm local church autonomy (thank God), and nobody can tell a local church what to do -- at least theoretically.

This year, however, I have a keen interest in the outcome of the SBC Presidential election. Not for "political reasons," but for personal. Among the candidates will be a man I have been acqauinted with since 1985, when I was a College newspaper columnist covering the North Carolina Baptist State Convention in Charlotte. It was then that I first heard Dr. Johnny Hunt speak, and briefly met him. You might remember some had considered nominating Dr. Hunt for SBC President before. Lat year, he withdrew his name. This year, however, I understand he has consented to run.

I include the following article from Baptist Press announcing Hunt's candidacy. Following that, I'd like to share a little about what I know personally about the man and ministry of Dr. Johnny Hunt.

Johnny Hunt to be SBC president nominee

Posted on May 6, 2008 by J. Gerald Harris

WOODSTOCK, Ga. (BP)--Johnny M. Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Ga., will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention during the SBC's June 10-11 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., announced May 6.

Hunt is among four announced nominees for the post, joining Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist Church, Lawrenceville, Ga.; William L. (Bill) Wagner, a former Southern Baptist missionary and seminary professor and current president of Olivet University International in San Francisco; and former International Mission Board missionary Avery Willis.

A native of North Carolina, Hunt has been pastor of the Woodstock church since December 1986. During his first year as pastor, the church baptized 318 people and had 268 additions by statement and letter. Since he arrived, the church has seen average Sunday school attendance grow from 275 to 4,705, according to the 2007 Annual Church Profile.

In the 21 years of Hunt's pastorate, church membership has increased from 1,027 to 16,495. Current average church worship attendance is 6,180.

In 1980, while attending Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Hunt served as pastor of Falls (N.C.) Baptist Church, which led North Carolina Baptists in Sunday school growth. During his pastorate, Longleaf Baptist Church in Wilmington, N.C., also led the Baptist state convention in baptisms for three consecutive years beginning in 1983.

FBC Woodstock relocated to an 82-acre site in the fall of 2004. The $54 million sanctuary, which seats 7,500, hosts two morning worship services.

Since 1987, the congregation has sent out more than 135 missionaries and started more than 78 churches. The congregation has developed ministries such as the "City of Refuge," which provides an environment that enables hurting pastors and their families to find hope and healing.

Traylor said his "deep concern about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention" led him to want to nominate Hunt.

"I just believe the Lord's raised him up to do it," Traylor told Baptist Press. "I believe he's a man to do it for our future. I don't know of a greater Acts 1:8 church in all of our convention than First Woodstock."

"Some of us have been thinking about this [nominating Hunt] for 12 to 15 years," Traylor told Georgia's Christian Index newspaper. "I don't think he has given any thought to this until recently, but the last time I discussed it with him, I saw a flicker in his eyes, and I believe God sparked a flame in his soul for this."

Traylor listed three reasons that prompted him to announce his intention to nominate Hunt:

1) "Hunt has led First Baptist Woodstock to become a great, exemplary Acts 1:8 church in terms of missions giving and missions going.

2) "He has given evidence of a great interest and concern for the next generation of young pastors and for the millennial generation in general. No one has a better pastoral link to young ministers than Johnny Hunt, as evidenced through Woodstock's Barnabas-Timothy Conferences.

3) "I believe Southern Baptists are looking for a future that is marked by unity, not division. Johnny Hunt has one fight in him and that is the good fight of faith. He is a leader who can forge a hopeful future that is centered around the Gospel and connected to the local church."

Hunt is a graduate of Gardner-Webb College in Boiling Springs, N.C., where he was voted ministerial student of the year in 1979. He earned a master of divinity degree from Southeastern Seminary in 1981. The Chair of Church Growth at Southeastern was named for Hunt in 1997.

Hunt is married to the former Janet Allen of Wilmington, N.C. The couple has two daughters and four grandchildren.

Information from the 2007 Annual Church Profile for First Baptist Woodstock lists 462 baptisms and primary worship service attendance of 6,180. The congregation gave $393,798, or 2.2 percent, through the Cooperative Program from total undesignated receipts of $17,807,317. According to the ACP, the church's total mission expenditures were $3,304,608, with $175,000 given for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. The ACP did not record the amount the church gave for the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions.

My View:

I first met Dr. Johnny Hunt when he was Pastor of Long Leaf Baptist Church in Wilmington, NC, in 1985. They had led the state in baptism’s two straight years, and he spoke for only five minutes from the convention platform. I was a journalism student at Wingate College (now University) at the time, and I knew I had to meet this man! He was indeed on fire!

I followed his ministry as he moved to Woodstock in 1986, and as his church has exploded over the past two decades. I’ve visited his church on several ocassions, attended several conferences there, and I’ve benefitted greatly from the Timothy-Barnabas Pastor’s school I attended in 2001.

I often listen to his messages. They are always exegetically sound, never boring, and with the ultimate priority of winning souls and equipping the saints for the work of ministry. The most impressive thing about Johnny Hunt, however, is that he’s never gotten over being saved.

I once heard him say, “I’m glad I’m saved, and I never got over it!” That characteristic is sorely lacking in so many Christian lives today, replaced by cynicism and doubt — even, and perhaps especially, in our pulpits.

I’ve no doubt that God’s hand is on Dr. Johnny Hunt. I’m glad he has been my friend — as he has been to so many others in ministry throughout the years. I can say without reservation that Johnny will be an anointed and humble leader of the SBC, should he be chosen for the task.

I respect the other candidates for President. I don't know them so I will refrain from speaking about their various views, theological or methodological. I DO know Johnny Hunt. And I whole heartedly endorse his candidacy for President of the SBC. that and a $5 bill will get you a coffee at Starbucks, but for what it's worth... :-)

Prayerfully,

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.