January 27, 2005

Four former Muslims Murdered in New Jersey

A very disturbing murder occurred a couple weeks ago in New Jersey and we have heard nothing about it. The only way I learned of it was through a recent, coincidental simulcast about Islam. Hossam Armanious and his wife and two little children were found, bound, gagged and had their throats slit.
According to the Website, Jihad Watch, Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio is unwilling to even consider that the killings were religiously motivated: “Is it possible? Yes. Do we have anything that gives us reason to believe this is what it was, factually? No. Nothing indicates that was the prime motivation for this. That we can clearly say.”
DeFazio is being disingenuous it seems falling prey once again to a pernicious political correctness that continues to compromise our personal safety rather than risking offending others.
Calling it a robbery/murder stretches credulity when you learn that Armanious and his daughter were outspoken critics of Islam. The were aggressively working to evangelize their Muslim community and a local Imam, in Jersey City declared the families blood “halal” meaning, there blood was permissible to shed. The Imam even named a suspect who has since fled the country.
According to Islamic law, called Sharia, a Muslim leaving Islam is a capital offense and a Muslim trying to convert someone to Christianity is a capital offense. The Armanious family was both and yet Jersey prosecutors just don’t seem to want to “go there.”
Outside of the obvious questions stands the question about homeland security. Why is this being left in the hands of local yokels who can’t seem to see the forest through the trees? I suspect it is the same reason why a deadly and highly communicable disease—namely HIV—is treated differently than all other classes of communicable diseases. Simply put, some would rather see innocent people die than risk the political fallout of being branded a “phobe” of one stripe or another.
So here we are yet again, the law abiding, respectful citizen held hostage to the spirit of the age; a spirit whose origins are from the pit of hell and pride themselves on perverting justice, murdering the innocent, and spreading terror wherever people are afraid to stand for truth. We are reaping what we have sown. May God have mercy on us all.

January 26, 2005

Why They Cant Stand This President

A true leader, a real leader, the consummate leader knows that if you’re going to be a leader, you cannot “win” and you don’t expect to. So you make decisions, and you lead without respect to accolades, atta boys and kudos from the ones who are always in the know, always have the better way, and are always certain they know what’s best.
Never the less, I don’t how much longer I can endure the duplicitous and despicable criticisms from those on the left with respect to the values and vision of President George W. Bush.
By now, you’re familiar with the essence, if not the very words of his inaugural speech. Before the waves of sound had even traced beyond the stratosphere, liberals were already railing against the President’s speech.
Newsweek wrote, “ It was a speech written for the ages, and it will live in history as a powerful affirmation of American ideas and ideals. George W. Bush’s second Inaugural Address was the culmination, in style and substance, of a position he has been veering toward ever since September 11, 2001: that the purpose of American foreign policy must be the expansion of liberty. It is not a new theme for an American president. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all spoke in similar tones and terms. Bush, however, has brought to the cause the passion of the convert. In short declarative sentences, influenced by the King James Bible and by his most eloquent predecessors, Bush used virtually his entire speech to set out the distinctively American world view: that “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
What his critics can’t deal with is that this president believes what he says. It’s not just rousing rhetoric but they know by now that if it’s possible, he will do what he believes even if it costs him public or political handshakes and this unnerves pragmatic politicians who walk only to run another day.
What has followed in virtually every sector of so-called mainstream punditry is an incessant haranguing touting Bush as arrogant, a dreamer, a warmonger, naïve, or their favorite vituperative—he’s just plain stupid.The liberal breathes to resist the decrepit virtues of goodness, greatness and especially godliness and hypocrisy is their hallmark. If Bush had understated his dreams in his speech, I assure you he would have been branded lifeless, without vision, and a lackluster leader. But none of this influences this President, which is why he is despised more than any other. With ridicule and opinion ineffective to sway, his critics have NO control and that is their undoing.

January 23, 2005

Remember Lawrence v. Texas?

Remember Lawrence vs. Texas the abysmal case that determined that laws against sodomy were unconstitutional; that the right to privacy trumped any obligation of the state to stop perversion.

Well I have a good news/bad news situation. Okay first the bad news. According to Citizen Link, Second Lt. Ryan W. Davis pleaded guilty to consensual sodomy and conduct unbecoming to an officer in a military court following an April 1997 meeting with a 15 year old boy at a Florida park. Ryan was dismissed from the Air Force, confined for 24 months and ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances.

But since it was consensual, Davis appealed on the basis of the Lawrence decision saying that it—Lawrence—upheld his right to perverse consensual sex. That’s the bad news because that is precisely what I, and others predicted would be the case after the wretched ruling in Texas.

But the good news is, and this is somewhat surprising, though not entirely, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the officer’s appeal without comment. So while it’s good that the conviction stood, it may not necessarily be due to the lack of merits of Davis’ appeal.

Now I’m no lawyer but I do know that a case tried in the military is tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is substantially different than constitutional law. The Supremes’ refusal to hear the case without comment may be for that reason alone which means the door is not shut for anyone else similarly prosecuted under civil rather than military law.

So our fears may still be warranted, that remains to be seen. But this makes it all the more important to see to it that President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, whoever they might be, are confirmed.

So when the opportunity arises, remember this as we have two very socially liberal “Republican” Senators who often vote with the democrats on such issues. The makeup of this coming court will do more good or bad, for our country than any elected leader or leaders could ever do!

January 19, 2005

Michael Newdow--Poster Boy For The "ME" Generation

Michael Newdow—there’s a name you can learn to forget. He’s the atheist/physician who sued to have the Under God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and failed and has just, in the last few days, taken up valuable judicial resources for his bent to get his 15 minutes of fame suing to have prayers banned at the President’s inauguration.

Newdow, representing himself wrote in the third person stating,
"As an atheist, he cannot in good conscience attend an exercise where his government forces him to endure religious dogma he finds highly disagreeable," "Newdow's rights of religious freedom should be protected."

Maybe I missed something but what has the government “forced” him to endure? Has the American Faith Gestapo brought Newdow at gunpoint to the inauguration forcing him to listen to the prayers. Let’s see, what do we hear all the time about offensive language and visuals? “If it bothers you, don’t watch it.”

Ah, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist very appropriately rejected this miscreants lawsuit.
Newdow insisted on Rehnquist's recusal, saying the chief justice would feel "awkward" at the ceremony if he ruled in Newdow's favor. He also said he would drop his plans to attend the inauguration if forced to confront the prayers by two Christian ministers.

Oh now that’s a pity. Can you believe this guy’s sense of importance? Stop the presses, we can’t go on; not if Michael Newdow doesn’t come. Who does this guy think he is? He has got to be poster boy of the “ME” generation conflicted with an over-inflated sense of self having received too many ribbons and trophies during his growing up years. Another fine product of the “time-out” chair no doubt.

Even after Rehnquist rejected his case Justice John Paul Stevens also heard Newdow’s complaint and likewise refused to stop the prayers. Rehnquist’s decision was expected; Stevens’ was a nice surprise.

“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him, Solomon wrote. Does that apply to spoiled brats trapped in adult bodies? I’m willing to give it a try!

Blatant Bigotry at Florida College

Well here we go again. Indian River Community College might seem like an upstanding school when you learn that it refused to allow the showing of Mel Gibson’s “The passion of the Christ” because it was “R” rated. Now if that was indeed the fact, I’d give them credit for at least being consistent within the scope of their policy even if they weren’t exactly using their brains. Ah but the “R” rating excuse was merely a way to sidestep their blatant anti-Christian bigotry. You see have to also be aware that this same public institution previously allowed a dramatic presentation titled—F---ing for Jesus that portrayed simulated sex with the risen Lord.
Well, now that changes things doesn’t it?
The Campus Christian Fellowship, which was sponsoring the showing of the Gibson film, wrote the college president in protest. And what was their open-minded tolerant response? School administrator, Lori La Civita yanked the fellowship leaders out of class and demanded an apology from them for having addressed the college’s higher authority without her permission. Additionally, due to added stipulations the administration placed on the group, the faculty sponsor had to disengage from involvement with the group so the fellowship is no longer able to meet.
What I would like to know is how, in this day and age, a state funded college can proffer this sort of blatant viewpoint discrimination and religious censorship? And how in this day of sensitivity and tolerance can any school administrator--short of being possessed-- think that something like this would go unchallenged?
And anecdotally, I would like to know where the outrage is from that bastion of free speech, the American Civil Liberties Union? (It’s a rhetorical question.)
You know just because we are told in the Scriptures that there will be persecution does not mean we are obligated to allow it to stand, especially in these United States which declares freedom and justice for ALL—even Christians.
So go forth Christian, go into battle filled with the Holy Spirit, being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Demanding our civil rights along with all other citizens is at odds with neither our faith nor our faithfulness. Let us take advantage of the light exposing the darkness to the glory of the one who saved us. We can do no less.

January 13, 2005

Is Justice About Innocence or Procedure

Here’s a wild one for you. What do Andrea Yates, the mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub have in common with Saddam Hussein? Give up? They both have lawyers who honestly believe true justice is not about guilt or innocence but about fairness in procedure.

Okay, I understand the concern and while there MAY be a connection between fairness in legal procedure and justice there isn’t necessarily a connection. Let me explain. When I look at justice in the Bible it pertains to the guilt or innocence of an individual concerning something they have done or failed to do. They either did it, or didn’t. At the end of the day, the concern is about right and wrong not how it is determined.

Don’t misunderstand me; depraved people—that is who we are—need a procedural system to encourage that real justice is determined. But the penultimate concern must always be on the issue of was a wrong committed; not how was it determined that a wrong was committed.

In the case of Andrea Yates there is no dispute about her guilt—she admitted to killing her children. And in the case of Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt about his murderous crimes. But when lawyers overturn Yates guilty verdict on a technicality and an Anti-American lawyer like Ramsey Clark joins the Butcher of Baghdad’s defense team that is a perversion of justice and an insult to the very idea for the be all and end all is not an accurate conclusion of guilt or innocence but rather procedure. At that point, the tail is wagging the dog, the forest is lost through the trees, and the nose has been cut off to spite the face.

A mother murdered her five children—end of story. The fact that some expert gave some kind of phony story about an episode from Law and Order does not change the outcome of her guilt. And though Saddam Hussein supposedly “deserves” a fair trial, I would take exception to that-- there is no question about his guilt or innocence so questions of procedure are moot in my book.

Well, God knows, and the day is coming when justice, true justice, unadulterated justice will be meted out and when that day comes, there won’t be any lawyers crying foul because someone’s “rights” weren’t read to them. I both long for, and shudder to think about that day.

Abortion Exacerbates Social Security Crisis

I saw an ad on television the other day about social security. With one of President Bush’s top priorities being a partial privatization of social security, the fear mongers and nay-sayers are sowing fear and discontent.

First of all, social security was supposed to be a temporary arrangement but as we all know, once the federal government gets it’s hands into something, it’s permanent and there will be an exponential increase in the cost of producing what ever it is you are trying to produce than any other way of producing it.

Another truth of life is that when it comes to the federal government your money is not your money. President Bush wants to make some inroads into allowing Americans to have more say with what happens to the money taken out of their check each week being put aside—in theory—for retirement. President Bush wants Americans to be able to have a small portion of their own money to invest in accounts that will net them possibly 4 or 5 times the yield as social security yields currently. What could be so despicable about that?

Well, if you’re Ted Kennedy or his ilk, money is power, and if you control every American’s retirement fund, you have much more control of them. That’s not some kind of conspiracy theory, that’s basic analysis of the liberal mindset. They know what’s best for us, they are all wise and all knowing, and they want to be our guardians and nannies.

Still we have to deal with reality and here it is. In 1950 there were about 16 people in the work force kicking into the social security fund for every person who was retired. The fund was healthy relatively speaking. Now there are only 2 workers kicking into that fund for every retiree out there. Social Security cannot go on that way. While there are numerous factors that changed, one you never hear about is that fact that the raw work force is smaller--due to abortion! How much smaller?

Well, if you start at 1973 when abortion was declared a right by the Supreme Court, there are 40 million less current and future workers in the United States today. That would be roughly 20 million workers who would have been contributing to social security today and another 20 million who would come of age and enter the workforce contributing to the fund. But now the workers and their money--is gone.
God will not be mocked. That which you sow…well never mind.

January 11, 2005

Our Prayers Need Some Work!

Being connected to the Internet allows one the luxury and the burden of knowing way too many things going on in the world. Today we are privy to the prayer concerns of people circumventing the globe not just our own church or neighborhood. My focus today is the thoroughly lopsided emphasis we have regarding the kinds of things for which we ask prayer.

Have you noticed that far and away the bulk of prayer requests and certainly the most urgent ones have one common theme; physical well-being of one stripe or another.

If it’s not for “traveling mercies” (whatever they are) it’s for safety through an operation; or a good diagnosis, or wisdom for the doctors, or quick healing, or comfort from pain, the infection, the side effects, the medicine, you name it, the majority of prayer requests center around our physical comfort and health.

To be sure, Phil. 4 tells us NOT to be anxious about anything but in everything…make our requests known to God. But judging by our requests, I would have to say the overwhelming majority of our prayers are preoccupied with a view to a cozier, cushier lifestyle.

And if that is true, that’s a problem. Review your Bibles! We are called to suffer yet we pray for deliverance from it; we are told our bodies are wasting away yet we plead for the opposite; we are told that to depart and be with Christ is far better than to remain here but we pray for longevity. I think something is wrong with both our theology and our view of eternity. Could it be we really don’t believe it?

What would a more Biblical prayer sound like? “God, during this time of pain, help to me lean on you and glorify you in spite of the pain.” “Father, use me while I’m at the hospital to be a shining light for you in the midst of my ordeal.” “Lord, fill me with your strength for though I am weak you are strong; draw someone to yourself through my suffering.” I think our prayers might need some radical revamping and it would probably be a good idea to go through that Bible again in this New Year to reacquaint ourselves with the God we’re supposed to know so well but we have such a long way to go.

January 06, 2005

Desmond Tutu Goes Bye-bye--Let's Hope so!

Bishop Desmond Tutu, 1984 Nobel Laureate told Newsweek he wants to “move out of the public eye for a more contemplative lifestyle.” That’s good news for all of us. Tutu is just another liberal pseudo-Christian theologian who has created God in his image and likeness.

When asked about the role of religion in the last American presidential election he told Newsweek, “I keep having to remind people that religion in and of itself is morally neutral. Religion is like a knife. When you use a knife for cutting up bread to prepare sandwiches, a knife is good. If you use the same knife to stick into somebody’s guts, a knife is bad. Religion in and of itself is not good or bad—it is what it makes you do…”

Well Bishop, you’re wrong as you normally are whenever you attempt to expound on a Christian faith which is not informed by the Bible. For Tutu, religion is morally neutral meaning all faith systems are equal; equally good or equally bad depending on what any particular adherent of any particular religion does with his faith.

That may play well in the market place of relativism, but it is pernicious foolishness when judged against the holy Word of God. Jesus was quite clear when he stated that there were two roads in life; one leads to eternal damnation and one leads to eternal life. The road to hell is broad and many chose that road for the narrow road as Jesus called it, is viewed to be too narrow, too exclusive, too restrictive.

Tutu wants us to believe his Jesus would be just as thrilled with a worshipper of Allah, Vishnu, or Krishna so long as their faith compelled them to do good things. But the Bible again is clear saying that “all the nice things we do are like filthy rags to the living God” for even at their best they are still far short of perfection.

So Tutu’s stepping out of the limelight to a more contemplative lifestyle is one less heretic confusing the minds of searching souls. I hope in his contemplations, he finds the Jesus of the Bible and rejects his self-generated idolatrous statue of a make believe savior; a savior who looks more like Bishop Tutu than God Almighty. It’s an all too common error with eternal consequences.

Christians to Blame for Tsunami

Maybe you have heard the latest theory about the earthquake and resulting Tsunami that has claimed well over 100,000 men, women and children. Certainly that’s not news but what may be is that according to Muslim cleric Manajiid, the tsunami was due to the presence of westerners—which in the mind of this Muslim holy man equates to Christians--on the beaches of these pristine vacation resorts.

I’m inclined to say, “What a numbskull,” but I realize that “reality” and “fact” are not words readily familiar to many of the spiritual leaders of Islam.

What we know to be fact is that somewhere around 150,000 lives have been lost thus far and the W.H.O. believes this could double in the next few days. We also know that of this staggering number, so far there have only been 20 confirmed American deaths. You don’t have to be a math major to know that this is a scant fraction of the total and of that total, mind-boggling number, most of the lives lost were Hindu or Muslim.

So either Allah is so taken with the hatred of Christians that he thinks nothing of murdering tens of thousands of his own devotees just to get one infidel, or Allah’s wrath is really indiscriminate. Either way, he is a pretty lousy deity and object of worship.

What truly perplexes me is why anyone would be attracted to Islam. Their god is a deity who at best is capricious, mean, and ruthless, who delights in sowing hatred, violence and death to the most defenseless and innocent of humanity.

So when I think of Allah causing a natural disaster to kill people because they worship another god, I am awestruck at the thought of how Jesus, instead of killing others who worship other deities, allowed himself to be killed that they might see that he is the real God; a God of love, a God of mercy, and a God who longs to be with them in eternity.
I am also perplexed why anyone would reject that kind of God for another. I guess I’ll just have to be content with being baffled.