I wanted to jump back into the blogging arena after reflecting on this stuff for a few days. The political stuff is there, but I am more interested in the Christianity aspect of it all. Hopefully my thoughts will be cogent.

One of Obama’s books “The Audacity of Hope” is a direct reference to a sermon from Jeremiah Wright called “The Audacity to Hope” in 1990. (http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/sermons/audacityofhope.html)

He has denounced some of his pastor’s statements this week, but at the same time says his anger is understandable. He can’t have him on his campaign, but can’t disown him. Comparing the public demagoguery of a pastor to the private statements of your grandmother is just beyond stupid. Obama is far from a stupid man, however. I think he is brilliant. I think he has a sincere desire to unite America, which is 100% admirable. He is so incredibly preferable to Hillary Clinton it’s not even close. I believe he is a good man, but also a master politician. He will have everything both ways, lukewarm.  He offers nothing new in the realms of public or foreign policy, just good old 1960s Leftism. As I learned, this is a big part of his Church as well.

Trinity United Church of Christ beliefs:

All can be found liked to here: http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

First thing one sees is African colors on homepage. After reading it through, there is very little Christianity and no Bible study anywhere to be found. There is a clear socialist agenda. There is a page listing the “Black Values System”. Here are the more interesting parts:

#11 Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.

Under #3 Commitment to the Black Family – “these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.” 

#8 Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness. “Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.”

The only remotely God-centered “Value” is #1, and it is quite non-God-centered: Commitment to God. “The God of our weary years will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.”

Other sections of note:

“Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.”

The Diaspora??? This is a red flag, a “buzzword” meant to bring to mind the tribes of Judah dispersed all over the world. Newsflash, black people are not returning to Africa who live in the West. Ever. Liberated from what? Spiritually I can understand, but as Christians, we are free from sin through the Blood of Jesus, in bondage to no one and nothing. The institution of slavery in America is gone, never to return. The whole “liberation theology” idea is insidious to me. If you are a Bible believing Christian church, there is only one “theology” and it applies to everyone equally. We are sinners and He is the only One to save us. Is that so hard to understand?

“The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!”

Uh oh…DING DING DING. I think we have cut to the root! God is a communist! Who knew! I’m sorry, but this church is embarrassingly un-Biblical.

“The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.

A congregation preaching SALVATION.

A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.”

There you have it. More socialism, “diasopra” talk and humanism. Why commitment to Africa and not to the most Blessed nation in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD? Where is the allegiance to America? Why even mention these ancillary things at all? Isn’t it enough to be committed to the Lord and the sturdy of His Word? You know, the POINT of a church? All of the churches committed to “Europe and the white race” are rightly shunned as racist. This Trinity United Church of Christ is one of many (unfortunately) of all stripes who have succumb to extra-Biblical, and in some cases anti-Biblical, pursuits.

Jeremiah Wright = all pastors who preach lies.

I don’t want to make this personal about his one guy. Only as it relates to the likely Democratic nominee for President. Just some random thoughts: Nothing on the website about him retiring, even though it has been claimed several times that he retired last month. That’s neither here nor there. Obama says he never challenged Wright when he disagreed with him because he “was on the verge of retirement”. For the past year? 5 years? Why wouldn’t someone challenge a false teaching/plain false information just because someone is on the verge of retirement? Makes no sense to me. Then again, I thought he never heard the pastor make any of “those” statements??

Ok, “those” statements, here are some of the gems (I will refrain from commentating assuming most can see though the untruth and outrageous equivalency very easily):

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. “No! No No! “God damn America … for killing innocent people. “God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. “God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

I must make one comment. The “chickens coming home to roost” is another buzzword. A powerful one to blacks. It was made famous by Malcolm X in 1963. Malcolm, a Muslim mind you, said it in reference to John F Kennedy’s assassination. It’s America’s fault, it always is in the end. The “America” that Malcolm X and Jeremiah Wright talk about is “White America” – God is perpetually angry at America in their mind. Even though the facts of History show the complete opposite to the modern reasonable Christian. Do yourself a favor and read the famous Malcolm X speech and see how it parallels some Christian pastors today: http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm

I want to get to the larger issues of pastors who teach lies. Some are Biblical lies, some are just lies about the world around you (see quotes above). Some are done out of ignorance – they believe it to be true, but it’s not. God is NOT happy with those who claim to teach His Word and lie while doing it – ignorant or not. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” - 1Pet. 4:17

God looks at the Pulpit first. There are liars, thieves, pedophiles, and more as heads of Christian churches. The Lord is not looking kindly at them. We as Christians can never ever be lukewarm about them. Leave any church that teaches lies, period. God knows I have done that quite a few times in my life. It’s not hard at all.

So what about this “America = evil” thing? It is a view shared by some Christians, many Muslims and political Leftists the world over, including here at home. The fact is that the same convergence of politics and religion the Muslim world suffers from is happening in the Christian world as well. There are entire denominations of Churches that teach Jesus was a pacifist and/or whose purpose was “social justice”. Most of those are not even Christian in the true sense of the word, mind you, they don’t accept Him as Lord, they just try to emulate His deeds and preach to others that they are not emulating Him. While that is all well and good, it is not Biblical. Good works alone will not do it. There are even those who call themselves Conservative Christians (IE Bible believing) who are taught that America is Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots. That God will destroy America as we are the epicenter of anti-Christian behavior in this world. Aside from being patently stupid, there is just a deep desire to make America into the polar opposite of what it actually is. Do we have our problems and bad people? Of course. Have we made mistakes and even committed crimes in various ways over the past 2 centuries? Without a doubt. But the other side of the coin is what really matters: that we REPENT of our sins and FIX that which is broken. That is the ultimate proof of America’s Christianity and explains the multitude of Blessings we have always received and still receive. Using our nation’s military against other nations is not evil, it’s sanctioned. Stopping illegal immigration is not evil, it’s righteous. Punishing the guilty with the death penalty is not evil, it is Biblical. Capitalism is not evil, it is the most equitable economic system man has ever come up with. Democracy is not evil, it is the most empowering political system possible. The Constitution is not evil, is simply enumerates the freedoms that God already has granted to us. And it can be (obviously has been) amended to correct any oversights. America is envied by friends and foes alike for all of these reasons and more. Freedoms of speech, press and religion will always make people want to come here and never leave. America is not even in the top 100 on God’s “to be damned” list.

That’s all for now. Comments welcome as always.

This is fantastic news. But on the other hand, sobering.

Imad Mughniyeh, who had been in hiding for years, was among the fugitives indicted in the United States for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed. He was also suspected of masterminding attacks on the U.S. Embassy and the Marine base in Lebanon that killed more than 260 Americans in the 1980s when he was then the Iranian-backed Hezbollah's security chief. He was also the reputed leader of a group that held Westerners hostage in Lebanon, among them journalist Terry Anderson, a former Associated Press chief Middle East correspondent who was held captive for six years. Mughniyeh is also believed by Israel to have been involved in planning the 1992 bombing of Israel's embassy in Argentina in which 29 people were killed and the blast at a Buenos Aires Jewish center two years later that killed 95. Mughniyeh is on an FBI wanted list with a $25 million bounty on his head. The bounty is equal to that the U.S. has put for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

He was killed in Syria, by the way. This is sobering because the Iranian Hezbollah will likely retaliate harshly. They predictably blamed Israel, and they indeed may be responsible, but the US could have done it also. Either way, Hezbollah have cells in America right now (and in Europe) that can strike immediately if called upon. Of course, attacking Israel is likely as well. We would be wise to keep our eyes wide open in our day to day activities. We are at war, they know it, we must not forget it.

If this is not the extreme minority opinion, this could signal the beginning of the end for Great Britain:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion. Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system."

Pakistan is not doing enough. They are proving not to be an ally of the United States. They have enough nuclear material for up to 50 warheads. There is also strong evidence that some in the government are sharing that technology with others. Elections are coming up (allegedly) on Feb. 18. Al-Qaeda and pals are there and are exerting strong influence (in addition to their standard kidnap and murder tactics). Things could go to hell there very quickly. Perhaps you have heard of a part of Pakistan called Waziristan? A top al-Qaeda leader was just killed there by an American drone, but we have no “boots on the ground” there (possibly small numbers of special forces only). Pakistani leader Musharraf said this month, “we are not chasing bin Laden”. He will not welcome “assistance” in getting him either: “"Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them". But we must understand this is not a new problem. Here is a highly relevant piece from http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1507/article_detail.asp (emphasis mine):

 

 

Lord Curzon, Britain's viceroy of India and foreign secretary during the initial decades of the 20th century, once declared:

 

“No patchwork scheme—and all our present recent schemes...are mere patchwork—will settle the Waziristan problem. Not until the military steam-roller has passed over the country from end to end, will there be peace. But I do not want to be the person to start that machine.”

 

Nowadays, this region of what is today northwest Pakistan is variously called "Al-Qaedastan," "Talibanistan," or more properly, the "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan." Pakistan gave up South Waziristan to the Taliban in Spring 2006, after taking heavy casualties in a failed four-year campaign to consolidate control of this fierce tribal region. By the fall, Pakistan had effectively abandoned North Waziristan. The nominal truce—actually closer to a surrender—was signed in a soccer stadium, beneath al-Qaeda's black flag.

 

Having recovered the safe haven once denied them by America's invasion of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gathered the diaspora of the worldwide Islamist revolution into Waziristan. Slipping to safety from Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden himself almost certainly escaped across its border. Now Muslim punjabis who fight the Indian army in Kashmir, Chechen opponents of Russia, and many more Islamist terror groups congregate, recuperate, train, and confer in Waziristan. This past fall's terror plotters in Germany and Denmark allegedly trained in Waziristan, as did those who hoped to highjack transatlantic planes leaving from Britain's Heathrow Airport in 2006. The crimson currents flowing across what Samuel Huntington once famously dubbed "Islam's bloody borders" now seem to emanate from Waziristan.

 

Slowly but surely, the Islamic Emirate's writ is pushing beyond Waziristan itself, to encompass other sections of Pakistan's mountainous tribal regions—thereby fueling the ongoing insurgency across the border in Afghanistan. With a third of Pakistanis in a recent poll expressing favorable views of al-Qaeda, and 49% registering favorable opinions of local jihadi terror groups, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan may yet conquer Pakistan. Fear of a widening Islamist rebellion in this nuclear-armed state was General Musharraf's stated reason for the recent imposition of a state of emergency. And in fact Osama bin Laden publicly called for the overthrow of Musharraf's government this past September. It is for fear of provoking such a disastrous revolt that we have so far dared not loose the American military steamroller in Waziristan. When Lord Curzon hesitated to start up the British military machine, he was revolving in his mind the costs and consequences of the great 1857 Indian "Mutiny" and of an 1894 jihadist revolt in South Waziristan. Surely, Curzon would have appreciated our dilemma today.

 

 

But none of our decisions can be made out of fear. Will it take another attack on our homeland for us to deal with Pakistan? I sure hope not.

We chose both McCain and Obama by double digits!

And thankfully, in the states that really mattered, the electorate ignored the Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingram/Dobson noise and used their common sense to propell McCain to all of the big victories and stuck a finger in Mitt Romney's eye by yelling loud and clear that Mike Huckabee is the choice of southern conservatives...by a slim margain over McCain no less, not Romney.

I'm still hoping Obama puts Hillary in a ditch for good, but frankly, she will be easier to beat in November. So it's all good, yo.

Well, it all happened fast last night. Rudy’s campaign for President is over and he and I will be endorsing John McCain. I have admired McCain for many years, and supported him in the 2000 Primaries. He is a National Security/Foreign Policy hawk at the same level as Giuliani, and like him understands that Islamo-Nazi terrorism is the transcendent issue for America. I am hoping their friendship will open a “Cabinet door” for Rudy, perhaps as Homeland Security Secretary. McCain is a fiscal conservative in the truest sense; smaller government, balanced budgets (lower taxes, lower spending) and NO PORK. He is pro-life and pro-traditional family. He has taken some positions that I have disagreed with, but not many.

Those of you who know me realize I am basically an uber-conservative. I make no bones about it or apologize for it. What I am not is a Republican, or a shill for them. I am an anti-abortion, pro-military, pro-death penalty, anti-socialism, pro-democracy, anti-tyranny, pro-individual responsibility, “protect the innocent punish the guilty”
Patriot. What is killing me is the venom coming from the Right against McCain because he dared to go against the collective on a few issues. This is being spearheaded by the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Ingrams of the world. It is both sad and funny at the same time. They are calling McCain a liberal. A liberal!! And many people are swallowing that lie whole. There are said to be 3 “pillars” of conservatism: Foreign Policy, Economic and Social. Which one fits McCain? ALL OF THEM.

Here are the major issues that are dogging McCain for them:
1. McCain-Fiengold. IE “Campaign Finance Reform”
2. McCain-Kennedy. IE “Amnesty Bill”
3. McCain-Lieberman. IE “Cap and Trade on Greenhouse Gasses”
4. The "gang of 14".

Co-sponsoring legislation with a Democrat makes one a Democrat?? Give me a freakin break. Notice these are all attempts at actually doing something, not just talking about it.

Personally, I love the campaign finance effort. The country had been complaining about that for years, it is one of the main reasons Ross Perot got so many votes and Bill Clinton won in 1992! Nothing was done for 10 years until McCain took it upon himself to eliminate “soft money” from campaigns. Some bogusly claim that it infringes on 1st amendment rights to free speech. First off, money is not speech, no matter how you want to spin it. Restricting donations and what kinds of ads can be shown near an election have nothing to do with free speech whatsoever. The House and Senate debated it and passed it. President Bush signed it into law. I guess neither Bush nor his team of lawyers or the Justice Department thought it unconstitutional either. That’s because it’s not. This is just a case of sour grapes because soft money was a huge influence on BOTH parties. There is no denying there have been unintended consequences from it, key word being unintended. The rise of 501c4 loophole loving organizations like moveon.org is unfortunate, but it is no reason to reject the very good premise of campaign finance reform. McCain is to be commended for this, not condemned.

The “amnesty bill” was a mistake. I hated it, most of America from both sides hated it. That’s because there was a cry from all quarters that the borders must be closed first before anything else can be discussed. Stop the bleeding! To McCain’s credit, he has not changed his position, but has said, and I quote, “Look, the lesson I take from the last debate we were in, Bill, is I still support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, but we've got to secure the borders. It has to be done first. As president, I would say that the governors have to certify that their borders -- the border state governors would have to certify that their borders are secure.” And, “"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." This also covers the numerous dumb comments on this subject he made prior to learning that lesson.

Cap and Trade? Who really cares. No matter what your position on global warming is, it is undeniably better to produce less greenhouse gasses. This bill only rewards those companies who produce less, it does not punish anyone. Besides, there ain’t nothing wrong with Joe Lieberman.

The "gang of 14" is a problem?? This got 2 conservative Supreme Court justices confirmed! Would have never happened otherwise! See here for a more in-depth explanation: The Base is Wrong About the Gang of 14 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_base_is_wrong_about_the_ga.html

The only real issue I have with McCain today is his insistence on pronouncing that certain forms of interrogation will not be used against our enemies. This is just dumb. NEVER tell your enemy what you will not do to him. Keep that “in house”. I will overlook that as I completely trust our Military and our nation’s security in his hands.

It has gotten so bad that people will refuse to vote for McCain even if it means letting Hillary into the White House! But it’s not even that, I understand principles. What I don’t understand is labeling McCain the very same thing that he fights against. John McCain is an honorable, truth-telling, legitimate hero, who isn’t afraid to do what he thinks is right. He puts his country over his party, and that is exactly how it should be. It looks good for him right now going into Super Tuesday, so anyone yet to vote in their Primary please vote for Mr. McCain. Ignore the talking heads and use your common sense. I will be enthusiastically voting for John McCain on November 4th.

I know you have all missed my awesome blogging skills, but I have had my mind on other things.
Today is my man Rudy's last stand. It doesn't look good in Florida despite all of his efforts there. Me and all of his supporters are just stunned at this turn of events. I'm not going to blame anyone, stuff just happens. He is going to need a significant portion of the absentee/early votes to even make a play, and I don't see that at this point. If he presses on through Feb. 5th, I will still be working for him every day, making calls, going door to door, whatever I have to do. But, unbelievably, it may not even get to that day. I never addressed what would happen if Rudy endoreses another candidate - if and when he does, and I am pretty sure it will be John McCain, I will throw my support that way. Not nearly as enthusiastically, of course, but a President McCain would be pretty awesome too. He was my pick in 2000, hopefully he will be smart and pick Giuliani as his running mate!

:sigh:

I get annoyed at “Happy Holidays”, “Holiday sales”, “Seasons Greetings”, etc. These are manifestations of fear, pure and simple. Good intentioned or not, Christian or not, there is no reason whatsoever not to say “Merry Christmas” early and often. Be not afraid!

 

I despise “X-mas” in any form. I have heard the bogus claims that the “X” represents Christ, that it’s just a way of shortening a word, etc. Bull. It is meant as an insult to Christians to “x-out” the Lord. I don’t care who uses it, in what medium or for what purpose, it is disgusting.

 

Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system…the big-wig of the Church of England has this to say recently, and I will comment:

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, dismissed the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men yesterday as nothing but "legend."

 

We shall see…

 

There was scant evidence for the Magi, and none at all that there were three of them, or that they were kings, he said. All the evidence that existed was in Matthew’s Gospel. The Archbishop said: "Matthew’s Gospel doesn’t tell us there were three of them, doesn’t tell us they were kings, doesn’t tell us where they came from. It says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that’s all we’re really told." Anything else was legend. "It works quite well as legend," the Archbishop said.

 

The “wise men” (Greek “magos”, Hebrew “rab-mag”) appear in Matthew 2. True, there is no specific mention that there were 3 of them, but that belief was extrapolated from verse 11 where they presented 3 gifts upon seeing Jesus. There was more than one of them, perhaps more than 3, but 3 is a decent guess. Whether they were “kings” is a matter of linguistics. The word means “chief soothsayer” (see Jeremiah), it is rendered “sorcerer” in the book of Acts. In Jeremiah, “Rab-Mag” came from Babylon. There is no reason to believe these “Magi” didn’t come from Babylon also. They were “kings” of their profession.

 

Further, there was no evidence that there were any oxen or asses in the stable. The chances of any snow falling around the stable in Bethlehem were "very unlikely." And as for the star rising and then standing still: the Archbishop pointed out that stars just don’t behave like that.

 

True, there is no mention of any Oxen or Asses in the manger, but that is what a manger is for, to feed the livestock. Let’s say it was “closed for the night” for the animals. There is no mention of snow anywhere in the Bible. And as he said, it is highly unlikely, being these events took place is late September. Of course stars don’t behave like that. Frankly, the Bible never says it is a literal star that the Wise Men see (compare to Luke 2:9). Why would Herod ask how long the star was there if it was so obvious??

 

Although he believed in it himself, he advised that new Christians need not fear that they had to leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the Virgin Birth before they could be "signed up." For good measure, he added, Jesus was probably not born in December at all. “Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

 

Skipping the Virgin Birth issue for another day…He is correct that the real Christmas Day wasn’t in December at all. It was moved there by Pope Julius I in  350AD to coincide with the Winter Solstice celebrations of the Pagans. The time of late September is clear from Luke 1 (follow the “course of Abia”).

 

He said the Christmas cards that show the Virgin Mary cradling baby Jesus, with the shepherds on one side and the Three Wise Men on the other, were guilty of "conflation."

 

I would say a mother would hold her newborn son at some point. The Shepherds were there (Luke 2), and the Magi were there (Matthew 2). We just don’t know if they were there at the same time or not. They could have been, it’s just not said. The Shepherds saw Jesus, Mary and Joseph upon their arrival, and the Magi saw Jesus and Mary upon their arrival. Does that mean Joseph was out taking a leak when the Magi arrived?? Since they were all there at some point in a very small time, it is perfectly acceptable to “conflate” the scene.

 

One of the few things that almost everyone agreed on was that Jesus’s mother’s name was Mary. That is in all the four Gospels. It was also pretty clear that Jesus’s father was called Joseph.

 

BUZZ! Step-father, please. J

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”

 

Williams’s views are strictly in line with orthodox Christian teaching. The Archbishop is sticking to what the Bible actually says.

 

Sort of…

In the new ad "One Hour", Rudy says:

“I remember back to the 1970s and the early 1980s. Iranian mullahs took American hostages and they held the American hostages for 444 days. And they released the American hostages in one hour, and that should tell us a lot about these Islamic terrorists that we’re facing. The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United States. The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them. You don’t back down. I’m Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message.”

This is the story of Giuliani's life. This is not idle talk, he walks the walk. America needs him.

A new Intelligence Estimate says that Iran “paused” its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Funny how these things are 100% trustworthy only when they reflect badly on Bush? Or are THOUGHT to? Let’s say it is correct.

Here are the facts:
We went to war in Iraq in 2003.
Libya gave up their nuclear and chemical weapons programs in December 2003.
Iran put their nuclear program on hold in 2003.

Coincidence? I think not. If anything, it is a giant slap in the face to every Bush foreign policy critic. Our actions in Iraq showed the world we are not afraid to act, and the bad guys pooped their pants. Not a shot was fired at Iran or Libya, and they both blinked.

Some are funny, some are dumb, but millions believe in them. It makes me sad when ordinarily intelligent people succumb to the psychosis of paranoia. Both the Left and Right fall for these lies all the time. Watching Ron Paul last night give credence to some was very entertaining. I do believe in provable things like collusion (see Oil companies) and cartels (OPEC), but big conspiracies hardly ever happen. I am sure there are many more around the world, but these seem to be the biggies in this country today.


1. North American Union/NAFTA Superhighway:
This is the one Ron Paul likes (also Pat Buchannan). It is also a favorite of Separatists and Neo-Nazis. It says that there are secret plans by unnamed powerful people in America, Mexico and Canada to unite the 3 countries into 1. The new currency will be called the “amero” and this is the reason why illegal immigration is allowed to go on. Forget the fact that this would take a Constitutional Convention and an unprecedented debate in the States and the Congress to even CONSIDER such a thing. The NAFTA Superhighway is another outright myth but don’t tell that to the North American Union believers. Even though there is a perfectly good highway system that connects Mexico and Canada already, this new 8 lane or 80 lane or whatever superhighway will bring the “North American Union” together.


2. 9/11 was an inside job by the US Govt. OR planned and/or carried out by Jews on behalf of Israel:
This one makes me angry. Hell, it even makes Bill Clinton angry. Each and every crackpot theory about that day has been completely debunked. 19 Muslim terrorists with box cutters really did destroy the Twin Towers and put a hole in the Pentagon. It worked because we were asleep as a nation.


3. Moon landing was faked:
Self-explanatory.


4. Illuminati/whomever want to kill millions (or billions) of people for population control via disease – AIDS was created in a lab in Maryland:
This plan seems to have backfired royally. Population is exploding, people are living longer and longer, medicines are getting better and better, etc. This is similar to the “CIA brought drugs into American cities” garbage from the 80s. Laughably nonsensical.


5. Concentration camps for Christians in America:
You would be shocked how many paranoid Christians believe this to be true. At some point in the near future, they believe, evil America will make Biblical Christianity “illegal” and throw them into these camps. They even have pictures to prove it!


6. Mark of the Beast is a microchip/ID card:
This is more a misunderstanding of the Bible than anything. Do a google search on “verichip” and you’ll see some mighty wacky things. People expecting a physical “mark” in their hand or forehead are always looking out for the next “mark” – “ohh, that has to be it!” Even a national ID Card scares the poop out of them.


7. New World Order:
Too many to list. The best one has to be that Gorbachev, Bush I and Pope John Paul II had a secret meeting and all agreed on…something. Another good one is that all the wars of the 20th century (and now of course) were planned out in advance by rich people to establish the NWO.


8. Holocaust Denial:
Similar to 9/11 denial, says the Nazi Holocaust in WWII never happened. Or was at least greatly exaggerated. Some will go so far as to say Hilter would never approve of such a thing. Some say the ovens and gas chambers were fakes. Jews were never killed, or the numbers are intentionally inflated. Even tours of the death camps won’t convince them. They are very separated from reality.


9. Myths about the Patriot Act:
It’s amazing how many people cite the Patriot Act as the reason for this or that, and yet have NEVER READ IT. There are more myths than I care to list, but suffice it to say that since 2001, there have been exactly ZERO Constitutional challenges brought against it, and ZERO abuses have been substantiated. But that’s not even the funniest part. Most people who blame it don’t realize it has nothing to do with what they are complaining about. Example, “sneak-and-peek and delayed notification warrants were created by the Patriot Act!” No, they weren’t. And “the Patriot Act allows racial profiling!” No, it doesn’t.


10. Global Warming:
Don’t think this necessarily meets the definition of a conspiracy theory, but this site should pretty much sum it up - http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


Feel free to tell me which ones I missed. Or, let me help you if you believe in one of them.

For those of you who watched the Repub debate last night, check THIS out:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/

Even if you didn't, you should still check it out to witness the power of the people using super fast communication to expose some really shady stuff. This is why America is great.

I just had to copy and paste this from Michael Medved's blog last month. Put your suppositions away and prepre to learn...


The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society
By Michael Medved

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Senator John McCain’s recent comments about America’s heritage as a “Christian nation” ignited an ill-tempered blast of self-righteous condemnation – a reaction that highlighted the widespread misunderstandings, distortions and downright ignorance surrounding the nation’s founders and their view of religion’s role in society.

Asked a question about a recent poll that showed 55% of the public believing that “the Constitution establishes a Christian nation,” McCain responded: “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”

The National Jewish Democratic Council, a partisan group affiliated with the Democratic Party, denounced McCain’s remarks as “repugnant.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the Arizona Senator’s comments went “against the traditions of American pluralism and religious pluralism and inclusion.” The general counsel of the mainstream American Jewish Committee declared that “to argue that America is a Christian nation… puts the very character of our country at stake.”

Meanwhile, Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s First Amendment Center, made the most sweeping and profoundly misleading comments. Regarding the poll that provoked the McCain controversy in the first place, he noted that its results “suggest that a great many people have deeply misunderstood the Constitution. The framers clearly wanted to establish a secular nation…”

Like so many other commonly held convictions about the role of faith in the nation’s founding this politically correct contention isn’t just confused and unfocused; it is, rather, appallingly, demonstrably and inarguably wrong.

In order to put today’s church-state controversies into proper perspective, we must first clear-away some of the ubiquitous misinformation that pollutes are present public discourse. Honest historians and fair-minded observers will acknowledge these undeniable and sometimes uncomfortable truths:

1. THE FOUNDERS NEVER “WANTED TO ESTABLISH A SECULAR NATION.” In fact, they repeatedly and insistently averred that the survival of liberty and the prosperity of the United States required a deeply religious society and a populace passionately committed to organized faith. In his Farewell Address of 1797, President Washington (who had also served as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention) unequivocally declared that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” His successor as president, John Adams (also known as “The Atlas of Independence”) wrote to his wife Abigail in 1775: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.

A patriot must be a religious man.” Thomas Jefferson, who disagreed with Adams on so many points of policy, clearly concurred with him on this essential principle. “God who gave us life gave us liberty,” he wrote in 1781. “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” Jefferson’s friend and colleague, James Madison (acclaimed as “The Father of the Constitution”) declared that “religion is the basis and Foundation of Government,” and later (1825, after retiring from the Presidency) wrote that “the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good…. is essential to the moral order of the World and the happiness of men.”

Far from insisting on a “secular nation,” the founders clearly believed that any reduction in the public’s fervent and near universal Christian commitment would bring disastrous results to the experiment in self-government they had sacrificed so much to launch. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, who served as President of the Continental Congress in the last stages of the Revolution (1782-83 wrote: “Our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies of the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be the introduction of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society.”

2. THE FOUNDERS DIDN’T EVEN WANT A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE TODAY. John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 epochal years (1801-35) the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” His colleague on the court (1796-1811), Justice Samuel Chase, delivered an opinion (Runkel v. Winemill) in 1799 declaring: “Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” These judicial opinions make clear that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment never constrained early judges from classifying the United States as an enthusiastically Christian society.

In fact, the same Congress that approved the First Amendment gave a clear indication of the way they understood its language when, less than 24 hours after adopting the fateful wording, they passed the following Resolution: “Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” It never occurred to this first Congress in 1789 that their call for a government sponsored day of “thanksgiving and prayer” would conflict with the prohibition they had just adopted prohibiting “an establishment of religion.” Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a “wall of separation between church and state,” quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians.

Three times he signed extensions of another measure described as “An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” Jefferson also participated every week in Christian church services in the Capitol Building in Washington DC; until 1866, in fact, the Capitol hosted worship every Sunday and, intermittently, conducted a Sunday school. No one challenged these 71 years of Christian prayer at the very seat of federal power: given the founders' endorsement of the positive role of organized faith, it hardly inspired controversy to convene worship at the Capitol. In fact, at the time of the first Continental Congress, nine of the thirteen original colonies had “established churches” – meaning that they each supported an official denomination, even to the point of using public money for church construction and maintenance. These religious establishments – clearly in contradiction to the idea of a “secular government” – continued in three states long after the adoption of the First Amendment. Connecticut disestablished its favored Congregational Church only in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833.

Amazingly enough, these established churches flourished for nearly fifty years under the constitution despite the First Amendment’s famous insistence that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Their existence reflected the fact that the founders never wanted to secularize all of government, but intended rather to allow the states to handle religious issues in their own way while avoiding the imposition of any single federal denomination on the diverse, often quarreling regions of the young nation. Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845 (appointed by President Madison) and, as a long-time Harvard professor the leading early commentator on the Constitution, explained the First Amendment with the observation that “the general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.

An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. The real object of the First Amendment….was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” As Stephen Mansfield comments in his invaluable book on the Establishment Clause, “Ten Tortured Words,” Justice Story’s “understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment should be taken as definitive.”

3. EARLY SETTLERS DID NOT FLEE ENGLAND AND BUILD NEW WORLD COLONIES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH “FREEDOM OF RELIGION.” For the most part, those Colonists motivated by religious conviction more than a desire for financial gain wanted to establish faith-based utopias that would be more rigorous and restrictive, not less zealous, than the Mother Country. The Puritans behind the original New England colonies (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire) and two later states (Vermont and Maine) wanted strict enforcement of Sabbath rules, mandatory attendance at worship services, tax money to support religious seminaries (prominently including Harvard and Yale), and other rules befitting a “Christian Commonwealth.” If anything, they distrusted the Church of England for its backsliding, corruption and compromises rather than its vigorous imposition of religious standards. Other denominations (Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland) founded their colonies not to create secular or diverse religious environments, but to provide their own versions of model communities and denominational havens. Among the original colonies, only Roger Williams’ Rhode Island made a consistent priority of religious tolerance and pluralism.

4. THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION DID NOT FIGHT TO ESTABLISH “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” OR A SECULAR SOCIETY. The favored marching tune of the Continental Army wasn’t “Yankee Doodle” (which achieved its wider popularity only after the Revolution) but “Chester,” adapted from a beloved church hymn by Boston composer William Billings. Its words proclaimed: “Let tyrants shake their iron rods/And slaver clank her galling chains/We fear them not, we trust in God/New England’s God forever reigns.” The army’s Commander in Chief felt no discomfort at all with this explicitly religious rhetoric. In 1776, for instance, General George Washington issued the following message to his troops: “The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

Two years later, Washington proclaimed: “The commander in chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock, in each brigade which has a Chaplain….While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of a patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian.” The war emphasized a long standing difference between America and Europe noted by the leaders of the Patriot faction, future visitors like Alexis de Tocqueville, and even contemporary pollsters and demographers; the United States has always displayed greater religious intensity and fervor than Great Britain or the other nations of Western Europe.

5. THE FOUNDERS WEREN’T ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS OR SECULARISTS; THEY WERE, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DEEPLY SERIOUS CHRISTIANS. The comments of John Adams might count as typical of the Revolutionary generation. In a July, 1796 diary entry, the then-Vice President of the United States declared: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity….” He strongly supported the use of tax money in Massachusetts to support church construction and religious instruction. Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and leading Colonial physician, in 1800 wrote sketches of his colleagues in the Continental Congress in which he evaluated them based on their personal religiosity.

About Sam Adams of Massachusetts he wrote: “He considered national happiness and the public patronage of religion as inseparably connected; and so great was his regard for public worship, and the means of promoting religion, that he constantly attended divine service in the German church in York town while Congress sat there, when there was no service in their chapel, although he was ignorant of the German language.” About Sam’s cousin John Adams, Rush wrote: “He was strictly moral, and at all times respectful to Religion.” Of Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Rush observed: He was not less distinguished for his piety than his patriotism. He once objected to a motion for Congress sitting on a Sunday upon an occasion which he thought did not require it, and gave as a reason for his objection a regard of the commands of his Maker.” Rush praised his Pennsylvania colleague James Wilson who “had been educated for a clergyman in Scotland and was a profound and accurate scholar,” and Charles Thompson as “a man of great learning and general knowledge, at all times a genuine Republican, and in the evening of his life a sincere Christian.”

Of course, many of the Founding Fathers held religious beliefs that challenged the Orthodoxy of their day, but they continued the assiduous study of the Bible (as a lifelong passion in the case of Jefferson and Franklin) and showed little sympathy for the excesses of the French Revolution with its denunciation of Christianity of proclamation of a new “Age of Reason.” Even the most radical of the Founders, pamphleteer Thomas Paine, would fit more comfortably with today’s religious conservatives than with the secular militants who seek to claim his as one of their own. This restless Revolutionary traveled to France to take part in their Revolution and wrote a scandalous book “The Age of Reason,” which proclaimed his “Deism” while attacking traditional Christian doctrine—a position that alienated and offended virtually all of his former American comrades (including many who have been mistakenly identified as “Deists” themselves). Nevertheless, in 1797 he delivered a speech to a learned French society insisting that schools must concentrate on the study of God, presenting his arguments with an eloquent insistence on recognizing the Almighty that would delight James Dobson of Focus on the Family, but mortally offend the secular militants of the ACLU.

“It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin,” Thomas Paine declaimed. “Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them.” In short, even the least religiously committed of the founders wanted to approach public education in a manner that would deeply offend today’s uncompromising separationists, and those who ludicrously claim that the designers of our Constitution intended a “secular nation.”

The ludicrous indignation about Senator McCain’s recent remarks remains an expression of both ignorance and intolerance, and a mean-spirited refusal to recognize the simple truth in his statements. The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution, but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.



Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents and Right Turns.

Title refers to the movie Team America; a brilliant comedy and very relevant.

The latest (revised) total from the UN of people living with AIDS is 33 Million worldwide (http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf ). The population of the world is 6.6 Billion. That is 0.5% (1 out of 200 people). In North America/Western and Central Europe (those dolts at the UN will not get any more specific than that) there are about 1.3 Million people living with AIDS. The population of these regions is about 600 Million total. That is 0.2% (1 out of 500 people).

To put it in perspective, the odds of a woman in America getting breast cancer based on a 90 year life span is 12.5% (1 out of 8), and the odds for prostate cancer in American men is 16.5 % (1 out of 6). The kicker is, AIDS is 100% PREVENTABLE. Meaning that those percentages for AIDS are basically irrelevant. If nobody had sex with an infected person or shared drug needles with one, AIDS would DISAPPEAR FOREVER. Heck, using condoms alone would probably reduce it by 90%. People would rather have magic drugs to cure it than to change their behavior? God forbid…

I have watched several of the Dem debates now and it is clear to me that Joe Biden (say what you will about him) is CLEARLY the best candidate they have. And yet he is less than 3% in polls. He showed up everybody last night especially exposing the others’ ignorance of the WTO, and nary a blip on the radar screen. You may disagree with his ideas (like I do), but at least he HAS them. He is actually capable of giving yes or no answers unlike the “big 3”. If the average Democrat voter really truly was supporting who is the best qualified and has the most common sense, the “big 3” would be Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I guess that’s what happens when you suck up to the Radical Left, the results are backward…

Not that it matters, they are all just fighting to see who gets to lose to Rudy!