Clueless in Indiana

It is fun for me to comment on the political world. There is so much going on there. Lest someone thinks that I simply pick on the Democrats, I found something to balance the scales.

An Indiana Republican Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle was asked to be the guest speaker at a function in Chicago. His topic was the negative effects of pornography and prostitution. The organization he spoke at was the National Socialist Worker’s Party. It is obvious that young Mr. Zirkle didn’t understand who these people were. Defending them, he said he didn’t know enough about them to favor or oppose them. He also defended his choice to speak by saying he would bring his message anywhere. Well Mr. Zirkle, there were some clues you should have picked up on. Here are a few:

1. The big poster behind him of their hero.
2. The uniforms and the brass hardware worn by the club leaders at the speaker’s table.
3. The reason for the event – their hero’s birthday.
4. And last but not least, the birthday cake with their hero Hitler’s picture on it and the words under the picture – Seig Heil!

Well, he got his photo opportunity. Here it is. I am going to predict his political career is over. It should be. The article that tells about it is aptly named: Worst Campaign Idea Ever?

How do Millions of Muslms get converted to Chrisitanity every year?

I read something that really fascinated me. In our conflict with Islam, we do not seem to gain any ground with our efforts to evangelize them. We hear of some things but the impact we have had on showing them the error of their ways and the light of Christianity has been extremely limited.

As it happens there is a man who has been incredibly successful in his efforts to talk to Muslims about the tenants of their beliefs. His name is Zakaria Botros. How much of an impact does he have? He is known in the Muslim world as Public Enemy #1. He is a Coptic Priest who runs a TV program where he dresses in a dark robe with a huge cross around his neck. According to the article written by Raymond Ibrahim, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani blames him for converting 6 million Muslims a year to Christianity.

His method is that he sits with a Koran and a Bible and challenges the Muslim clergy on what their beliefs are. He asks questions like, “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” When they respond, which isn’t often because he makes them appear foolish, they end up having to agree with him on absurd Muslim laws. But he wisely never comes to the conclusion of the absurdity of the Muslim faith on the program. He simply repeats the question. So he doesn’t criticize Islam. He just asks questions and then backs up the answer with irrefutable truth from Islam’s own sources. The program is widely watched in the Muslim world.

Read the article I found here.

Check out Father Zakaria Botros’s website here.

I'm Like - A Bible Scholar! Well, Maybe Not

I can’t help it. With every new Presidential candidate, I try to figure out if perhaps this one is the new leader of the New World Order being revealed to us. When Bill Clinton was nominated by the Democratic Party in 1992, he so badly abused scripture in his speeches that I was concerned he was the one. But he just turned out to be – well – Bill Clinton.

When Reagan was nominated in 1984, some people (mean-spirited Democrats) counted the letters in his name, Ronald Wilson Reagan and got 666. That was obviously wrong.

If Barak Obama’s name stands for 666, I can’t see it. I almost gave up thinking about that when there it was. I was trying too hard. It’s right there in scripture! Mark 13:14 mentions the Obamanation of desolation! I knew I didn’t like that guy!

You Read it Here First

We have been witness to the most interesting primary election campaigns in our lifetime. Is it not clearly evident that God is orchestrating this for His people to witness?

Remember when Israel got to choose its King? The process that they went through produced the best amalgamation of attributes that the people could think of. He was a blend of positive features, a cultural and political masterpiece. And, I imagine that there was a list of also-rans. Other candidates who didn’t measure up one way or another. They picked a sure winner – in their eyes. And Saul became their first King.

It seems like this time in America we are choosing our King. It is not a normal election by anyone’s definition. I have been avoiding writing about it a while. It is not that I didn’t want to, but there was so much being written, it seemed like I would be adding to the noise.

It is significant that the Democrats are choosing Obama. He certainly has political smarts but his appeal seems to me to be apolitical. Maybe “anti-political” is a better word. In other words those who are giving him his momentum are doing so because of what he doesn’t stand for rather than what he does. And there are so many people who are fed up with the political system that Obama is the best anti-choice there is.

So, here is the problem for Obama. If he stands for anti- Bush, anti- Washington. anti- old ways, then who will be his Vice President? Obama has an experience problem. Who can solve that problem without being part of the thing that Obama is anti? He needs someone who knows Washington, but who is not really part of what it has done in the past years since the Democrats have taken control of the House and the Senate. Obama has a kind of “rock star” status. Taking up with a Washington insider will compromise that. There is only one person he can choose. I believe he will have the guts to do it. It is the nuclear option. He is going to pick former Vice President and Nobel Prize Winner, Al Gore.

You read it here first.

Living Generously

For most of our adult lives, Helen and I have had some very deep friends. I say deep because we have shared many deep moments, important moments in our lives together.

We are so excited for our deep friends, Steve and Patty because they have moved to Redding, California to focus their lives on experiencing daily the kingdom of God.

In their blog Redding Revelations they shared an experience recently where they were able to help a friend in a time of need. When the need became more acute, their help became more abundant. They also realized when their Pastor asked if anyone had a need for money that they adopted a demure attitude (like we all tend to do) and posed a response of “ no, we do not have a need for money.”

They then related an experience where God showed them that He knows their hearts. He surprised them with a financial blessing. The timing of the blessing was a clear message to them. He recognized generous hearts such as theirs. And just like a great father, he ignored their “we don’t need money” typical response and blessed them beyond belief anyway.

Here is what I realized when I read their story.

1. The financial blessing was in the works for a long time. But God chose to put it into their laps, not in a time of high need, but at a time when they were manifesting hearts of generosity.
2. We all like to manifest a little Protestant ethic and deny ourselves. The Pastor’s question of who needed money got that response from them. But in reality, if our hearts are for His kingdom and our hands are open in a posture of generosity then yes, we need money. We need it because we see others we can bless with it.

Their story makes me want to immediately figure out how to incorporate the things they experienced into my life.

How can I be generous with what I have? Not that I need to show God my generosity, but I just want to make that a more natural and routine part of my life. What has God blessed me with, or what do I have plenty of, that I can pass on and bless others with?

I Did Something Right

Thirty-five years ago I stepped up and took a chance. I walked forward and said, “I do.” As you can see from the photo, I was really young. I had no perspective about such things as marriage except a naïve and innocent love of the incredibly cheerful, happy, and beautiful young blond lady standing next to me. I married Helen. She took my hand and joined my life in college, then on a farm, then in a small house in a strange town. She never complained and she always remained at my side. We had children together and we raised them. Now we are a couple again.

We learned something along the way. In Ephesians Paul says to men, “Husband love your wives as Christ loves the church”. The “love your wives” part in the Greek means to continually, daily, express your love to your wife. I learned that wives need the daily expression of love. Husbands don’t need that so much. But wives remain faithful and committed to their husbands when husbands express, show, demonstrate, spell out, hint, or just tell their wives they love them – daily.

A few verses later, Paul tells the wives to respect their husbands. Husband don’t need words of love as much as they need words of respect. Men need to conquer the world. But they need someone to conquer it for. A guy can get up and face the opposition every day if his wife believes in him. It doesn’t matter if his boss, his competition, his coworkers, or his customers don’t believe in him. If his wife believes in him, and expresses it daily, then he can do anything.

So here’s to my bride of 35 years. She believes in me! And I love her!

Wherever I Stand - I Stand With Israel

I’ve read the book. I know the plot line. Every nation of the world abandons Israel. They all have to. Israel needs to be in a position where no nation comes to its aid. It needs to be backed into a corner where its only hope for salvation is God himself.

Just the same, as this political season moves forward, watching the attitude of our country change before our eyes is very hard to take. Watching what is happening is like watching a horror movie and shouting at the lady as she backs into a dark room. “Don’t do that! Turn around and watch where you’re going!” But the lady has a script to follow. I know that in the end, the hero saves the lady.

Fortunately, for us, our future is tied with our God. We are not only readers of the book, we are in it. No matter what our government does, or when it does it, individually, we are with the winning side.

But how is it that so many Christians are becoming backers of the Palestinian movement instead of backers of Israel? Why is it that whole denominations are making official statements in support of the Palestinian position claiming their rights to the land of Israel? Why has the erosion of support for Israel not only been in the political realm but simultaneously in the religious realm as well?

The answer is that “replacement theology” is going mainstream. Replacement theology is a “christian” belief that Israel forfeited its right to the actual land when it rejected Jesus. Christians therefore replace the Jews as God’s chosen people and the land of Israel becomes a metaphor and not an actuality.

Why is this theory growing so much in popularity? Because it lines up with the only reasonable approach that many people can see to bring peace to the region and therefore to the rest of the world. For “christians” who believe that God only acts through the affairs of men, it makes sense. Where peace is the objective, they cannot see any other possible way. And peace is a christian objective.

The other end of this phenomenon is that the Christians who hold that God gave that land to the Jews will be looked upon by the rest of the world as unrealistic extremists. Our only justification for defending Israel will be that we believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is still in force. It is rapidly coming about that no government will hold that position. It is rapidly coming about that no reasonable, peace loving world citizen will hold that position. The only two groups that will hold that position will be a portion of Christianity and a few ultra-religious extremist Jews.

What will I say when I am labeled as one of those extremists? “GUILTY AS CHARGED!” I know that when God makes a covenant, He keeps it. And I know that He is gathering to himself people who desire to keep their covenant with Him. As the saying goes, wherever I stand, I stand with Israel.

Truth Wins a War

When the Allies stormed the beaches on D Day in 1944, the implications of the success were huge. The opposition couldn’t stop them from landing and establishing positions on the mainland. If the Allies could do that, then the implications for the opposition was that the war was lost. It was only a matter of time.

Today is D Day again. A beachhead has been established. The opposition has lost the beachhead and will not be able to push them back. It is now only a matter of time. Let’s hope that the opposition recognizes the implications and abandons their effort. After all, it is now inevitable that their side has lost.

Today, a large group of the most reputable scientists in the world in the field of climatology have issued the most detailed report ever done. Their conclusion, the beachhead, if you will, is that the man made global warming theory is undeniably false. The report is not something that can be ignored. It is so detailed that it puts the “scientists” who have supported the theory on notice that their hypotheses have been busted. Something so thorough invites the opposition to challenge it. After all, that is the way science moves forward. These scientists do not deny the challenge. They only lament that the world leaders have bought into a “theory” from “scientists” who themselves discouraged challenge. They lament that “scientists” allowed politicians to hijack their discipline for their own purposes. That is the beachhead. They are taking their discipline back. Truth cannot be denied.

Interestingly enough, they do not refute that climate change is upon us. They acknowledge and document it. They simply refute that man has significantly participated in it and that man can significantly alter it going forward. So this study isn’t a tome on denying the need for conservation efforts. However, it is the wooden stake in the heart of the political movement that says that large scale economic restructuring is the only way we can hope to survive the horrible future we have purchased with our technology.

When I have talked to people who have bought into the global warming cause, I have been rather shocked that they were unable to separate the good cause of conservation from the politically socialist cause of economic wealth redistribution. These people identify with Al Gore’s passion, but fail to understand the sinister socialist framework that he claims is necessary to solve the problem. In his future, power and wealth then fall to the ones who make up the rules of redistribution (socialist world leaders) and away from those who have created and earned it (us).

Now, the choice is clear. If you are a truth seeker, you cannot believe in the man-made global warming theory. If you believe in the man-made global warming theory, you cannot be a truth seeker.

Charlie's Place

If you have been to our house then you have met the smallest member of our family. He has soft brown hair and a big flag tail. Charlie is what you call a terrier mix. We still speculate on what the mix is. But whatever it is, it’s a good one. Everyone who meets him seems to be amazed at his personality. He loves people and interacts with them so easily that you forget he is a dog. We even try to train him to react like a human. But every once in a while, he reminds us that he is all dog. And sometimes the dog approach to situations is the best

Last evening I walked out of our house only to see a little white dog in our front yard. There was about 4 inches of fresh snow on the ground and the dog nearly blended in. There was a leash attached to the dog. And as I stepped out of the house further, the scene began to make sense. The cute little dog was squatting down and crapping on my front lawn. Standing behind him a few feet away, holding its leash was a woman all bundled up in a matching jacket and pants snow suit.

Now good upbringing in a polite society leads one to be cordial in all situations. So, as the embarrassed woman smiled at me, I just nodded and said, “Oh, hello, there.” She shrugged her shoulders and then looked alarmed because it was then that Charlie bolted from the house and trotted up to her dog with a “what are you doing here?” attitude.

Charlie rushed up to the little dog and they started to go through the sniff each other ritual. The lady was concerned about the confrontation and tried to quiet an agitated Charlie by saying “Oh – what a cute dog you have.”

Because I am human, I wanted to defuse any confrontation too so I immediately started in on a “No Charlie, go into the house Charlie” routine.

But here is the thing that I realized. People sometimes go to too great of lengths to be polite. Dogs don’t need to. They are dogs and the world to them is about territory. Charlie knows dogs well. And as many people can verify he is a quick study of people, too.

In one grand move, Charlie snorted at the intruding little white dog, marched over to the woman holding the leash. He lifted his leg and turned the snow on her stylish snow boot a bright yellow. Then as she shrieked and started hopping around trying to avoid the yellow snow puddle, Charlie turned and trotted into the house, his flag tail waiving high in the air.

The woman then turned to me and said in weak voice, “I guess this is his territory.” It was my turn to shrug my shoulders. I then walked back into the house where my daughter was scolding Charlie for being so much like a dog. I told her that I thought he didn’t deserve a scolding. We gave him his favorite dog biscuit, instead. Then Helen, Jill, and I laughed so hard we started crying. We know that the lady and her dog will never visit our front yard again. Charlie made sure of that.

Pelosi the Change Agent

One thing that has not been reported on concerning national politics is dismal record of this last year’s Congress. When Nancy Pelosi took her place as Speaker of the House we all expected (feared) change. The only thing that I saw changed was the congressional approval ratings. Congress hit an all time low early in 2007 with a 14% approval rating. They failed at passing any meaningful legislation. They failed at blocking the war effort. They failed at defunding the military. Even Democrats in the press have been skewering Nancy Pelosi about her failure as Speaker of the House. I for one, have not been able to find one positive result from her leadership.

However, I now have been proven wrong. I don’t know how I missed it. There has been incredible improvement. In the Politico Blog I learned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has used her considerable influence to completely revamp the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Cafeterias menus! The article starts:

The processed cheese has been replaced with brie. The Jell-O has made way for raspberry kiwi tarts and mini-lemon blueberry trifles. Meatloaf has moved over for mahi mahi and buns have been shunted aside in favor of baguettes.

It is all part of her "Greening the Capital" plan to make the House campus more environmentally friendly and socially progressive says the article. It goes on to say:

Even the things that haven’t changed seem cooler because their names are in foreign languages. The taco bar is the “Taqueria.” The grill is “A la Plancha.” The salad bar has expanded to “Salad/Antipasti.”

Has our first woman Speaker found her niche? “Where’s Speaker Pelosi? The Russian Ambassador wants to talk with her.”

“Uh – she’s mincing garlic for the chicken marsala. Tell him she’s busy."

Democrat's Time of Testing

If Clinton wins the nomination, what happens then to the Democratic Party? What is supposed to happen is that the fierce competitors suddenly take off the gloves and lock arms with the winner. This could possibly happen if Hillary names Obama as her Vice President. However, if she goes another direction, which is likely, then things will get interesting. Having tasted the power of a new, fresh coalition, the Obama people may resist the conventional path of folding in behind the victor.

In a recent speech, Mrs. Clinton explained to her audience that even though Martin Luther King was huge in the campaign against discrimination, it took a Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act passed. MLK (“I have a dream”) was – well, a dreamer. LBJ was a benevolent champion for their cause. Her analogy of King / Johnson to Obama /Clinton was not lost on the Obama people. It opened up an issue that here-to-for has not been talked about in Democratic circles.

The Democratic Party for years has operated under a co-dependant relationship that upper class white people provide the laws; black people provide the votes. In one speech, Hillary unwittingly opened up this issue and explained that she is the one to maintain that structure.

It has worked in the past because the black voters never coalesced around a candidate like they have Obama. And until now, there has never been one who has added young educated white voters to that coalition. What is happening with Obama is the sense that this coalition is saying, “We don’t need that relationship anymore. We’ve grown up. We’ve come of age and we can recognize our own power. We don’t need you to provide it anymore.”

Look for Hillary to recognize the power of that coalition and try to buy it by making Obama her running mate. The real mystery here is whether Obama will sell out his coalition and take that offer.

Why Truth Seeker?

When I named my blog I did so because of my favorite verse, John 8:32. (then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free). I could also hear in the background Pontius Pilate’s frustrated question in John 18:38 “What is truth?”

For people who are spiritually on the outside, that is a real legitimate question. Unless you know The Truth, you have to reason among competing agendas to apprehend a belief that you hope is closest to the truth. Or, if you have power, lots of power, you can purchase it and establish it, regardless of its reflection of reality.

E. E. Schotsneider in his landmark book called The Semi-sovereign People, gave the famous quote “He who defines an issue, decides who wins.” Every political battle is a war of defining issues. Is the Mexican immigrant problem about poor families needing to work to survive or is it about an invasion of illegal aliens? Or is there another issue that defines this dilemma?

Schotsneider’s observation is very simple but extremely complex. The war of truth in the world today is all about defining the issues. How do you make your definition of the issue stick and the others pass in to oblivion? Is truth subject to revision?

I submit that in the world today, the power struggles are all about the definition of truth. That takes power and capital. And once defined, the maintenance of that definition also takes power and capital because of the constant assault on that definition. I have come to believe that this issue, the establishment of truth and the subsequent maintenance of it are now the primary driving forces in the world today. “He who defines an issue, decides who wins” Wins what? Wins the world! But he who knows the Truth wins what? Wins eternity with the Way, the Truth, and the Life!

Thoughts on the Presidential Race and Leadership so far:

• Except for the 1992 election, the Democratic Party consistently managed to elect as their candidate the most liberal person in the field. Every time it ended in defeat for their party. Are they doing it again?
• Iowa Republicans answered a big question for the candidates. Republican caucus attenders opted for sincerity. Romney spent the most money. Thompson is the most famous. McCain has the best resume. None of that impressed the Iowans. Theirs was clearly a vote for the least political, most sincere candidate.
• A couple of posts ago I asked a question about who do you think can handle the inevitable international crises that our new President will face. I posed a hypothetical tragedy in the Strait of Hormuz. So did you see the news today? Look here.
  
• The Iranians tested our resolve by racing attack craft straight at our ships and then turning away at the last minute when they reached 200 yards. They knew they would be fired upon if they came any closer. Earlier this year when they did the same thing to the British Navy, 14 Brits were captured and held hostage for 15 days. The British chose to be passive in the face of hostile action. That choice had to come from the highest level. Do we want that kind of military? Do we want another Jimmy Carter?
  

Candidate Rundown

Here is my take on the Presidential Candidates as of today:

Mitt Romney

In a movie, Groucho Marx once said, “Are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?” That’s funny – except when it is the theme of a presidential candidate. The more you hear Mitt Romney, the more you are presented with that choice. Yes he has changed is mind on some important beliefs. Yes he says now that he will be the best conservative candidate with the highest ethical and moral standards. Yes I want to believe him. But what he has done (or not done) in the past show up to be problematic. Perhaps if he were to be faced off with Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Mitt. Why? They both need you to consider Groucho’s question.

Mike Huckabee

Where Mitt hates for people to ask him questions about his religious beliefs, Mike Huckabee loves it. Typically the questions come from people every good Baptist preacher wants to evangelize anyway. In a debate setting, when someone fires up one of those questions to the candidates, where the other candidates stumble over their words, or where they end up sounding sanctimonious, Huckabee clearly nails the moment. He is very good. Yet when it comes to world politics, his joke about sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express last night rings all too true. In this world, there is no time to sit down in the oval office and ask yourself the question about how you think you should handle world politics.

Fred Thompson

No matter who wins the nomination, the first thing he should do is name Fred Thompson as his running mate. Then we could continue his role as Arthur Branch in Law and Order, the TV show. Each candidate has some glaring weaknesses and needs somewhere to go to clear the fog. Walk into Fred’s office, sit down and have him lean back in his chair and explain the choices. Or, in a tough political situation, send him out to the press to explain things in such simple terms that people wonder why they didn’t think of it. From a technical sense, Dick Cheney was probably the best VP a President ever had. If he had a shortcoming, it was simply image. Fred’s appeal IS image. And he is politically savvy, too.

Rudi Gullianni

Rudi Gullianni to me is the anti – Hillary candidate. If she is the Dem’s candidate then Rudi should run against her. He has some past baggage, alright. But she has a whole baggage compartment. So, the reasonable choice there would be for baggage to cease to become an issue for Rudi. Apparently, the militant Palestinians would hate to see Rudi become President. They could stomach anyone else, but Rudi. That is a huge plus for him in my book.

John McCain

John McCain might be the best choice. Conservatives love his military stand. His armor against Democrats in this area is superb. He could even silence John Murtha and John Kerry. The problem that traditional Republicans have is his apparent softness on immigration. However, if he was a bridge-builder on that issue, it might be what saves the Republican Party. The Republican Party needs to address how it will entice Hispanics into it over the next several decades. Its chances of winning future national elections depend on that issue more than any other.

Hillary Clinton

I wrote a post on the question of who you would like to see answer the “Red Phone” in a time of international crisis. Another way to view that question is who would our adversaries hate to see answer the Red Phone? You can believe that our new President is going to be challenged. Other leaders, both allies and adversaries will need to feel out how our new President will handle crises. The scariest to me? Hillary Clinton. Why? No rudder. I think she should have a standard disclaimer. “Whatever she says today, is subject to change tomorrow.” Her “expertise” in politics is the ability to shamelessly contradict herself. She brings to mind another Groucho Marx quote: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Barak Obama

If you are worn out by tradition and want to redefine America, then Barak Obama is your man. He will bring change to America. Where we have debated about whether the words “under God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, Barak Obama personally omits every word from “I” to “all”. I believe that if you are mad at America because it hasn’t done enough for you, then Barak is your man. I predict that if he becomes President he will be severely tested on the international front. No one would have gone from being in a State Legislature to being President of the United States is such record time. He represents the dissatisfied people of the country in my opinion. And there are unfortunately many people who are dissatisfied.

John Edwards

John Edwards is a medical malpractice trial lawyer. He is a good one. His training and experience is that through the right amount of logic, emotion, reasoning (his reasoning), and drama he can convince people how they are getting the short end of the stick. This ability is always dependant upon the belief that there is a great check-writer that can pay treble damages. Thus, he is most effective when he is against someone. What would happen if he became that “someone”. Once you become the ruler, it is hard to keep up the fight against the ruler. But my biggest concern about Edwards is his training. I saw it when he was Kerry’s running mate in ’04. He has been trained to say ANYTHING if it will win over the jury or further his cause. He is not believable to me. He cares more about the outcome than the path it takes to get there.

I believe these elections are very important. I believe that the most recent assassination in Pakistan is a grim but important reminder that the most important consideration is our President's outlook of our relationship with the rest of the world.

The War Where Death is the Weapon for One Side and Life is the Weapon for the Other

With the murder of Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the militant Islamists of the world have confirmed again that the most efficient way to influence the politics of a country is assassination. It worked in Lebanon a couple of years ago when the Syrians eliminated Rafik Hariri also a former Prime Minister. Both Hariri and Bhuto deplored the outside influence of the radical Islamists in their country. Both countries, right now are holding hugely important elections. For the vast majority of people in all these Middle Eastern countries, the desire to live free from the influence of the radically religious fanatics is again being thwarted.

As I prayed this morning about this, I was reminded of another time in this region. The lives of the people were being controlled by the ultra-religious rulers who stifled and controlled their people with burdensome rules. All the while, security of the area was provided by the super-power nation of the time. It was into that scene that God sent a messenger. He didn’t come from the outside, indeed, his father was a high ranking religious official.

I love studying about John the Baptist. And lately I have been praying that God would bring the Muslim people their John the Baptist, their man with the Spirit of Elijah. It seems like the right time to me. What he did for Israel 2000 years ago was phenomenal. For those longing to get closer to God, but knowing that cruel religious control was not the answer, John prepared them. He opened their hearts so they could recognize their salvation when He appeared. I really sense that today’s Muslims are ready for that.

It is easy to forget that they too are sons of Abraham. They have been cruelly misled and controlled for too long. They need our prayers today.

Christmas of Love and Hope

I hope your Christmas was wonderful. Ours was. We traveled to our son and daughter-in-law’s home on Christmas Eve and stayed with them. We got to attend Christmas Eve service at our old church. Every time we make the journey to attend there, I understand more and more how precious that little church and its people are. The attendance was smaller than past Christmas Eve services. But the warmth that we felt from our loved ones there really allowed me to fully engage the Christmas Spirit.

Today, the day after Christmas we received a few more cards from friends. One was from an old college friend who lives in Portland. His family typically constructs a state of the art news letter that is always fun to read. We don’t see them anymore so we look forward to their newsletters. After the typical blah blah blah stuff, Joe summed up his letter by saying, “I won’t close this year with a wish for world peace, because it increasingly seems like a wasted wish and a lost cause. Humans will never get along while there is organized religion to keep us at each other’s throats, and as long as we have a government that is more interested in stirring up trouble than really working for cooperation.”

No sooner did I read that, then an old Christmas Carol popped into my head. I googled it and I knew it was the Holy Spirit who prompted it. The song was written by a man who had just received news that his son was wounded in the Civil War. His wife was killed in a fire two years earlier. But the Spirit of Christmas so profoundly touched him that he wrote this:

I heard the bells on Christmas day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along the unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head

“There is no peace on earth,” I said,

“For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;

The wrong shall fail, the right prevail

With peace on earth, good will to men.”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Over 160 years later, the belfries of Christendom still declare that hope of Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men.

Humble Yet Secure

Just a humble stable

But so secure in His mother’s arms.

He came to humble shepherds

And was sent by His Father above.

A humble King, a humble Lord,

Yet so secure when crowned with thorns.

How could He be the two in one,

Unless He was God’s Son?

Just a humble carpenter,

But so secure as Son of Man.

He came for humble people,

And was sent by His Father above.

A humble King, a humble Lord,

Yet so secure when crowned with thorns.

How could He be the two in one?

He must be God’s Son.

Humility, security

Are these the gifts You have for me?

Humility and security,

Only You could give these for me.

A precious,

Helpless baby . . .

But so secure.

Debbie Ausherman, 2003

When the Going Gets Tough for our new President

Of all the campaign issues, I think the most important one (notice I said “most important” not most popular, or most considered) is the one of how our new President will be able to hold up in the international arena. Take a moment and imagine your favorite candidate being confronted by say, the Iran Hostage Crisis, or 9-11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Does he or she have what it takes to get our country through it? This is a job where failure is not an option. Repercussion of that failure last for generations.

Take Jimmy Carter and the Iranian affair. He completely froze when a group of students took over our American Embassy in that country. Embassies have a unique status. It is as if those properties are part of the country that the ambassadors represent; not part of the countries where they are located. Attacking a country’s embassy is legally the same as attacking the country. So, for the “students” to attack our embassy with the blessing of the people who just took over their country, a particular response was mandatory. Carter froze. Our people remained in captivity for over 500 days. The details of what transpired over that period of time mark some of the bleakest times in American foreign relations.

The thing to know here is that when elections came, Ronald Reagan defeated Carter. As Reagan was being inaugurated, the Iranians were setting in motion the release of the hostages. Where they tied Jimmy Carter’s crack negotiating teams in knots, they immediately gave up the hostages as Reagan became President. Were there some backdoor deals to make it happen? Yes there were. But the deals were delivered with a clear message; a velvet glove over a rock-hard fist. “Let our people go – right now!” Even though Reagan was immediately successful, the 500 days of allowing the Iranian Islamists to have their way with us took its toll. We pay the price today. Indeed one of the “students” is now their leader. And he has learned well. Have we?

With the whole menu of candidates out there, we have many choices. But if you simply apply the Carter / Reagan filter to the list, then it really sorts out quickly. Would your candidate be a Carter or a Reagan?

Here is my list

Obama - - - Carter

Edwards - - - Carter

Biden - - - Reagan lite

Clinton - - - (which way do the polls show she should go today?)

Giuliani - - - Reagan

Thompson - - - Reagan

Romney - - - Where’s the money in this deal? What are the percentages?

Huckabee - - - Jimmy Carter II

McCain - - - Reagan

Imagine this: Iran announces that it is closing the Straits of Hormuz. All the oil that travels that way is immediately stopped. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai are all on the phone pleading for immediate intervention. Then the red phone rings. It is Iran's new best friend Vladimir Putin. He is about to give our new President a threat. Who do you want to see taking that call?

Answer the Question, Mitt

If you were running for office and someone challenged you with this question, what would you do? “Don’t you Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?”

Would you cry “Foul! You’re just bigoted! What my church believes is none of your business!”

Or would you say, “Yes, Jesus was born of a virgin. Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Do I believe that? I absolutely do!”

The other day, Mike Huckabee reflexed an observation “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?” I was thrilled when I heard that he had thrown that question out there. Is it an appropriate question when considering who will be the best candidate for President of the United States? Perhaps it isn’t for some people. For me – I want to see Romney answer the question.

Now Romney is an interesting guy. When asked the question: "When you were campaigning for Governor of Massachusetts weren’t you for abortions?" He has a great answer. “Yes I was and I was wrong.”

Regarding illegal immigrants, he has also allows himself the right to change his mind, declaring now a much more conservative opinion than he once had.

Perhaps the change of mind was because he has weighed the logic of the arguments and found he was on the wrong side of the issue. Or perhaps he weighed the voter support and found that his stance on these issues was a loser. Politicians tend to do that.

My point is that we know Romney is a politician first. He has the proven ability of letting go of strong positions to gain support. He will also allow himself to reconsider important issues. So, Mitt Romney, here is a question. And all the Christians are watching. Consider it carefully.
Do you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers? Do you worship Satan’s brother?

If he says “yes” then I don’t think I am going to vote for him. Hey its just me. Yes it is a litmus test. It is the mother of all litmus tests.

If he says he has thought about it and now answers “no, I changed my mind.”, – I am not going to vote for him then either.

Scott Elliot has some further observations about it.

CIA Punked by the Iranians

So did you hear that the CIA has suddenly determined that Iran gave up its quest for a nuclear device way back in 2003? If the CIA’s new epiphany is true, then seriously, Ahmadinejad deserves the Nobel Prize. But on the other hand, if it is true, then he should be committed to an asylum. This is because over the last 4 years he has given tirade after tirade about how he was going to nuke the infidels. Iran has suffered dearly from sanctions and boycotts all the while they could have been the darlings of the entire world. Why would he have unilaterally complied with the IAEA, concealed that fact, and then suffered the wrath of the west? Look at Libya. Qaddafi freely trades with the West. His country has known no better prosperity than since he publicly renounced his nuclear ambitions and opened his doors for verification.

If you check, you will see that no other intelligence agency around the world agrees with this assessment. Just over the weekend, the British stated in this article that the CIA’s ability to assess information in the region is known to be deficient. Its own assessment comes to a much more sinister conclusion. It believes our CIA has become victim to some Iran disinformation. Add that to the extreme pressure of not wanting to be blamed for Bush starting another war and you have a perfect scenario for this off-the-wall- report to suddenly appear.

I also have a very sinister assessment. I believe the CIA’s #1 mission is its own self-preservation. They found it totally unacceptable for Bush to declare another war based on information they had provided. Truth is obviously the casualty here. It ceased to be a consideration. I think that they also feared that the next Republican President could pull the same trigger. This assessment then has a double punch. It not only attempts to prevent Bush from declaring war on Iran, it attempts to take a very important issue out of the whole election campaign, thus giving Democrats a pass on perhaps the most important issue that this country faces.

It has to be very hard for President Bush to maintain his momentum against evil with his own agency cutting his knees out from under him - again.