Archive for December 10th, 2007

Huckabee on Homosexuality

Monday, December 10th, 2007

I like the fact that Mike Huckabee does not try to hide or water down his Christian beliefs. He owns up to statements he has made past and present that may not be popular with liberal voters. Many candidates choose to recall past statements depending upon their audience while Huckabee sticks by his faith values no matter the audience. Regardless of one’s political views, that is a quality to be respected in a politician.

Stephen Bennett is executive director and founder of, a worldwide Christian support community for parents with children who are homosexual, HIV positive or children who have died from complications due to HIV/AIDS.

Stephen has devoted his life’s work to exclusively dealing with the homosexual issue – and HIV/AIDS – from a biblical, Christian perspective.

There is an underlying passion that drives Bennett.

Stephen is a FORMER homosexual, one who has lost homosexual partners and friends to HIV/AIDS. Due to his risky behavior, it’s a miracle Bennett is even alive.

Stephen is now happily married 14 years to his wife Irene, and he is the father of the couple’s two young children.

It’s a coincidence that Stephen left his homosexual lifestyle in 1992 — the same year now presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made his statements on HIV/AIDS and reference to homosexuality as being “sinful.”

“It was just a matter of time before Huckabee’s statements resurfaced and I am thankful they did. I’m even more thankful for Mike Huckabee not denying what he said, but clarifying his remarks and holding true to his firm moral convictions on homosexuality. It is also clear he has a deep concern for those affected by HIV/AIDS, as well as prevention of the virus and the protection of the general population,” said Stephen. “This is a real man of integrity.”

Other presidential candidates have taken similar positions on the same issues at hand.

This past September, Stephen participated as a private citizen in the Values Voter Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was honored to be asked by the organizers of the event to pose a question on the issue of homosexuality to all of the attending presidential candidates.

All of the Republican and Democratic candidates were invited. Unfortunately, all of the Democratic candidates declined. Several Republicans also declined and included Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain.

Mike Huckabee participated in the debate.

Bennett’s question to all of the presidential candidates was:

“My name is Stephen Bennett. I used to think I was born gay and was sexually active in the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years. Now, I’m happily married for almost 15 years to my wife, Irene, and we have two wonderful children. Homosexual behavior is immoral and dangerous – I know: Many of my friends, both male and female, are now dead. Even so, schools across the nation teach our children that homosexuality is healthy, normal and unchangeable. I’m living proof that’s NOT true. As president, would you support legislation ensuring that schools forfeit federal funding if they expose our children to homosexual propaganda that puts them at risk?”

Every single presidential candidate on stage – including Mike Huckabee – answered Stephen exactly the same.


Original Link

Oprah Stumping for Barack

Monday, December 10th, 2007

I certainly hope that America does not allow a liberal talk-show with a personal agenda host to determine the next president.

Talk-show diva Oprah Winfrey said worry about the direction of her country and a personal belief in Barack Obama pushed her to make her first endorsement in a presidential campaign, invaluable support in a tight race for the Democratic nomination.

The weekend “Oprahpalooza” lends A-list star power to Obama’s campaign, drawing huge crowds that Obama hopes will translate into votes. Tens of thousands were expected to turn out for Winfrey’s Iowa stops and her Sunday visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire with Obama and his wife. In South Carolina, the campaign ran out of the 18,000 tickets originally available for the biggest event and moved it to the 80,000-seat University of South Carolina football stadium.

In Des Moines, spectators lined up hours early. Cameras flashed in the capacity crowd during Winfrey’s speech, which opened and closed to loud applause and was frequently interrupted by cries of “We love Oprah.”

Winfrey said she felt nervous and “out of my pew” as she addressed a gathering hall packed shoulder-to-shoulder in the largest gathering of Iowans in the campaign this year. But she did not hide her political convictions, making an argument for change from the Bush administration other than another Clinton in the White House.

Original Link

“Why Atheists Are So Angry” by Dinesh D’souza

Monday, December 10th, 2007

If you haven’t seen my “God v. Atheism” debate with philosopher Daniel Dennett, you can view it at You should read the comments in response to the debate both on my AOL blog as well as on the atheist site From the atheists you hear statements like this: “D’Souza is a goddamned idiot.” “Odious little toad.” “D’Souza is full of s**t.” “A smug, joyless twit.” “Total moron.” “Little turd.” “Two-faced liar.” Etc, etc. Now admittedly the topic of God v. atheism can be an emotional one, but you will find no comparable invective on the Christian side. Why then are so many atheists so angry?

One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as “unbelievers” but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist. I don’t believe in unicorns, but then I haven’t written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.

Here is a second reason the atheists sound so angry. They are not used to having their sophistries exposed. For the past three years the new atheists have had a virtually free ride. Dawkins and Hitchens make outrageous claims (“religion poisons everything”) and media pundits like Lou Dobbs and Tim Russert fawn all over them. But in the past few months I’ve been meeting the leading atheist spokesmen in open debate, and challenging them on the basis of the same reason and science and evidence that they say vindicates their claims.

After my first debate with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, several atheists on Dawkins’ site said, “Well, D’Souza won that debate, but wait till he meets Hitchens. Hitchens will wipe the floor with him. D’Souza RIP.” Then after I debated Hitchens the atheists said, “Oh no, this one didn’t go as planned. Hitchens didn’t do so well.” Another commented that atheists could not afford to lose two in a row. Even so, one atheist hopefully noted that Hitchens was not the right guy to debate me; rather, Daniel Dennett has the scholarly weight to do the job.

Original Link

Five Die in Church Mission Attack

Monday, December 10th, 2007

This (as well as all the other mass murders of late) is a testament to how depraved our society has actually become.

Police in Colorado are trying to find the answers behind two deadly shooting sprees on Christian ministries Sunday.

First came an attack on a training center for youth with a mission near Denver, Colorado. The second shooting came more than 12 hours later at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

A second wounded victim, shot in the attack at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, died.

In all, five people – including a gunman – are now dead. And five more are wounded from the church shooting and the attack at the youth with a mission training center near Denver.

“I was completely shocked that anyone would want to do this – first up at the Y-WAM base,Youth With a Mission, just going out and trying to help people from other countries and then at a local church,” said one parishioner.

The nightmare began shortly after midnight Sunday morning, when employees at Y-WAM’s Arvada training center refused to let a man stay at the facility. He opened fire, killing two people before getting away.

Twelve hours later and about 80 miles south, a second shooting took place in Colorado Springs at New Life Church, founded by disgraced Pastor Ted Haggard.

Original Link

Israel: Forget U.S. Intel, Iran Nukes at Full Speed

Monday, December 10th, 2007

Iran continues to move fully towards being nuclear while the world continues to sit on it’s hands.

JERUSALEM – Israel has “incriminating” information Iran has continued its nuclear weapons program, directly contradicting last week’s U.S. intelligence report stating Iran suspended its ambition in 2003.

“The Iranians continue their push for nuclear weapons in specific ways, including the acquisition and development of missiles,” said a senior Israeli security official who has access to classified Israeli defense material and intelligence reports on Iran.

“Iran hides its nuclear weapons program but it continues nonetheless,” he told WND, indicating the U.S. estimate may have been “politically motivated.”

The security official said Israel possesses “incriminating” information that Iran continues its purported drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

But he said the government here has not yet decided what to do regarding the information and material Israel purportedly possesses.

The official said the U.S. estimate has “many holes in it.” He said Israel is “gravely concerned” the report may remove the U.S. military option against Iran from the table, and is likely to be the foundation for Russian and Chinese vetoes against further sanctions on Iran scheduled to be discussed tomorrow at the United Nations.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, released its report last week judging with “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The report judged with “moderate confidence” that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

“But we do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons,” stated the NIE report.

Original Link.

“Special Report: The Devil Is In the Details” by Jack Kinsella

Monday, December 10th, 2007

The new NIE consensus opinion that Iran abandoned its active quest to build nuclear weapons four years ago, whether accurate or not, brings back to the forefront of discussion the two main principles of accurately understanding Bible prophecy.

The first is the scholar’s adage warning of the dangers in interpreting Bible prophecy by the light of current events, instead of the other way around.

We’ll discuss that in greater detail in a moment.

The second is summarized by the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans; “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)

Bible prophecy tells us what to expect, but not exactly what to look for. That is an important distinction. God accomplishes His will according to His plan, not ours.

For example, for centuries, students of Bible prophecy knew to expect the existence of a physical nation called “Israel” but they didn’t know what to look for until it happened.

God tells us the “end from the beginning, and from the ancient times the things that are not yet done,” (Isaiah 46:10) but He doesn’t always reveal the exact mechanism by which He intends to accomplish it.

For a better example, let’s use Hal Lindsey’s 1969 book, “The Late, Great Planet Earth.” If these ARE the last days, as Hal argued in 1969, then from the Bible Hal knew he could expect three specific geopolitical events — events that no secular analyst could possibly have predicted at the time.

First, there must be the development of a single, European super state that would eventually attain superpower status.

In 1969, the idea of Europe unification was decades away, if ever. But since Bible prophecy demanded the existence of a revived Roman Empire, if these were the last days, a European super state would have to come into existence.

But the Bible didn’t give details of how that would come about – only that it would, so in 1969, that was all Hal had to work with.

Second, the Bible makes no mention of a vast, Soviet superpower overshadowing Europe, but rather, the other way around. If these were indeed the last days, Hal argued, then the Soviet Union must decrease so that revived Rome could increase.

Third, since there is no reference to the existence of a Western superpower resembling the United States overshadowing revived Rome, somehow, America must decrease so that revived Rome could increase.

Hal couldn’t know the exact details of how it would all happen — only that they must happen– if these are indeed the last days.

In 1969, at the height of the Cold War, the most likely scenario to accomplish these three events was a war between the United States and Russia that would leave Europe intact to pick up the pieces.

That scenario was perfectly consistent with both probability and Bible prophecy, but it turned out to be the wrong one.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe reunified, critics were quick to call Hal a ‘false prophet’ because he got some of the details of ‘how’ wrong.

To this day, that is still the first criticism leveled at him. In so doing, the critics missed the ‘what’ part, which he got right — and more importantly, its significance.

The point Hal was making in 1969 was this: IF this is the generation that will see the return of Christ, those three things would happen. None existed in 1969 — but in 2007, two of them are history, and the third, the decline of the US as a global superpower, is already well advanced.

Does that mean Hal Lindsey is a prophet? No. Prophecy comes from the Bible. Hal merely cited examples that demonstrated that global current events were all trending in the Bible’s predicted direction. They still are.

What it proves is that this is the generation that will see the return of Christ.

Read the rest here.

Nativity Scene Modified to Make Political Point

Monday, December 10th, 2007

It is sad when fellow Christians are willing to subject the Christmas story to this kind of treatment. It’s especially sad when they fail to disclose all the facts.

London ( – A British charity is giving the traditional nativity scene a political twist this year by dividing it with a wall symbolizing Israel’s controversial security barrier.

The Amos Trust, a Christian group that works with needy communities around the world, is selling what it calls a nativity set with a difference — one where “the wise men won’t get to the stable.”

Organizers say the purpose of the sets — made by Palestinian carpenters with olive wood from Bethlehem — is to draw attention to the security measures put in place by the Israeli government.

The network of walls and fences being built between Israeli and Palestinian Authority-controlled areas of the West Bank runs along the perimeter of Bethlehem, dividing it from nearby Jerusalem. Travel in and out of the town is heavily restricted.

Garth Hewitt, director of the Amos Trust, said Wednesday his group wants to use the wooden sets to make people aware of what is happening, including how the Christian population of Bethlehem is rapidly shrinking.

“We’re worried about the entire community there,” he said. “They’re trapped behind the wall there. It’s like a medieval siege.”

Critics of Israel frequently blame the Israeli government for the exodus of Christian Arabs from the PA areas. Some scholars attribute the shrinking Christian population to harassment and intimidation by Islamists, however.

Two pro-Israel Christian groups criticized the nativity sets.

“We are saddened by attempts to make one-sided political capital out of the Bethlehem story,” Geoffrey Smith, director of the U.K. branch of Christian Friends of Israel, said Wednesday.

“Nobody wants a security barrier but so long as terrorists continue to threaten the lives of Jews and of Arabs in Israel, the people there have to defend themselves in ways that will stop the bombers.”

He said more than 2,000 lives have been saved by the security barrier in the last five years.

Pamela Thomas, national director of the British branch of Bridges for Peace, agreed. “The wall is there to protect people from the suicide bombers that were coming in,” she said.

Original Link.

Please Pray for the Families and Friends of Colorado Shooting Victims

Monday, December 10th, 2007

In two horrible incidents, a shooter or shooters, attacked two Christian locations over the weekend resulting in five deaths and seven injuries.
The first incident occurred at a missionary training center near Denver and the second occurred about 12 hours later in Colorado Springs at a church.
Please join me in praying for the families and friends of the slain and wounded people.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — A gunman shot four staff members at a missionary training center near Denver early Sunday, killing two, after being told he could not spend the night. About 12 hours later and 65 miles away in Colorado Springs, a gunman fatally shot a parishioner at a megachurch and wounded four other people before a guard killed him, police said.

One of the hospitalized victims from the second attack died Sunday night, said Amy Sufak, a spokeswoman for Penrose Community Hospital in Colorado Springs.

The police chief in Arvada, a suburb about 15 miles west of Denver where the mission workers were shot, said the shootings may be related to those in Colorado Springs but declined to elaborate. No one had been captured in the Arvada shootings, authorities said.

Original Link.