Archive for April 24th, 2009

Love for Enemies

Friday, April 24th, 2009

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Jesus Teaching

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48 (New International Version)

“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones” by Michael G. Mickey

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but speaking or writing words that offend homosexuals? They may land me (or you) in jail, thanks to our leaders in Congress.

Continuing the site’s coverage of H.R. 1913, which has, thus far, consisted of a commentary by Matt Barber and yours truly, evidence is continuing to mount that this legislation, being fast-tracked to becoming the law of the land thanks to a liberal Congress and White House, is potentially very threatening to Christians who are doing nothing more than saying homosexuality is a sin, something which is both true and a sign that the return of Jesus Christ is at hand as documented in Luke 17:28-30:

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.

Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Lot lived in a place called Sodom, from which we today derive the word sodomy. This is what spiritual wickedness in high places doesn’t want Christians pointing out to people and, it would appear, our Congress as well.

In a article dated today, it is being reported that “hateful words” may soon be prosecutable if this legislation ends up passed into law – and it will be unless we get up in arms and pronto! This legislation is going to be voted on within a week so we need to get in touch with all our representatives in Congress TODAY concerning H.R. 1913. If we don’t do so right now, I fear we’re going to be placed in a position that may force us to make some very difficult decisions in the future – and require our government to build many more institutions to house the criminal element that is the Bible-believing, Word-upholding Church of Jesus Christ.

What will this legislation do?

If passed into law, it will add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Threat or no threat?

Is this legislation truly going to pose a threat to Christians who merely express what the Bible says with no threat of violence or hatred added? It depends on who you ask – or believe.

John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, is quoted in the ONN article linked above as saying: “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

So, no violence involved means no prosecution according to Conyers, but is that the case? Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) is quoted in the same article making a comment that leads me to believe there’s cause for greater concern than Conyers is willing to admit (emphasis added mine):

“We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.”

The way I read Sheila Jackson’s comments, mere words deemed by a homosexual to be hateful may be enough to get one prosecuted for a hate crime.

Christians, I want you to read the last paragraph of the ONN article posted below very carefully if you think Satan’s hand isn’t all in this:

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Democrat John Conyers was, undoubtedly, present when Congressman Gohmert tried multiple times to ensure that religious freedom provisions were written into this bill before it progressed, but to no avail. Logically, if the Democrats were interested in protecting our constitutional right to freedom of religion, they wouldn’t have minded addressing Congressman Gohmert’s concerns to ensure that the local pastor down the street, for example, couldn’t be prosecuted for condemning the sin of homosexuality, but they didn’t. Why do you suppose that’s true? Satan wants to silence the Church here in the last days and those who serve his will in Congress, be it intentional or below their level of consciousness, are willing to throw the Christian majority of this nation under the bus to appease the insecurities of the homosexual minority.

Bring it on!

Barely a day goes by when someone doesn’t lash out at me, often using ‘hateful words’, concerning my faith in Jesus Christ and my belief in Bible prophecy, even as events like this continue to prove me right concerning all I express here in support of same. Is there a federal law on the books to ensure that my feelings are never hurt by mere words? No and there never will be, but you won’t hear me bawling about how pitifully I’m treated, asking for the federal government to protect me from WORDS. Words don’t hurt me, words don’t scare me and the words of people who hold views in opposition to mine don’t influence who I am at all. To my enemies I say, “You want to hurt me with words? Bring it on!”

Sure, words spoken to me and about me sting a bit occasionally, but I’m okay with that unless hateful words morph into threats of violence or actual crimes being committed against me. Anything less than that? Wouldn’t that be constitutionally-protected freedom of speech? If a Muslim today writes me a nasty e-mail critical of my faith and the lifestyle I lead as a result of it? Isn’t that his or her right? Certainly, unless that type of interaction rises to the level of harassment which there are laws in the individual states capable of remedying.

Readers, listen to me. If we don’t get vocal – and I mean VOCAL – the Obama administration, in cahoots with the Democrat-led Congress, are going to strip us of all our constitutionally-protected rights one by one by one until this nation is either going to explode at the seams or collapse completely under the weight of God’s judgment being cast down upon it.

In Leviticus 18, beginning one verse after the Lord commands that we are not to engage in homosexuality or bestiality, we are told that those activities defile not only a nation but the very land upon which that nation rests. Furthermore, in Leviticus 18:25, we read that once this sort of sin becomes rampant, the land will vomit out its inhabitants. In verse 26, the Lord advises that a nation isn’t to knowingly permit a stranger passing through its lands to commit homosexuality or bestiality let alone its citizens and in verses 27 and 28? The Lord repeats Himself in stating these things defile a nation and warns against a nation permitting them, reminding us again that the land will vomit out its inhabitants if a nation overlooks His commands on this topic! Those words, ladies and gentleman, are not the words of Michael G. Mickey. Those are the words of the Most High God!

Liberals in Washington, consider yourselves warned! God is watching and He will keep His Word in the end. Continue in your efforts to accommodate homosexuality in defiance of the Word of God and see what happens! The United States of America will be destroyed as a direct result of your foolishness! And worst of all? It will be destroyed when there wasn’t a great deal of a problem to begin with!

Over 300,000,000 Americans live in this great nation. Out of all those people, in spite of all the homosexual activism and gay pride being publicly expressed these days in town and city squares, parades, and in the parks of our lands, there were only 1,521 hate crimes committed against homosexuals last year. So what is our Democrat-led Congress doing? Trying its very best to broaden our laws to ensure that more homosexuals can claim they’ve been victimized to rally sympathy for them so they can publicly live their lifestyles, which God calls an abomination, without anyone so much as lifting a voice of criticism, whether that criticism is based on religious beliefs or simply the obvious which is that homosexuality is completely unnatural as even a cursory examination of human anatomy reveals.

The sexual organs of men are not compatible with those of other men. Ditto for the women. Even if we applied the issue of homosexuality to the whimsical theory of Darwinian evolution, the staggering numbers of homosexuals emerging today would blow the theory completely out of the water. How? It would demonstrate that human sexuality is evolving in a manner threatening to the survival of the species. Evolution isn’t supposed to do that, is it? Not that I recall, but what do I know?

Well, another day, another rant. I’m done for now.

God bless you all and yes, I do pray God’s blessings for all who read this, regardless of whether you agree with the words you’ve read here or disagree with them. I’m not an evil or angry man. I’m just reporting what is no longer deemed to be politically acceptable to be communicated which is that all mankind is accountable to God. We are accountable to God as individuals AND we’re accountable to God as a nation, like it or not, believe it or not.

Disclaimer: Due to the fact our Department of Homeland Security views my Christian theology as radical and potentially extremist, I want to state for the record that I, Michael G. Mickey, am not in any manner endorsing nor soliciting any type of hatred against anyone. The same applies to any action of an illegal nature being committed against the government of the United States of America. What I am wholly supportive of, on the other hand, is Christians exercising their constitutionally-protected right to question the decision-making of our government presently calling the shots in Washington, D.C. and our constitutional right to acknowledge our government’s utter incompetence in relation to prioritizing what needs to be addressed in our society and what definitely doesn’t. The sort of critical opinions I’ve shared here were abundantly streaming from the Left and considered perfectly acceptable political and social dialogue throughout the years of the Bush administration and I hope they are now.

Original Link.

“H.R. 1913 On The Fast Track” by Michael G. Mickey

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Yesterday I posted a commentary by J. Matt Barber on H.R. 1913, legislation that could pave the way for Christians who express disapproval or disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, even from a biblical standpoint, to be prosecuted for having committed a HATE CRIME.

As reported by, the entire foundation of H.R. 1913 was stripped out from under it yesterday when it was proven that said foundation was built upon lies – blatant lies that the House Judiciary Committee somehow managed to get around by today and pass the measure which is now expected to go to a full vote before the House of Representatives next Wednesday. A Senate version of the legislation is to be considered next week as well, this legislation apparently burning a hole in the pockets of our liberal members of Congress due to their obvious desperation to forward the homosexual agenda as quickly as possible.

A lot can happen in a single day

Just yesterday, mere hours after I posted Matt Barber’s commentary on this issue, the article indicates that Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, was sensing the measure was in trouble with good reason. The Democrats had lied and been caught in it, according to Lafferty:

“We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders — and that claim was the foundation of the bill,” she notes. “They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that’s a lie.”

Lafferty says during yesterday’s markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America — a country of 300 million people — there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people.

An Epidemic of Hate?

Homosexuals having to flee across state lines to avoid persecution and, beyond that, perpetrators of crimes against them chasing them from state-to-state? The very premise of such a claim reads like a scene from a homosexual version of “Smokey and The Bandit”, doesn’t it?

And then there is the laughable issue of gays not being able to purchase goods or services. How stupid do our members of Congress believe we are? Show me someone with a fistful of dollars in their hand and I’ll show you someone who can purchase most anything they desire in this nation of ours. Give me a wad of cash and within an hour or two I’m confident I could buy something illegal to even possess, but we’re to believe that there is an epidemic problem of homosexuals being unable to buy groceries, a haircut or get someone to fix a broken water fixture in their home? Baloney! All of it!

The issue isn’t that homosexuals can’t purchase goods or services. No, my friends. That isn’t it at all. The real issue is they can’t, under present law, command a Christian catering service, for example, to handle their “wedding reception” for them. Sure, they could find any of a blue million catering services that wouldn’t mind doing it in the first place, but it just isn’t fair for anyone to demonstrate disapproval of their lifestyle or be committed to their religious faith to the extent that they wouldn’t bow to the homosexual community’s agenda.

And homosexuals can’t find jobs? Pffft! I know quite a few homosexuals who are gainfully employed. Not only that, I can’t recall even once seeing a job application that required one to indicate their sexual orientation, but we’ve got ourselves an epidemic of employment discrimination afoot in this nation of ours, a large portion of it directed against homosexuals. I can’t get past the irony of this last supposedly problematic issue raised – employment discrimination. And why would that be? Because I know of a young woman who was denied the title (or job) of Miss USA because a flamboyant homosexual judge who goes by the professional name of Perez Hilton admittedly gave her a ZERO during her interview process during the Miss USA pageant just a few days ago. Why did he do that to her? Because she didn’t sign off on gay marriage in response to a question posed to her by him on that politically-loaded topic.

In spite of Hilton’s discrimination against her, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) still almost won, finishing as the first runner-up. But the bottom line remains the bottom line: She isn’t wearing the crown of Miss USA today because of the wrath of a homosexual! And yes, it was wrath.

How do I know it was the hatred and intolerance of Perez Hilton that cost Carrie Prejean the title of Miss USA and not an objective and tolerant look at the answer she gave in response to his question? All one has to do is review how Mr. Perez has acted beyond the pageant!

Being homosexual and oppressed as Hilton and so many homosexuals are today, he has, as noted earlier, admitted giving her a ZERO on her interview. He’s also referred to her as a “dumb b*tch”, acknowledged a desire to refer to her as a c*nt, and, as I understand it, took the liberty of posting a picture of her on his website with a penis drawn across her face. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? But are we hearing any outpouring of support for Miss California in the mainstream media? Any at all? Uh, no. That would be because tolerance is a one-way street that flows away from God and all that is right – the same direction the vast majority of the mainstream media flows, proving the accuracy of the Bible when it refers to Satan as “the prince of the power of the air.” (Ephesians 2:2)

If you’re hearing support of Miss California on any significant scale, you’re hearing it from Christian and conservative websites and talk radio, which H.R. 1913, should it become the law of the land, may place squarely in the crosshairs of the homosexual community. And make no mistake about it, if this bill gets past the House and Senate, our beloved Christian president, Barack Hussein Obama, will sign it into law faster than he’d drop to one knee in submission before the Muslim leader of a foreign country or shake hands with a dictatorial enemy of the United States like Hugo Chavez.

How much longer, Lord? How much more of this must we endure?

Related: Civility and tolerance in the age of Obama

Original Link.

“Separate but Unequal Protection” By J. Matt Barber

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday [4-22-09] before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous “hate crime” of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers) the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it’s needed to curb an epidemic of so-called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn’t square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1512 were reported as “hate crimes” motivated by “sexual orientation” bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of “hateful” words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including 5 deaths) allegedly motivated by “sexual orientation” bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.
The entire push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very “hate crime” (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated “hate crimes” continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of “hate crimes” legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable “suspect class” characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last congress, Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.” The FBI has included mere words – “insults” and “intimidation” – in calculating “hate crimes” statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there’s every reason to believe they’ll subjectively consider “insults” and “intimidation” (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting “hate crimes.”

Yes, it’s a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell’s 1984.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. He also serves as Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law and co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. Send comments to Matt at (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Original Link.

Possible Interrogation Probe Dashes Hopes for Bipartisanship Under Obama

Friday, April 24th, 2009

We are not a third world Banana Republic or Communist Dictatorship that imprisons our former leaders for politically incorrect policy decisions. Have we, as a country, really degraded to this point? If so, then we are ripe for the picking, and are just years, if not months away from loosing our country to a charismatic dictator.

Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That’s when the Era of Bipartisanship died.

That’s what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized “enhanced” interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.

If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama’s legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as “reconciliation.”

Republicans and some Democrats oppose the tactic because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.

Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president’s economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether “those who formulated those legal decisions” behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.

Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.

“As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards,” he said. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations.”

He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a “further accounting” of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a “Truth Commission” to investigate the interrogation policies — an option that several congressional Democrats support.

But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn’t embrace the idea.

Obama also addressed the “reconciliation” procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as “a last resort” on health care reform legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that “reconciliation” would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.

But some Republican leaders haven’t given up on achieving bipartisanship.

House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.

“We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things,” the letter read. “Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works.”

Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.

“Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington,” they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. “However the next 100 days can be different.”

Original Link.

“Importance of Being Judgmental” by Alan Keyes

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Another question asks about God’s forgiveness of sin. God’s reply: “I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is ‘judge not lest ye be judged.'”

I received this report of the contents of books in the Neale Walsch series “Conversations with God” from one of my e-mail correspondents. (Reportedly, Walsch’s work is one of Oprah Winfrey’s particular favorites.) I was struck by the self-evident contradiction that has Walsch’s god saying, “There is no such thing as right or wrong” in one breath, and “this is wrong” in the next. Obviously Walsh’s god has no problem applying a concept while declaring that it doesn’t exist.

I’d be tempted to think Walsch meant this as a joke, but this kind of silliness is typical of the shallow nonsense that passes for spirituality with the Oprah/Obama set. Mere mortals such as I have a hard time understanding how it’s possible to recognize something as wrong when there’s no such thing as right or wrong. Like eating a cake that’s no longer there, it’s a trick that can apparently be mastered only by the glamorous few.

Anyone who asserts that people should not be “judgmental” and then decries racism or “homophobia” is guilty of the same illogic. The word “judgment” traces its roots to Latin, jus dicare, meaning to say or pronounce what is right. Judgment assumes that right exists and can be recognized as such. If someone decries racism as an injustice (a word that also includes the reference to right or jus), they are invoking a concept or standard of right that makes it so. If “there is no such thing as right or wrong,” this standard cannot exist. Their opposition to racism (or any other injustice) is groundless emotionalism. It has no more claim to respect than the opposite view – that racial superiority legitimizes oppression of those who are inferior.

This careless illogic barely disguises the reassertion of the law of the jungle (might makes right; superior force creates legitimacy), a form of fatalism that encourages submission to whomever happens to enjoy success at the moment, with no standard to inspire opposition to their will except the promise of superior power. Though the Oprah/Obama crowd poses as compassionate people who care about the weak, it represents the reassertion of a purely power-based order in human society, a concept of law and government most fully codified under ancient Roman rule.

Roman imperial rule epitomized the human social order based on self-legitimizing power. As advocates of a moral understanding that implies returning to this social order, the Oprah/Obama crowd profoundly rejects the moral understanding Jesus Christ asserted against it. The biblical Creator God is the transcendent, absolute power who provides the basis for a concept of right that limits the claims of every human power, whatsoever. However powerful or successful any human or humans become, the weak and powerless have recourse to this standard of justice as a rallying point against the claim of the more powerful to rule without respect for any will but their own. This standard becomes the basis for the idea of “limited government,” not just as a particular matter of fact, but as the conceptual test of just government as such. This means that any government not intrinsically constrained to respect the right established by God’s will has no legitimacy.

It’s no accidental coincidence that this return to the ancient Roman understanding of power involves promoting the false notion that personal liberation mainly involves the free play of sexual and other physical passions. In fact, the paradigm of such liberation is the wealthy drug addict’s freedom to get high – a condition that, in fact, involves a degrading form of subjection and slavery. Moreover, as the capacity for self-control in the face of passion erodes, so does the ability to control fear (which is, after all, a physical passion) when confronted with danger. This reinforces the ability of the more powerful to cow and manipulate those less well endowed.

Christian faith proved to be an effective antidote to this preparation of the will for tyranny. The image of Christian martyrs singing hymns as they faced wild animals in the Roman arena testifies to its ability to rouse their courage. Thanks to Christianity, the virtues usually reserved for trained warriors, like the Spartans, were made available to all kinds of people, including those previously regarded as naturally weak and, therefore, inferior.

As contemporary elites strive to recreate the inegalitarian forms of government and society that remove all constraints from their vainglorious ambitions, Christianity therefore poses an infuriating obstacle. The conviction that any individuals who put their faith in Christ have access to the wisdom and power of the Creator God defeats the psychologically intimidating effect of physical superiority, thereby depriving the superior few of their most important advantage. Jefferson was right when he swore eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Unconstrained rule by the superior few becomes impossible when many people are imbued with the mental independence derived from a faith that makes the greatest power imaginable the reliable ally of their right actions (rights).

The Oprah/Obama crowd may pose as champion of the masses, but it serves an agenda that must ultimately reinstate the routine oppression of the many by the few. Before the meaning of Christ’s incarnation was accurately translated for the benefit of the common people, such oppression was characteristic of societies everywhere. I believe that the American republic has been the primary and most successful result of that translation. As it now faces what may be the last crisis of its existence, its fate heavily depends on whether those who profess to be Christians will understand the indispensable role that must be played by the courage their faith makes available to all. This may be the most important practical prerequisite of the equality America’s founders asserted on behalf of all humankind.


For more from Alan Keyes visit Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people’s sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America’s wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America’s Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led gras

Original Link.

Prevent Another 9/11 or Stand Idly By and Do Nothing in Order to Appear More “Christian” Like?

Friday, April 24th, 2009

One question that seems to show up, from time to time, is what should the Christian stance be concerning the war on terror?
I’m not an expert on any of this, but I will share my opinion and use a couple of good sources to help us understand what we, as Christians, should do.

Did Jesus advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes (Luke 22:36-38)?

Jesus is well known for His continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and “turning the other cheek.” It is therefore surprising to find Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Did Jesus in this verse advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes?

This is an issue over which Christians have vehemently disagreed for many centuries. Following is a summary of the two basic views of how Christians have interpreted Jesus on this issue.

THE PATH OF NONRESISTANCE. Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. And the same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance–the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong. This view is usually based on the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ’s teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to “turn the other cheek” when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).

In Yoder’s view, the way to victorious living is to refrain from the game of sociopolitical control. Jesus exposed the futility of the violence engrafted in the present world system by resisting its inclinations even to the point of death. Hence, Christians are to refuse the world’s violent methods and follow their Savior to the cross (Matthew 26:47-52). When Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36), pacifists suggest He was only speaking figuratively.

“TURN THE OTHER CHEEK” ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to “turn the other cheek” in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: “What’s interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]….If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand….To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent.”

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian’s personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.

In terms of following Christ’s example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God’s will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God’s timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ’s unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.

THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth (“The LORD of hosts”–Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints–nor even Jesus–are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

What does the Bible say about torture?

Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What does the Bible say?

The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture: Jesus, Paul and Silas (Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture.

As individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Also, as individuals we have no authority to punish society’s wrongdoers or to extract confessions from them. Therefore, as individuals, we can have no license to torture; inflicting intense pain on others is wrong. God alone is able to mete out punishment with perfect justice, and it is His prerogative to make His punishment painful. Demons are aware of a future time of “torture” for themselves (Matthew 8:29). Hell is a place of “torment” and intense agony (Matthew 13:42; Luke 16:23-24). During the Tribulation, torment will be part of the plagues upon evildoers (Revelation 9:5; 11:10). In any of His judgments, God is holy and perfectly fair (Psalm 119:137).

Now we’ll consider the use of torture in relation to governmental policy. We know that God has appointed civil governments and charged them with maintaining justice in this world (Romans 13:1-5). “For [the ruler] is God’s servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4). Elsewhere, God calls judges and magistrates “gods”; that is, their authority to provide justice comes from God Himself (Psalm 82:1-4). If they fail in their duty, they will themselves be judged by the Lord, the Judge of all (verses 7-8).

So government bears the responsibility to protect the good and punish the evil. What methods may it employ in carrying out that responsibility? Beyond the endorsement of capital punishment (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6), the Bible does not say. The Bible neither condemns nor condones a government’s use of torture.

Many questions can and should be asked: What specific techniques should be considered “torture”? Where do we draw the line? Is the infliction of any kind of pain inherently wrong? What if there are no permanent physical effects? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about a forced change in diet? Should yelling at a prisoner be considered psychological torture?

May a government, in order to protect its law-abiding citizens, engage in “highly coercive interrogation” (the use of strongly persuasive techniques to obtain tactical information)? What if these techniques do not inflict physical pain?

What if the goal of torture is to prevent further tragedy? What if a prisoner were withholding information that could save the life of an innocent person? What if a hundred lives could be saved? A thousand lives? Should that prisoner be threatened with physical pain until he reveals the information? What, then, if his information is wrong? And what about unlawful enemy combatants who are, legally, not prisoners of war and therefore do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention?

These are all questions not addressed in the Bible and that are beyond the scope of this article, but they highlight the need for us to pray “for kings and all those in authority” (1 Timothy 2:2). May our policy makers have the wisdom to distinguish good from evil and to provide true justice.

The Christian side of me says “combat all evil with the most Christ-like and loving methods possible”. The husband/father side of me says “I’ll do anything necessary to see to that one kills or injures my loved ones”.

I had the honor of speaking with Darrell Scott, the father of Columbine High School massacre victim Rachel Joy Scott. As the story was related to me, one of the Columbine terrorist confronted her with the question “Do you believe in God?” She answered “yes” to which he responded by shooting her in the arm, leg and chest. She lay severely wounded for several minutes until the terrorist returned. One of them asked her “do you still believe in God?” She once again answered “yes”. He is reported to have then said “then go and join him” and he shot her in the head killing her.
Mr. Scott is one of the most Christian men I have ever met. He advocates complete forgiveness of the Columbine terrorist. But on the same token, he made the following statement (paraphrased):
I would have done anything necessary, including killing the boys, to have saved my daughter’s life.

Is he any less of a Christian for having the same parental instincts that most parents have? These are complex issues with no simple answers.

As a Christian, we must oppose evil in every way possible, while keeping the teachings of Jesus as the test of all of our actions.

America’s Right Website Calls it Right Again

Friday, April 24th, 2009

A little play on words this morning, but you will see what I mean in moment…

Common Sense on Interrogations From Rep. Peter King

With regard to the ongoing debate over possible prosecution of Bush administration officials involved in the enhanced interrogation of terrorists by the Central Intelligence Agency, one Republican congressman’s statements have cut through the political couching seen on both sides of the aisle.

That congressman is New York Republican Peter King who, according to Politico, stated that the GOP would need to adopt a “scorched-earth” procedural approach and grind all congressional activity to a halt if the Obama administration kow-tows to the far left and brings charges against those who either authorized or carried out waterboarding and other techniques used to gather information from noncompliant terrorist detainees. He went on from there:

“If we have another 2,000 people killed, I want Nancy Pelosi and [liberal philanthropist] George Soros, John Conyers and Pat Leahy to go to the funeral and say, ‘Your son was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some guy’s head under water for 30 seconds.'”

Thank you. My goodness, thank you.

When–not if–we have another jawdropping morning when Americans from coast to coast stare in disbelief at their television screens as images of death and horror are broadcast, the Democrats will be very much to blame.

Once again, Democrats are putting party before country, now even worse than during the height of the Iraq war when Nancy Pelosi attempted to drum up hundred-year-old controversy about the Turkish slaughter of Armenians in the early 20th century. At a time designed to undermine our efforts in Iraq simply for political reasons, Pelosi dusted off a decades-old procedural measure officially recognizing the slaughter as “genocide.” The Turks were outraged, and threatened to pull overflight and base privileges for our military, both crucial to supply lines needed by American troops in harm’s way in Iraq.

This time, Democrats are intentionally undermining efforts taken to keep this country safe from radical Islamic terrorists, measures which clearly have worked. This time, just like last, they’re doing it for purely political reasons. This time, however, mark my words — it will result in the spilled blood of innocent American men, women and children.

Even the Democrats’ intent to consider criminalizing intelligence gathering measures, coupled with the White House’s habit of changing rules of engagement overnight, will be enough to destroy morale and erode the confidence of those on the front lines of the intelligence wing of the Global War on Terror. Who, in their right mind, would want to follow orders today knowing that, tomorrow, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk will stand up, argue that they never knew anything about anything, and call for a show trial?

When terrorists kill innocent Americans on American soil–and they will, because people willing to strap bombs to children don’t seem to care about whether we suddenly criminalize the face-slapping of their murderous cohorts–it will be up to each and every one of us to demand that Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and the rest of those Democrats more interested in party politics than national security stand up, look into the eyes of the families who lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, and explain to them that no, they wouldn’t do everything possible to protect America, that no, they wouldn’t make heartless killers uncomfortable, even if it would have saved their families.

Populist Outrage, Take Two

The Bush administration had refused to disclose the images after the ACLU’s request made in 2003, claiming that the public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage and would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions.

The decision to release images comes on the same day that congressional aides said President Obama resisted pressure from Democrats to investigate Bush-era interrogation techniques, though Obama also has been under fire since last week from Republicans and former Bush advisers for releasing memos from 2002 and 2005 justifying the interrogation techniques used by the CIA.

The ACLU says making public additional images of detainee treatment is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.

In light of the pending release of photos depicting harsh treatment of terrorists, I’d like to re-release some photos here as well. Where is the long-lost outrage with regard to these?

What in the world is it going to take for the ignorant, liberal lawmakers in our midst to understand that we are at WAR with people who want to kill us? The Democrats, on behalf of their far-left supporters, are waging a war of their own — on the safety and security of the American people, on common sense in general.

Because they have a president elected as a direct result of populist support, they’re conducting their war by deliberated inciting populist outrage. Only through outrage and crisis can their policies and plans seem palatable. You saw it with the AIG bonuses, you saw it with the selectively-released CIA memos, and you’re going to see it with the detainee photos being released.

Sadly, we cannot stop Nancy Pelosi from lying through her teeth. We cannot stop the contraconstitutional power-grab. What we can do is steel ourselves. In the case of the detainee photos, we must make sure that Americans put anything they see in proper context.


Friday, April 24th, 2009

On Tuesday, April 21st, Jewish Press op-ed contributor Phyllis Chesler was the keynote speaker at the Durban II Counter-Conference organized by the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. The weeklong conference, held at the Fordham University Law School in New York was convened as a rejoinder to UN’s weeklong Durban II Review Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland in which such issues as racism, gender discrimination, xenophobia and related Intolerance were purportedly on the agenda.

Phyllis Cheslerat Durban II Conference

Dr. Chesler’s appearance at Fordham came only a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took center stage in Geneva where he delivered a vituperative speech impugning Israel and the Jewish people. Calling Israel a “most cruel and oppressive, racist regime,” which was created from the “pretext of Jewish suffering” during World War II, Ahmadinejad also issued a clarion call to the global community. “Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism… Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism” he declared.

“Israel is not an apartheid state but Islam, as it is practiced in many countries today, is the world’s largest practitioner of gender and religious apartheid” said Dr. Chesler, who has written extensively on this topic for many years. Pointing to the hypocrisy of those who allege that Israeli society is racist, Dr. Chesler stated, “The Muslim world is almost entirely “Judenrein”, free of Jews, whose flight comprises the largest, untold refugee story of the Middle East and North Africa. The citizens of Israel come in all skin colors, practice all religions, speak many different languages of origin — and have all been absorbed at Israel’s expense”.

The thrust of her remarks, however, focused on Islamic gender apartheid; a topic that Dr. Chesler is personally familiar with and was not addressed at Durban II. She shared with her audience her own experience of escaping from captivity in Afghanistan in December of 1961 while married to an Afghan Muslim man that she met in college. “What I learned in Kabul rendered me immune to the romanticization of the Third World or to the glamorization of tyrants that defined my generation of the 1960s and 1970s radicals and activists”, she ruefully observed.

She lamented the inferior status of women in Afghanistan and how her experiences transformed her life. “Poor women were shrouded, they moved like ghosts in the bazaar, and they were forced to sit, quite literally, at the back of the public buses”, she said. Commenting that despite the injustices that women endured at that juncture in time, Afghanistan had adopted a more liberal political approach and was undergoing a modernization of sorts, she said the subjugation of women was in an era of “pre-Soviet and pre-Taliban” influence.

The level of brutality against women in the modern Islamic world has grown exponentially according to Dr. Chesler. “In a sense” she said, “being born female is a capital crime in this Islamified and Jihadic era.” Besides being stoned and beaten, women in the Islamic world are also subjected to being genitally mutilated, blinded by acid attacks, beheaded, immolated and buried alive for the slightest infractions of Islamic law.said Dr. Chesler. Most recently, she documented the heinous practice of honor killings of Muslim women in Muslim countries and the western world in the “Middle East Quarterly” and in her book “The Death of Feminism”, a seminal retrospective on the failings of the American feminist movement.

“Honor killings are a Muslim-on-Muslim crime, a collaboration of an entire family against their own female blood,” she said. Praising the United States and Israel as the most democratic, lawful and compassionate countries in the world she castigated western academics, feminist activists and mainstream journalists for their multiculturalist postures and their refusal to speak out against the pernicious agenda of Islam, in fear of being labeled a racist.

American feminists, she said, “are far more comfortable in criticizing Christianity and Judaism for their allegedly misogynistic practices than in criticizing Islamic gender apartheid and the barbarism
of many Muslim countries.” Taking aim at the UN for sponsoring both Durban I in 2001 and now Durban II, she said they have been effective in the legalization of Jew hatred. “The UN and the Organization of Islamic States take themselves very seriously. They think there is nothing illogical, biased, perverted, or even “racist” about their condemnation of the Jewish state” she declared.

She called on her audience and others concerned about the future of western civilization to speak out against UN sponsored tyranny, oppression and Jew hatred. “Let me suggest that President Ahmadinejad means exactly what he says. He does plan to implement another Holocaust against the Jews. We deny this at our own peril”, she warned.


Fern Sidman holds a B.A, in political science from Brooklyn College. She was the educational coordinator for the Betar Youth Movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She was national director of the Jewish Defense League from 1983-1985. She was a researcher for several books written by Rabbi Meir Kahane, ZTK”L. She was the managing editor of the publication entitled, The Voice of Judea, and is a regular contributor to its web site. She is currently a writer and journalist living in New York City. Her articles have appeared in The Jewish Press, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, and numerous Jewish and general web sites including, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Pipes and Michael Freund.
We are delighted to have Ms. Sidman as a regular contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.