Truth Magazine Blog

Court bans death panel for child rape

Art T — 2008-06-26T00:39:00Z

If you think that “we the people” run this country through our elected officials the Supreme Court has once again proved you wrong. Yet again four old men and one crotchety old woman in black robes have overturned the will of the people as expressed through their State Legislature. In this case it is Louisiana that came out on the short end of the stick with SCOTUS.

The Court today struck down a Louisiana law that allowed for the death penalty for perpetrators of child rape. Two men on Louisiana’s death row will now have to be resentenced one for the rape of his 8 year old step-daughter, the other for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion with the usual suspects concurring and Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts dissenting. Here are some of his expert legal opinions:

“Executions are too severe a punishment for raping children, despite the "years of long anguish" for victims”, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.
"the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child”
Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'
The absences of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
He also cited arguments made by social workers and others that children and their families might not cooperate with authorities if a death sentence could result against the rapist. In many cases, including the one before the court, the victim and rapist are related.
With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.

"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."

The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people — but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider demanded, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.

This idiot Justice and his cohorts believe that “crimes against the state” are more heinous than the rape of a child? These are the same five Justices that uphold abortion at every turn, that allow for the infanticide of 1.37 million every year but won’t take the life of a child rapist.

What has our Nation come to?

Web Ring and Site Consolidation

Art T — 2008-06-19T23:38:00Z

Well there is a lot going on so let’s get to it. I have made a command decision here. Truth Magazine Blog is now the Official Blog of The Republican Papers our political sister site. In addition I have created a Web Ring, “Conservatism: God and Politics”, to combine all three sites, the magazine, the blog and the papers into one easily accessible place.

I have had a number of web sites sign up for the Ring so there will be a greater variety of comment and opinion… all from a Conservative and Christian perspective. Given the political and cultural climate today we will need all the help we can get; there is strength in numbers.

If you have a web site, blog or forum that is Conservative and/or Christian and would like to join the ring we would love to have you. You can sign up at our RingSurf Hub page. For other information regarding the Ring go to our home page; Conservatism: God and Politics.

The ‘silly season’ is now in full swing with the Democrat Party Convention next month in Denver it will be interesting to see if time in fact does “wound all heels.” Will Hillary be the VP candidate? Will her supporters fall in line behind Barak Hussein Obama if she is not? How about Obama’s handlers refusing to allow two women in burkas or whatever to sit behind him a one of his speeches? Can Michelle Obama be gagged by the Obama team? Enquiring minds want to know?

All this and more coming soon. Stay tuned.

JG

DNC moves to Disenfranchise only half of the voters in FL & MI

Art T — 2008-05-31T04:12:00Z

It seems that Operation Chaos continues. The DNC in their meeting today decided to Disenfranchise only half of the voters in Florida and Michigan. It seems that Howard "Screaming" Dean and the anti-Clinton forces have played their hand and "Obama's our boy!" ooops that is probably not politically correct.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic Party officials agreed Saturday to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes,ruling on a long-running dispute that has threatened the party's chances in November and maintaining Barack Obama's front-runner status as he moves closer to the nomination.

The decision was a blow to Hillary Rodham Clinton as she was on the verge of watching Obama make history as the first black Democratic presidential nominee. It prompted an irate reaction from boisterous Clinton supporters in the audience and her chief delegate counter, Harold Ickes.

Ickes angrily informed the party's Rules Committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats' credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party's convention in August.

"There's been a lot of talk about party unity—let's all come together, and put our arms around each other," said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. "I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates ... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity."

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

The deal was reached after committee members met privately for more than three hours, trying to hammer out a deal, and announced in a raucous hearing that reflected deep divisions within the party.

"How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don't count the vote?" one man in the audience shouted before being escorted out by security. "This is not the Democratic Party!"

The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal.

The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee supported Clinton, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together.

The committee also unanimously agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.

Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.

Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he scolded.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.

A proposal favored by Clinton that would have fully seated the Florida delegation fully in accordance with the January primary went down with 12 votes in support and 15 against.

Tina Flournoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.

"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Flournoy said.

"I wish my colleagues will vote differently."

Alice Huffman, a Clinton supporter on the committee, explained that the compromise giving delegates half votes was the next best thing to full seating. "We will leave here more united than we came," she said.

Some audience members heckled her in response. "Lipstick on a pig!" one shouted.

"We just blew the election!" a woman in the audience shouted. The crowd was divided between cheering Obama supporters and booing Clinton supporters.

"This isn't unity! Count all the votes!" another audience member yelled.

Breaking News - Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy

Art T — 2008-05-31T03:43:00Z

2008-05-31 18:45:23
By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer

ABERDEEN, S.D. (AP) — Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.

It happened "over the last few days," Gibbs said.

Comments by Wright have inflamed racial tensions and posed an unwanted problem for Obama, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, as he seeks to wrap up the nomination.

More recently, racially charged remarks from the same pulpit by another pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, has kept the controversy alive and proved the latest thorn in the side of Obama.

Pfleger earlier this month mocked Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as a guest speaker at Obama's church.

Obama has condemned comments by both Wright and Pfleger, but the controversy has persisted.

Decision 2008 - Part IV

Art T — 2008-05-31T03:40:00Z

By Arthur R Thompson
May 30, 2008

To say that this election season has been interesting is something of an understatement. To say it has been a disaster for Conservatives is stating the obvious. As I heard Rush say on one of his shows, "we are so screwed."

No matter what happens in November Conservatism is the looser not because of what Conservatism does but because we have let our power slip through our fingers. We have elected representatives with no leadership capabilities. We have allowed the Democrats to define the issues and then agreed with them.

We have allowed our sense of fairness and values to be used against us. For example, the last "Leader" we had in the House of Representatives was Tom DeLay. We stood by as he was railroaded out of power and out of office on bogus charges trumped up by a Democrat DA. Meanwhile, William "Hurricane" Jefferson (D-LA) is caught on tape accepting bribes, the cash is found in his freezer and he is rewarded with the Chairmanship of a House Committee.

Maxine Waters (D-CA) tells the whole country that "this Liberal is all about Socializ... er, ummm [pregnant pause] ...the government taking over and running your companies" during a scathing congressional interrogation of oil company executives; and the Republicans piled on. They did however find her remarks humorous as they chuckled behind their hands at her gaff (see the video on the home page.) The news media, including FNC, dismissed her remarks and even went so far as defending her saying she meant to say Nationalize the oil companies. Well isn't that a euphemism for Socialism?

The RNC moved in to quash Conservatism within the party by allowing the mainstream leftist media to choose their Presidential Candidate, one John "Maverick" McCain (RINO-AZ). Of course their other contenders were nothing to write home about. The ones with any Conservative Values at all (and they were few) never had a real shot because the party was not interested in a conservative view point. Well it is not called "the stupid party" without reason.

This election will go down in the history books as having the most diversified candidates in the history of the Republic. Unfortunately, the diversity is all in areas that mean little when it comes to running the most powerful nation in the world; race, gender, and age. On the issues, it is the least diversified field of candidates ever assembled.

So no matter what happens in November, "we are so screwed!"

Jim Wallis “Defends” Barack Hussein Obama

Art T — 2008-02-29T23:53:00Z

Disingenuous does not even begin to describe Jim Wallis. I can only pray that I will be present on the day Jimmy stands before God and attempts to justify himself with the same half truths, innuendo, fallacious, deceptive, erroneous and misleading tripe that proliferates all of his commentary not just his most recent Blog “defense” of Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is what he is. The son of a Muslim father and atheist mother, step-son of a Muslim, raised in Indonesia an Islamic country. He himself has stated that he is uniquely qualified to address Islamic leaders because of his background. He attends a church that practices divisiveness by preaching a call to black hegemony that if practiced in a white church would be deemed racists. Further, said church leader and pastor gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan of Nation of Islam fame (infamy).

“He joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988. A mega-church with 8,000-10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The church is more Afro-centric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama has distanced himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired pastor Jeremiah Wright.” (wikipedia)

This of course begs the question, “What was his religious background during the first 27 years of his life?” Also, was his conversion of the Damascus road or the politically expedient variety? There is a chapter in his book, The Audacity of Hope, (inspired by Jeremiah Wright, the above mentioned pastor) where Barack Hussein Obama details how in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change:

“It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.” (wikipedia)

I would take that to mean that it was politically expedient.

What do we really know about this man? Not much, really. He is a shining example of the Latin phrase "deus ex machina" which has its origins in the conventions of Greek tragedy. It refers to situations in which a machine (crane) was used to lower actors playing a god or gods onto the stage. Aptly articulated by David Ehrenstein, LA Times, March 19, 2007, ‘Obama the Magic Negro’

“Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.”

The following apply to both Jim Wallis and Barack Hussein Obama:

Luke 21:8 (KJV)
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Revelation 16:13 (KJV)
13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Random Thoughts:

Art T — 2008-02-15T17:38:00Z

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).” It seems that the GOP has made a number of tactical errors in their planning for this election year. The first being that Hillary would be the Democrat candidate and second that the party would unify (GOP convention theme) behind any candidate because of her negatives. “Oh, dear! What nonsense I’m talking!” More on this in a future post.

I recently wrote in an Editorial for Truth Magazine US, ‘Social Justice Movement Marches on’:
“Liberalism is infesting the culture, and multiculturalism is running rampant. Europe has for all intents and purposes fallen.”

I ran across this little item in the Washington Times ‘Laying Down the Sharia Law’:

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, titular leader of the world's Anglicans, created some controversy last week with a lecture on "Islam in English Law." Many interpreted his remarks as implying that Muslim "sharia" law should be allowed to operate in the U.K. parallel to the secular civil law, but some defenders of Dr. Williams are now saying he was misunderstood. It's true that the lecture also described forms of "accommodation" for religious teachings that we would support under the heading of "conscience protections"--such as allowing Christian adoption agencies to exclude homosexual parents or allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions. There is a danger of going too far in "accommodating" foreign religions in a nation whose laws are structured on a Christian tradition. In the U.K. this accommodation of Muslims is leading to the redefinition of marriage as illustrated by the revelation that the British government is already providing spousal benefits to multiple wives in polygamous Muslim marriages. While diversity can enrich a society, there are also limits to how much diversity a society can tolerate without fracturing--and any change in the definition of marriage goes well beyond those limits.

The UK is a Christian Nation; they have a National Religion and are probably the closest in the Western world to being a Theocracy. Now, under cover of dark, in the smoke filled rooms of Parliament they have in effect set the stage for a dual legal system and eventually a dual government where your religion determines what law you follow; multiculturalism personified.

The same problems are facing France and a multitude of other European nations where Muslim immigration has gone unchecked. Acceptance and tolerance (of the postmodern type) does not seem to have panned out. Yet we in the United States blindly follow the same path with seemingly no concern for our future.

On a similar note this from The Australian, ‘The Nation Says Sorry’

Thousands gather at Melbourne's Federation Square to watch Prime Minister Kevin Rudd make an apology to indigenous Australians. Rudd offers historic apology

For those of you unfamiliar with Kevin Rudd he is the Liberal Leftist that won the race for Prime Minister over the Conservative incumbent.

Australia has been wrestling with their treatment of the aborigine population much as the US has been having angst over the treatment of Blacks from the days of slavery up to the Civil Rights movement (and to current day for some). So now Australia as a Nation has apologized; so what? It doesn’t and can’t do anything to change the past; it doesn’t do anything to enhance the future, soooo… what was the point? Well I can think of two things a) it made them feel good (a hallmark of Liberalism) and b) a first step toward making the aborigine population even more dependent on Liberal politician thus ‘buying votes’.

Look for both of the above issues to manifest themselves here in the US in the future; sooner rather than later if the Democrats win the Presidency and keep the Congress in November.

An Open Letter to VoteVet.com

Art T — 2008-02-10T19:24:00Z

I have never been to VoteVet.com before and will in all probably never return. I ended up there following a link from Real Clear Politics because it was dissing a statement made by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The following began as a comment to their “Contact” page and quickly grew into a full blown rant. It just goes to show that not every web site with the word Vet in it has our troop’s best interest at heart.

<rant>
I just don’t get it. Having read your Bio’s on the “about” page it appears that you have the credentials to speak out on military matters having “been there and done that.”

What I don’t get is how you come to the conclusion that Sen. McConnell’s statement, "Remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers" is somehow callous or repugnant to those who served or are serving. To make matters worse you cherry-picked his remarks and are applying them totally out of context. The full text as you know read:

“Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

How pray tell did you get your head so buried in the Democrat/MoveOn.org sandbox? Did you feel supported or "protected" while in-country and the politicos back home were clamoring for surrender by retreat and withdrawal? The more relevant question is, if so, "Why did you volunteer in the first place?" One does not join the Military to make a political statement; you join out of a sense of duty, honor, country

Dudes, I served in the Nam and I know it didn’t do anything for my morale when a much more virulent strain of Liberalism was in control back in the sixties and seventies. It was political then it is political now. It is evident that the driving force behind your organization is anti-Bush, anti-Conservative politics. That of course is your prerogative. However, you should not be attempting to advance your cause on the backs of brave and honorable Americans some 3800 of whom have “given all” in our Nations mission of bring some semblance of order to an area of the world that is in dire need of it. You are pathetic!

It is the likes of you and the pussy-@$$ brass such as General Wesley Clark that callously degrade the troops and the mission every time you seek withdrawal, retreat and surrender and defame our CINC. Shameful.

I am proud to have been a "Professional soldier" and so are most brothers and sisters in arms who stand on the wall today. Fortunately for America we out number you.
</rant>

Decision 2008 - Part III Super Tuesday

Art T — 2008-02-07T00:11:00Z

Well, Super Tuesday is now history; what have we learned? Well we have learned that McCain is the darling of Independents, Moderates and the Republican Elites. We have learned that McCain does not appeal to rank and file Republicans and he certainly does not appeal to Conservatives. We learned that Huckabee has hitched his wagon to McCain; witness the WV caucuses.

We also learned that the “South” is still Evangelical Christian and is not apt to back a NE Liberal state Governor who is a Mormon. As one caller to a local talk show said, “we would rather back a backsliding Baptist (Huckabee) than a non-practicing Presbyterian (McCain) or a Mormon (Romney).” Christian Conservative Republicans have a really big problem; we have no one contending for the Presidency who articulates our values… not one.

Romney comes close but, and this is a big but, his values while paralleling ours are not based in the same faith as ours. I know this is politically incorrect and nobody is talking about it for that very reason. The problem is that the alternative choices although “Christian” are not Bible believing Christians as were our forefathers. This “new evangelism” is a watered down, feel good, tickle your ear Christianity that accepts the premise that all religions are equally valid.

Another issue is Romney’s moderate political background. His dad, George Romney, Rockefeller, and other moderates refused to support Goldwater at the convention in 1964. Some moderates even formed "Republicans for Lyndon Johnson." This further blurs his recently acquired Conservative credentials.

Tony Blankley in his column on creators.com said, “…what was left after the two strongest candidates couldn't run (Jeb Bush and George Allen) was one venerable candidate (McCain), one suspiciously newly minted conservative (Romney), one not-quite-plausible factional figure (Huckabee), one social liberal (Giuliani), a quixotic anti-war candidate (Paul) and an older Southern gent with a smashing younger wife for whom he seemed to be saving most of the energy he should have used in what was risibly called his "run" for president (Thompson).”

And that is just the Republican side.

It looks like the Democrat party will give us, Clinton, Obama or Clinton and Obama as their Presidential candidate(s). There is certainly no option there. Both are Leftist and their religion is best defined as the Gospel according to Karl Marx. Add to that the fact that although Obama cries long and hard that he is a “Christian” his family background (father and stepfather) is Muslim. Another problem Obama has on the religious front is his “Christian” church and his Pastor’s affinity for Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

The real story of Super Tuesday, “when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Democrats have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November.”*

I sat out the Primary here in Tennessee, something I have never done before. I will participate in the General Election in November to vote for Conservative Congressman and Senator because having a Conservative Congress is going to be imperative no matter who wins. The question of casting a Presidential vote is at this time very much in doubt.

*Mark Steyn, Wednesday, February 06, 2008 The Morning After

Jim Wallis Revisited

Art T — 2008-02-01T03:58:00Z

I don’t get it.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners has declared “The monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new conversation has begun!” I don’t see any signs of a new conversation but I do see signs of a new monologue. Specifically, Constantinianism of the Left.

That very subject was addressed by Brian McLaren in an article of the same name February 7, 2007.

“This critique is made against progressives on the basis of the claim that to participate in the political process in such a way as to attempt to solve social problems through legislation, we have succumbed to seeing the state as our hope, rather than the church. In fact, we progressives offer this critique, with some regularity, to those on the religious right. Are we, then, simply being hypocritical? Engaging the very thing we condemn with the only real difference being that we support a different political agenda?”

Very astute questions indeed. His answer:

“Well, I think we have to begin our response to this charge by admitting that far too often, at least more often than followers of Jesus should like, we are guilty as charged.”

He goes on to defend progressive Christian leaders saying “I sincerely believe that the folks I know who are active in progressive politics are firmly committed to the Gospel of Jesus and I believe that their political activism grows out of their faith.”

While this may be and should be true, when I read or listen to Jim Wallis I get just the opposite message i.e. he arrived at a political position and attempts to mold the Gospels to support and further it. His Bio tends to support this:

“As a teenager, his questioning of the racial segregation in his church and community led him to the black churches and neighborhoods of inner-city Detroit. He spent his student years involved in the civil rights and antiwar movements at Michigan State University.”

So it appears that the politics did come first. It was after this that he attended Divinity School and started Sojourners with some other ‘60’s era Leftists.

Wallis accuses the Religious Right of being a two trick pony, abortion and homosexual issues. This is of course not true and may become fodder for another article another time. But what about this Great Awakening movement (cleverly shrouding a book tour as revivals)? It seems that his pony also has a limited number of tricks, specifically one; Socialism. Of course he doesn’t call it that he uses the term Social Justice but it means the same thing and is in effect the Gospel according to Karl Marx. Marx at least being more honest in that he was an atheist. These people are the ideological cousins of MoveOn.org.

Here are some things Wallis has said that I take great umbrage with:

They say these books (God’s Politics and The Great Awakening) are helping to "re-brand" Christian commitment away from the divisive, partisan, political, and top-down agenda of the Religious Right to a new image of faith that is much more welcoming, open, inclusive, and focused on both compassion and social justice. I really hope that is true and that's part of the reason I write these books.
What makes him think that his “brand” of Christianity is any less divisive, partisan, political and top-down that the Right which he decries? It is in fact more so because he wants to use the power of the state to further and enforce his theology while we on the Right want to stop that by overturning Roe and a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman.

“Religion does not have a monopoly on morals.”
If God does not set the standard of truth and morals, who does? And by that I mean the God of the Old Testament, the one true God who told the end from the beginning. There is none other.

The primary message of Jesus is directed at poverty.
He is fond of saying there are over 300 verses in the Bible relating to poverty. What he doesn’t mention is that the vast majority of those passages, particularly in the New Testament are speaking to a poverty of spirit not financial poverty. Jesus was not into redistribution of wealth; his message was that of eternal salvation by faith not works.

The Religious Right is concerned with only two issues; abortion and homosexuality.
This is blatantly false. They may be the top two political issues but we on the Right did not bring them into the political arena, they are the issues being advanced by the followers of Jim Wallis. Further, they could not advance their issues constitutionally through the legislative process so they used the courts to thwart the will of the people.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has been spread worldwide by those he calls the Religious Right while his brand of Christianity spreads the gospel of equal misery.

Ezekiel 13:3 (KJV)
3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Matthew 7:15 (KJV)
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11-12 (KJV)
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

His ministry should have a sign over the door, “Enter at your own risk!”

Florida down Super Tuesday Next

Art T — 2008-01-30T23:04:00Z

Well we now know what Florida thinks; Grim, very grim. So now there are two, well four, but Ron Paul is inconsequential and Mike Huckabee is now the spoiler. He has no chance to win and will end up splitting the Conservative base and sending John McCain to the convention as the nominee.

Something that hasn’t been talked about much in this presidential election year is the Congressional races. The whole House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be on the ballot come November. As Conservatives we had better start paying attention to that critical area. The reason is simple, it is our only hope of maintain some semblance of values in our country:

If Romney wins, he will need a majority in Congress to make any impact.
If McCain wins, we will need a majority in Congress to keep him in line.
If a Democrat wins, we will need a majority in Congress to survive.

Anyway you look at it a Republican controlled Congress is imperative to the future of the Nation; and a bunch of RINO’s is not an option.

All things considered the most important reason to have a Conservative Congress is that there exists a possibility of five vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next Presidents term. If a Democrat wins the White House some or all of the more Liberal Justices may just retire to facilitate the continuance of a Liberal court. Then there is the fact that four of the five are septuagenarian or octogenarians.

So I would suggest that instead of preaching to the choir here about how bad McCain is we need to be looking at our local ballots and take a good hard look at your Representatives and Senators if they are up for reelection this year. It is here that we have something to gain or everything to lose.

NY Times Endorses Clinton, McCain

Art T — 2008-01-25T17:45:00Z

Here is an interesting article from the Liberal Democrat Pary publication.

NY Times Endorses Clinton, McCain
By AP STAFF
Associated Press
January 25, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain in the presidential primary race.

Translation: Because we win either way.

In editorials posted Thursday on the newspaper's Web site, the board argued forcefully on Clinton's behalf, while saying that McCain, R-Ariz., was the best of a flawed GOP field with which the board had ''strong disagreements.''

Translation: Alright! The maverick is back, happy times are here again!

The board said its case for Clinton, D-N.Y., was based on more than her accomplishments, adding that the senator ''sometimes overstates the importance of resume.''

Translation: She lies!

''Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience,'' it said.

Translation: We are easily impressed and we don’t care if she lies.

The board also spoke favorably of Clinton's main rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, calling him ''incandescent.'' But it concluded that ''we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.''

Yeah, sure, like Hilly’s defined promises’?

''Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.''

Wow! That’s deep, dude.

The board wrote that it disagreed forcefully with the leading Republican candidates on Iraq, the economy and their support of President Bush.

And this surprised who?

But McCain, the editorial said ''is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.''

And this surprise who?

The editorial also excoriated former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, saying that he ''first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.''

If ya got it, flaunt it

''The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square,'' the board said.

Aw… was Rudy to tough on all those drug dealers, hookers, pimps and muggers? Why they are just poor disenfranchised Democrats looking to make a buck in these hard economic times.

Now if you add Obama and Lieberman as VP candidates you have the perfect tickets for the NYT. They and their NeoCom agenda couldn't lose!

Decision 2008 – Part II

Art T — 2008-01-25T01:18:00Z

By Arthur R Thompson
January 23, 2008

Well here we are a week away from the Florida primary and two weeks out from Super Tuesday. The GOP is now in total disarray. The Democrats and “Independents” in SC vaulted John McCain to victory while the MSM cheered them on. Fred Thompson has thrown in the towel and I can’t really blame him. He was drafted on the premises that the “grassroots” wanted him and would support him. It didn’t happen.

Now it is on to Florida where Giuliani has been trying to coalesce Republican voters while skipping the early “cauci” and primaries in NH, NV, MI and SC. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time but it has kept him off of the National scene all this time and given his rivals unencumbered media attention.

Then there was the Huckabee factor coming out of Iowa like a freight train, limping out of NH and SC and not contending in Florida. Seems his star is fading fast. Romney keeps plugging along with only one win (NV) but has accumulated more delegates than any of the other candidates.

So where does that leave us? Well if you are a Conservative you are pretty much out of luck this election season. We have:

A RINO Senator that sides with the Democrats on a regular basis to thwart conservative policy and whose Liberal tendencies are too numerous to mention here.
A Baptist preacher who appears to be a “Progressive Christian” meaning Liberal on social and economic issues and an illegal immigration record that is less than stellar.
A Mormon businessman and Governor of one of the most Liberal states in the county and who has flip-flopped on a number of issues.
A Big City Mayor from another top Liberal state with a Liberal social agenda and an illegal immigration record that is less than stellar.
A nut case Congressman who couldn’t do anything as a Libertarian so he decided to become a Republican.

Not much to choose from there. Is it any wonder Rush Limbaugh recently mused, "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."?

The wild card here is Ron Paul and his kook supporters. They have some cash and if they decide to launch a third party ticket… well we all know what happens then.

Looking over the field, both Democrat and Republican, we have the most diverse group of candidates in our history. While some may see this as a “good thing” the bad news is it is also the weakest group of candidates in our history. I say this because all of them are lacking in core convictions that represent the America founded 233 years ago.

As a “Historical” Evangelical (as opposed to Liberal Postmodern Evangelical) Christian, a Conservative and a Republican (in that order) I am having to do some heavy duty praying. I have to believe that God is in control and has brought us to this point for His own good reason: Although at this point I cannot even begin to guess what that reason might be.

In Part I of this article I said I might have to “hold my nose” when voting for the Republican nominee come November. I also said that I would do so no matter what because the Democrat alternative is totally unacceptable. Well now it is for certain and much as I hate to say it… no, I won’t go there, yet!

Decision 2008 Part I

Art T — 2008-01-25T01:08:00Z

By Arthur R. Thompson
January 10, 2008

So it begins, the “silly season” is upon us; let the games begin! The “Hawkeye Cauci” is now history, the New Hampshire Primaries are little more than a memory. The new “Super Tuesday” (Feb 5th) is rapidly approaching.

As an Evangelical Christian Conservative my personal choice for the Republican nominee is Fred Thompson. “What?” I hear you say, “What about Huckabee?” Well the truth is Brother Huckabee is/was a great Pastor. But I am not looking for a Pastor (I have one thank you very much). I am looking for an intelligent, hardnosed Conservative leader with principles based in Christianity. Fred Thompson is the closest thing we have to that on the Republican side.

Mitt Romney, John McCain and Brother Huckabee are all Republicans but they are not Conservative. Romney and Huckabee were both Governors and while that bodes well for their executive ability they were Governors of “Liberal” Democrat States. In order to be elected and reelected they had to compromise their conservative principles (if they ever had any) in order to appeal to the Liberal masses. This goes too for Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York City. McCain is nothing more than a RINO and has been for as long as I can remember and a darling of the main-stream-media because of it; or at least he was before he decided the war in Iraq wasn’t lost after all and gee… we might even win.

I ran across this quote from David Limbaugh;

“We expect promises of change from Democratic (sic) candidates, but it's disappointing to watch certain Republican candidates yield to that superficially seductive sound bite, too. It's like the global-warming freight train, which few politicians have displayed the guts and character not to board.”

How very true this is. As I watched the last Republican debate on Sunday before the NH primary it was all too evident that “change” has become the sound-bite de jour. I wanted to scream at them;”Stop it, you sound like a bunch of Democrats.

I guess all the polling shows that the “American People” want change and I am sure that they do. The problem is I don’t think any of the candidates have a clue as to what “change” the folks want or what they are expected to change. Now we know what the Democrats have in mind and that is obviously not what the people have in mind. This past Democrat controlled Congress has the lowest rating ever for that august body. President Bush has seen his approval ratings plummet too. I haven’t seen any ratings of the Judiciary but I would guess that they too would not fare well.

So what is this “change” that the people want? What are the issues that matter most to us? Here is my Top Ten list; I wonder how it compares to yours? I want:

Militant Islamic Jihads not just beaten but crushed.
Our borders secured, not “comprehensive” immigration reform.
Less government intrusion in life, not a nanny state.
Judicial appointees that understand “original intent”, not a freeform Constitution.
The responsibility and capability for the education of our children returned to us; out of the hands of DC bureaucrats.
More oil exploration, production and gas refinement from our own resources.
Ethanol production (which is driving up the price of food) and use discontinued.
Environmentalism redefined to include stewardship and use of natural resources.
Roe v Wade repealed.
Lower Taxes and fewer regulations.

If we could ever elect a majority of politicians who would sign on to the spirit and intent of the above issues our country would “change” for the better. The reason is that the underlying foundation of all of the above requires a Christian Worldview. And that is why I support Fred Thompson [Check Out Fred's Video Here]

The Truth is I probably will have to hold my nose when I go to the polls this November. I will vote for the Republican nominee because the alternative is unconscionable and not voting is not an option. All of the Democrat pretenders are secular, left-wing, progressives that would speed this country’s descent into Godless Socialism; their avowed “faith” notwithstanding.

So I say to you my Brothers and Sisters consider well and pray long and hard before you enter that voting booth. The future of our Country depends on the outcome of this year’s elections.

Atheism As A Religion

Art T — 2007-06-28T04:02:00Z

In the beginning, just after the advent of Christianity, the followers were a ragtag bunch then known as Gnostics and have continued ever since.

Today’s adherents began expanding their flock in the late 1800’s early 1900’s under the banner of Modernism. It was at this point that Science became God, Darwin became the Atheist Messiah and The Origin of Species became their Holy Scriptures.

Its early Prophets predicted that Science would reveal everything; its old men dreamed dreams and its young men saw visions. Unfortunately the dreams and visions were not fulfilled, yet they clung to them.

When it became apparent even to them that their God had failed them they decided that the Truth was to blame. This caused a Reformation.

This then is the generations of Atheism, which begat Socialism, which begat Communism which begat Liberalism which begat Postmodernism.

Liberals are the Fundamentalist of the Church of Atheism. They have their Temples (public schools) their Priests (teachers) and catechism; diversity, multiculturalism, environmentalism and tolerance.

Their Holiest Sacrament is abortion, followed closely by homosexuality and something they call Social Justice.

So as anyone can plainly see Atheists do have their own Religion however, in keeping with their doctrine (relative truth) they deny it even unto death. Amen.

Immigration Reform; Importing A Slave Class Revisited

Art T — 2007-06-25T00:15:00Z

Well here we are a month down the road and like the old adage says, “government just won’t give up on a bad idea.”

After getting their collective heads handed to them on a platter in the defeat of S. 1348 the world’s most exclusive club has gone to the smoke filled room and come forth with S. 1639. This is a virtual clone of 1348 gussied up with the possibility of some 25 amendments that are designed to win over some fence sitters. Bottom line is, nothing has changed it is still an amnesty bill, it still rewards law breakers, and steadfastly refuses to close the border before anything else is considered.

On Tuesday, June 26, senators are scheduled to vote on a motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639, a revised version of S. 1348 supposedly containing all floor amendments already adopted. If it garners 60 votes, the motion would limit debate on the measure to a set of amendments agreed upon by the same small group of senators and Bush administration personnel who negotiated the hopelessly-flawed “grand compromise” initially.

So once again we must go to the phones, fax machines and email to tell our employees in Washington what their job is; vote NO on cloture. You can go to http://www.numbersusa.com/ for phone and fax numbers as well as good info on what to say.

Please take time out of your busy day on Monday to contact your Senators and tell to VOTE NO on cloture when S. 1639 comes to the floor.

God Bless

Importing A Slave Class

Art T — 2007-05-25T17:16:00Z

I read Ann Coulter’s Column on RedStatesUSA.com. The title is: Importing A Slave Class. It is a great read and highly recommended. Following the article are a series of comments regarding illegal immigration and what to do about it. Ideas ranged from boycotts of businesses to a withholding of payments on debts.

It gladdened my heart to see the ideas presented. They show that American initiative and ingenuity are alive and well. I see the problem from a different perspective and presented the following comments:

However, may I respectfully suggest that the initiatives are aimed at the wrong parties? The problem is not the corporations, small businesses, growers or credit card companies. The problem is illegal immigrants. How did they come to be here? Government did not do its job in securing the boarders. Who is the government? Our elected “representatives.”

And therein lays the problem. They are no longer representing “us.” Or are they? The folks in MA keep sending Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to Washington. Vermont sent Bernie Sanders to the House for years and has rewarded him further by “kicking him upstairs” to the Senate. The NE RINO’s seem to have no problem being elected and re-elected. And the Liberals from the Left Coast continue to prevail.

The illegal immigrant problem crosses Party lines but not ideological ones. Many Republicans including our President have signed on to amnesty as the solution. It is further exacerbated by the Liberal agenda, well meaning (but misguided) religious folks and the ones that in the 2006 midterms threw up their hands in surrender thinking they were sending “a message” to the politicians.

My Daddy told me that “you get out of something what you put into it.” I did not know it then but Dad was paraphrasing; “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” Hosea 8:7 (KJV). As long as we continue to put the same members of the political class in office we will continue to get more of the same. The challenge then is how do we convince our countrymen of that?

It may not even be possible to do in my life time. The Liberals have owned this country for the better part of sixty years. They own the single greatest institution that protected our Liberty from the beginning; Education. They have turned it from a house of knowledge to a house of indoctrination. With that indoctrination they have taken over our Judicial System and the majority of Congress. It will take a Herculean effort to overcome this insidiousness.

That their agenda is not complete is evidenced by people like Ann, Rush, Hannity and others who speak out in defense of Liberty. Moreover there are the multitudes that listen to and agree with them and those of us who without a national platform pontificate here and elsewhere on the net. What we don’t have is Leadership in the political arena.

I do not pretend to have all, or even any, of the answers. I do know this, as long as Conservatives allow Liberals to define the framework the further we will sink into the morass of Liberalism.

God Bless you all and may God one day again Bless the USA.

Will our increasing political divisiveness be our downfall?

Art T — 2007-05-25T00:10:00Z

A lady asked me today, “Will our increasing political divisiveness be our downfall?” What follows is my answer to her question.

There is an undeniable truth that you need to be aware of: There are American’s that hate America, all that it stands for and all that it has accomplished as a Nation.

Their view of what life should be like is diametrically opposed to the values and tenets that this country was founded upon. They believe in a Marxist utopia and refuse to see that a society structured on Marxism has completely and utterly fail every time it has been attempted.

The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began. The Socialist Party in America was born and grew dramatically between 1900 and 1912 under the charismatic leadership of Eugene V. Debs and gained further prominence with President Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive movement through the 20th century's first years. The movement took root in the Democrat Party under FDR and its decedents remain there today.

There is a hard core of elitist that believe that individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves and require the forced guidance of the intellectually superior to make life progress. They are educated and financially secure and what they really seek is power. These are the George Soros’, John Kerry’s, John Edwards’ and Ted Kennedy’s of the world.

Then there are the intellectual elite, the fellow travelers, which permeate our institutions of higher learning. They have become indoctrination centers for the Marxist Ideology. They are in turn producing secondary school teachers and by extension administrators who are carrying the indoctrination in to our High Schools, Middle Schools and Elementary Schools.

And then you have the people who out of a wanting to do good have bought into this ideology who further exhibit the problem of unintended consequences of their actions. These are the malleable ones known to the above as useful idiots.

This unholy trinity makes up more than 35% of the population of America. That is up from a high of 7-10% during the 1940’s. And the bad news is that the numbers are still growing. Add to that another 10% of the population that does not have a vested interest in the ideology who have been made into a victim class and you are looking at a cultural divide the likes of which we have not seen in this Nation since 1861.

Add to this mix the volatile nature of Postmodernism, Multiculturalism and diversity and you have a prescription for disaster.

You should be concerned, we all should be.

McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill

Art T — 2007-05-23T21:03:00Z

The Boys and Girls Club laughingly known as our elected “representatives” were on the receiving end of a major shock wave this week. It seems that the natives have become restless and are objecting to their back room (I wonder if it is still smoke filled these days) back door amnesty bill.

There is not much to say about this “piece of $hit” legislation. (That is a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehner and very succinctly describes the bill. That President Bush is pushing this does nothing to endear him to anyone but Liberal Democrats.

So, in their usual fashion, realizing that the general public’s attention span is about that of an anemic gnat they have scheduled debate which allows them to further muddy the water, adding superfluous amendments and no doubt include a sizeable amount of pork.

Congressional leaders predict they will finish the legislation in two weeks by which time they believe the shock wave will have passed, gas will be $3.75 or more a gallon and the bill will sail through under the Radar while Americans are gearing up for their summer vacations.

It seems reasonable to me that God no longer favors our nation and like the Israelis of old left us to wander in the wilderness. The difference being that the Israelis repented and were given the Promised Land. It would seem we have a ways to go in that regard.

Holy War

Art T — 2007-04-13T22:16:00Z

Our friends over at God's Politics continue to provide me with what appears to be a never ending stream of topics to comment on. Here then is my latest rant in the form of an email I'm sending to Brian McLaren regarding his latest post there.

Re: Your Thursday, April 12 blog entry. “Brian McLaren: Which Holy War?

Your blog entry and attendant article by Roland Martin disturbs me on a number of levels. Let me see if I can sort it out and place it in some rational form.

First off I am disturbed by Martins article because I see it as an attack (a little war language there) on Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians yet you want to spin it into something positive. This is not surprising because the first two paragraphs of Martins article mouths the mantra of the “Religious Left” (which is far more Left than Religious) or Emerging Church or whatever you are calling yourselves these days.

It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse the Religious Right of, to wit, focusing on two issues to the exclusion of all else; the Right on abortion and homosexuality and the Left on Justice and Poverty. However, you do throw in Environmentalism, but only because it has become the bastion of far left liberalism from whence you spring.

The next thing that struck me was the quote you pulled from Martin:

“I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, "Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.”

The subtle equating of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals to “lions” while portraying Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al to “lambs” would be laughable was it no so pathetically erroneous. Need I remind you of Sharpton’s participation in the Tawana Brawley fiasco and Jackson’s infamous wealth building by shaking down corporations? But we need not go back that far in history. It seems both were highly involved in slandering the names of the Duke Lacrosse players a year ago and are unrepentant even now that the playres have been proven innocent. And for really cutting edge stuff how can their statements in the case of Don Imus be considered Christian? No, these folks are not my idea of moral leaders.

You quote Martin again. Speaking of the deep polarization between the Christian "left" and "right," he observes:

“Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war - the silent war - is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.”

From my perspective it is the same war with two fronts. I see you and your ilk as a threat, not to me, but a threat to Christianity just as much as Islam is.

It would appear from your comments and current reading list that you are taking up arms with the Muslims against those you call “brothers and sisters” yet denigrate daily. Just as the Muslim claims of a “religion of peace”, so to do your professions of justice and poverty ring hollow.

Your words:
“As I read Roland Martin's editorial, I couldn't help but feel the resonances between his call for conflicted Christians to find a way beyond their impasse and the parallel struggle among our Muslim friends and neighbors in seeking a way forward for their conflicted faith. For all of their differences, members of the two religions have at least this in common: both faiths are in "crucial periods," experiencing an "internal battle" or "silent war" among opposing factions, a struggle to retain what is true and good and generous, to reject what is inconsistent with each faith's highest ideals and dreams, and to do so in ways that won't blow us all to smithereens.”

The above shows me that you are not one that upholds the Christian worldview, rather the postmodern one. Muslim’s are not our friends. They are an enemy just as you and your emergent, social, progressive, justice, liberal Social Gospel movement is an enemy of Christianity. The two religions have nothing in common. Why? Because Christianity is truth and Islam is a lie. And don’t talk to me about respecting another’s religion; you can not respect that which is not true.

Jesus did not come to pull the economically poor out of poverty; he emphatically stated there would be poor always. He came for the spiritually impoverished. He did not throw the money changers out of the temple because he was against conducting business but because they were doing business in an inappropriate place. He did not say only the rich were to be charitable (or forced to be), he commended the poor woman for her contribution.

Yes he taught us:
37[Jesus] said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt 22:37-40 (KJV)

But He earlier said:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matt 5:17 (KJV)

Not to the exclusion of the Ten Commandments, in fact He emphasized them with the above.

While it is true that Jesus did not comment on homosexuality it does not mean that he condoned it. Did he condone alcoholism by turning water into wine? What then, must we tear out whole parts of the Bible because Christ didn’t comment on a specific abomination? Jesus may have been the lamb during His time on earth. However, we see a much different Christ in the Book of Revelation and it is not for their works or lack of them that He pours out His wrath on the ungodly.

The Religious Left is, in my opinion, as great a threat to Christianity as is Islam. If either or you prevail, Christianity as it has been known for 2000 years will cease to exist. If that happens, then “behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.” Rev 6:8 (KJV)