Q & A: About that Illinois governor...

Q: Wow! What’s going on in Illinois with that crraaazzzy governor?
A: It sure is crrraaazzzy, but did you notice none of these accusations about Gov. Rod Blagojevich (or Blago for short)--Barak Obama’s political buddy--came out DURING the election? The man’s been under investigation for YEARS! By the way, here’s hoping the state attorney general’s motion in court to declare Blago “unfit to serve” falls through. I’m no fan of Blago, believe me, but this motion smacks of the Soviet-era argument that was used to commit Russian dissidents to asylums: if you disagree with Communism, they would argue, you MUST be insane! I’m afraid a VERY bad precedent could be set here if the motion, however well-intended, was granted (the law in question was originally intended to be used if the governor was medically unfit, for example, if he or she was in a coma). In the immortal words of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, “I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.” It's best to let the impeachment process run its course.
Q: But Obama talked with Blago about filling the Senate seat, didn’t he?
A: Well, if the conversation amounted to Blago running some names by Obama, with Obama commenting on the possible choices, then it’s no big deal--and more than likely, that’s what happened. The president-elect and his team should simply SAY that--emphatically adding that ultimately, the governor has the final say in such matters--instead of denying there was any contact between the two, when there are published reports and pictures to the contrary. David Axelrod is supposed to be some political genius, but I think he needs a refresher course in PR, to be honest.

My question for "Open for Questions" (how long will it survive?)

In my previous blog, I wrote about how a page on the Office of the President-Elect’s website, “Open for Questions,” is apparently closed to those questioning Obama’s contact with indicted Illinois Governor Rod “Senate Fire Sale” Blagojevich. So in the spirit of free inquiry (a phrase leftists LOVE to employ against views they dispute, while showing themselves squeamish about applying to their own views), here is a question I posted on the “Open for Questions” page (had to keep it short, by the way, due to the character count):

Regarding President-Elect Obama and Governor you-know-who: is it “inappropriate” to link this page to www.matthew16-3.blogspot.com? My readers need a comedy break (until your information priests dump this). PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Okay, the clock’s ticking! Let’s see how long the “Open Government, Open for Questions” crowd will take to kick THIS question into e-File 13.

Obama website "Open for Questions"--almost

And now for a comedy break ... go to this link here, which takes you to the "Office of the President-Elect" website page called Open for Questions, where the public, according to the site, can ask Obama questions about policies or issues. Well, ALMOST all issues. Look at all the typical liberal hot-button questions actually listed. Now, see if you can find any questions about Obama's links to arrested Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (I just call him Governor Blag). Type in the governor's name in the search box, and watch all the questions that the site REFUSES to post.

These questions are knocked off the main list because, as each entry states on the bottom, it was determined they were "inappropriate." Looks like the informational priests at the Cult of Obama are doing overtime, ensuring that no blasphemous questions ever reach the eyes or ears of the Great Exalted One, or his congregation of true believers.

After the election dust settles, it's question and answer time

Well, now that the election dust has settled a bit, it’s question and answer time with your host.

Q: Well, what do you think of the Obama administration so far?
A: Actually, there isn’t REALLY an Obama administration yet, not until he actually takes the oath of office. But I have to admit, creating an “Office of the President-Elect” is pretty inventive, although it really doesn’t have any power whatsoever, other than for public relation purposes.

Q: And there WON’T be an Obama administration, because Obama is not really a citizen! He was really born in Kenya, right? There’s lawsuits over it, and …
A: Actually, all indications are that Obama has just as much right to be president as McCain, Palin, Biden or anyone else who ran. He was born in Hawaii, and state officials there vouch for his birth certificate being authentic. For the facts that clear the air on this, see Ronald Kessler’s article here at NewsMax (not exactly a DNC outlet); check out the shady side of one of the main proponents of the “Obama is not a citizen” arguments (e.g., a Philadelphia lawyer who claims that Obama’s grandmother said “on tape” that she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya would not produce the recording for Kessler).

Q: What about Obama’s picks for his cabinet?
A: Well, I really expected Jimmy Carter II, but not Bill Clinton II, which is what we’re getting. Still, it’s hilarious watching far leftists twisting in the wind on these picks (including bringing on anti-change Hillary as Secretary of State, and even keeping George W. Bush’s defense secretary on board; the HORROR!). But forget about showing Obama worshipers the inconsistencies. As Rush Limbaugh correctly notes, it’s not WHAT Obama says, it’s HOW he says it. He could recite “Mary Had a Little Lamb” in his inauguration speech, and the Obama true believers and media lapdogs would be falling all over themselves in wonder and praise.

Q: What about the great GOP comeback? Three victories in Georgia and Louisiana since the election!
A: Well, those victories benefited from not having Obama on the top of the ticket, drawing more Democrat voters to the polls. Still, with Saxby Chambliss’ win in Georgia, the Democrats won’t get to a filibuster-proof majority, although there’s enough GOP liberals to hand it to them anyway Of course, Minnesota looks to barely stay in the GOP column with a narrow Norm Coleman win, barring a certain lawsuit from sore loser Al Franken. Plus, while Joe Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, he can be counted on to side with Republicans on issues regarding homeland security, terrorism and supporting Israel. Then there is the debacle with Governor Blag in Obama’s home state, trying to sell the soon-to-be vacated Senate seat. The battle in the state legislature to remove Blag, and the Senate’s balking at seating any Blag appointments, leaves the Donkey Party another senator short of forcing through Obama’s agenda, at least temporarily. So while the GOP victories are encouraging, it’s still a long way from regaining the country.
I’ll have some more question and answer in a little bit. Stay tuned.

Obama's new spiritual advisor

OneNewsNow is reporting at the link here that President-elect Obama, during the presidential campaign, sought out counsel from … none other than Gene Robinson, the homosexual Episcopalian bishop whose election to his post set off a major split in the Episcopal Church and a firestorm of controversy in the worldwide Anglican fellowship.

Let’s get a clearer picture here … with homosexual activists disrupting church services around the country (due to Proposition 8 passing in California, and being emboldened by a pro-gay president ready to take over the White House), we now find out that Obama gets counsel from a homosexual bishop. To any “evangelical Christians” who backed Obama who might be reading this: getting a queasy feeling in your stomach yet?

Any other DISCERNING Christians reading this: brush up on the Declaration of Barmen (linked a couple of posts back), George Orwell (especially 1984) and the works of Dietrich Bonheoffer (especially Life Together and The Cost of Discipleship). Familiarize yourselves with Canada’s “hate speech” laws (which are coming our way) and most important, make sure you memorize your Bible (They would take Bibles away from us? Let’s just say I’m not taking chances--especially with homosexuals suing Bible publishers about the “anti-gay” translations, which I posted about earlier). Why do all this, you ask? We may be heading underground faster than you think.

(By the way, the homosexual activists will be VERY selective about who they target. If they tried to attack a mosque the same way they attacked that church in Michigan, they would have been carried out in body bags).

Watch out for the New Tolerance

It's here! The New Tolerance! Break out the George Orwell and take a look at what our society is heading towards with the election of Obama and a near fillibuster-proof Senate. When people sense they have power, they act on it--and a militant gay group in Michigan, with a pro-homosexual president ready to take office, did just that, attacking an Assembly of God church. You can read the story in the Lansing State Journal here.

This attack does not make sense in any other context. The protest against Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, for example, was in response to California voters standing up to the rogue state supreme court and voting for Proposition 8, which Pastor Warren publicly supported. By the way, they protested Saddleback Church in spite of Pastor Warren's crusade against AIDS. They also protested at a predominantly white church--while 70 percent of African Americans voters also voted for Proposition 8 (even as they overwhelmingly supported Obama). Political correctness will hamstring the gay protesters from THOSE churches, as Bill O'Reilly points out.

The Michigan attack, in contrast, is a harbringer or things to come for evangelical churches who speak out against homosexuality--even those churches with Christians who were ignorant enough to vote for our great new leader.

McCain staffers backstab Palin

They smile in your face
All the time, they want to take your place
The Back Stabbers ...
from Back Stabbers by The O'Jays (1972)

On the recent backstabbing of Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staffers:

1) Well, now we know where “conservatives” Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker got the inspiration for their ill-conceived columns trashing Palin during the campaign. Your point of light shines a little less bright today, Peggy.

2)To any GOP candidate planning to run in 2012: since the sniveling weasels who trashed Palin won’t come out in the open--and those staffers who didn’t attack Palin refuse to stand up for her--there is only one solution. Get a complete list of all those who participated in the McCain campaign and, to lift part of a quote from Hunter S. Thompson, blacklist them all! Don’t let them come within two miles of your campaign, if you want loyal staffers.

3) I’m particularly alarmed that McCain himself has not stepped up to defend his running mate. It leaves me wondering, with McCain showing such a sudden lack of backbone, whether we’re better off he didn’t get to the White House after all; he seems afraid to confront these disloyal staffers. Since I’m quoting from 60s radicals this morning (what's coming over me?!?), let’s try mangling a quote from another one, Malcolm X: I’d rather deal with a leftist than with a moderate Republican; at least you know where the leftist is coming from.

4) Palin, for her part, is refusing to fire back, simply stating that the idiotic accusations against her were false (any sensible person can see through the slander as shallow attempts to try and latch onto the next GOP campaign, hence my suggestion under #2 above). It’s all too apparent now who should have been heading the ticket. Palin? You betcha!

ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberties Union)

Why am I not surprised? The voters of California clearly vote to approve Proposition 8, which defines marriage in their state constitution as being only between one man and one woman (one of several bright spots in an otherwise disappointing election; three other states also passed similar pro-family propositions). And lo, the ACLU comes charging to the rescue, immediately filing a lawsuit and scraping the bottom of the barrel for a technicality to overthrow the will of the voters.

Contrast that with their deafening silence about Joe the Plumber who, simply for expressing his political views to then-candidate Barak Obama (which drew out Obama's quote about "spreading the wealth"), had half a dozen Ohio state agencies investigating him, with indications that the record searches were not curiosity by some nosy employees (as bad and illegal as that is), but resulted from orders that came from higher up.

Where are those champions of dissent and personal freedom NOW? I'm sure their selective standing up for only certain "rights" that advance their socialist agenda would have made their founder Roger Baldwin as proud as the NBC peacock.

Letter from 2012

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family recently published "Letter from 2012," in which a Christian living in that year writes about the changes to America under President Obama. You can be sure that with Matthew 25 Network raising cane about it (complete with an e-mail campaign against Dr. Dobson and his ministry), this letter MUST be hitting a nerve of truth--as an evangelist once told me, when you throw a shoe into a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who gets hit! (and there's plenty of puppies howling in that M25N pack)

You can read Dobson's chilling letter here; pay close attention to the parts about the U.S. Supreme Court. And keep praying for our nation at this critical juncture of history.

New hope

Something to cheer you up today, from Glenn Beck's website.

Post-election thoughts

*There's an interesting article on President Bush and his mistreatment by Americans, written by a man who served on John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. The article in the Wall Street Journal is here. I've said in the past that Bush will probably be another Harry Truman, who had super-low approval ratings, but is now considered one of the greatest presidents in our history. This sharp article, in part, bears this out.

*One silver lining in last night's presidential vote: race was NOT a factor. People simply voted for the candidate they liked, period. That's the way it should be.

*The Bible calls for Christians to continually pray for their leaders. We should pray for President-elect Obama the same as we pray for Bush, Clinton, and any other president: for godly wisdom, guidance, and protection.

Final election questions for Matthew 25 Network

Well, I fulfilled my patriotic duty today and voted.. At first, voting for president in the Obama State may seem very pointless. But who knows…if the vote is closer than expected here, it may inspire McCain voters in the battleground states to get out there to vote (in the words of the old Everly Brothers song, “dreeeaaam, dream dream dream …”)

So before this election cycle runs its course, I have some questions about Mr. Change for my dear friends at the Matthew 25 Network:

1) Your candidate made a big deal about being his “brother’s keeper,” which bowled you over. Maybe you can discuss with him another Bible precept about charity beginning at home, especially since he has an aunt living in a Boston slum and a half-brother living in a rundown hut in Kenya?

2) Also, you herald Obama as a candidate who will work to lower abortions. Should he win the election, will you be able to get any sleep after he signs the Freedom of Choice Act wiping away all restrictions on abortion--which he promised, in a speech to pro-abortionists, would be his first act as president? You harp so much about justice; what about justice for the unborn? (or will you dodge into the “quality of life” charade of an argument to excuse Obama’s extreme pro-abortion views?)

3) Where will you all be should he come to power, and his administration starts persecuting churches for refusing to marry gay couples?

While you’re at it, M25N, take some time off from your campaigning to read this online copy of the Declaration of Barmen here, written in 1934 by Germany’s Confessing Church (the one that refused to submit to the Nazis; the declaration is considered a creed in the Presbyterian Church). Maybe after reading it, you can search your hearts to see if you have not been swept up into submitting to “other lords,” instead of the Lord Jesus, in your blind support of Obama (the evangelical Christians supporting Obama--by Barna’s count about one-half of them--had better read this also). Your lack of discernment and ignorance in action has been nothing short of stunning.

Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind, the scripture says. After you celebrate tonight (should Obama win) remember these words in the coming days, M25N. And sleep tight (if you have any conscience left).

The coming police state?

To see the kind of police state we can be looking forward to under an Obama administration, follow the link here to a Columbus Dispatch story, about Ohio state agencies being used to investigate Joe the Plumber shortly after the final Obama-McCain debate (state agencies, by the way, that had no legal reason to investigate Joe). And please note the silence from all those "civil libertarians" (such as the ACLU) who whined about the Patriot Act's "opression" of citizen's rights.

More on Obama's true religious beliefs

Alexander LaBrecque at American Thinker has added two more articles on Obama's true religious beliefs. The link here will take you to a page that has the links to all three of his articles on this all-important topic.

In a recent interview about his mindless diatribe of a movie, Religulous, Bill Maher was asked about his support for Obama--especially since Obama has proclaimed his "Christian" faith, and Maher believes those "deluded" by religious belief should not hold public office. "I can only hope he's lying," was Maher's answer. Well, Bill, you may be closer to getting your wish than you realize (oops, or would that be a little too "delusional" for you?).

The Obama Administration--A Look Ahead (Part 3)

Steve Baldwin, Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, wrote a vivid, and chilling, picture in the To The Point newsletter of what America will look like under President Obama, and some more facts his media lapdogs keep shoving under the carpet (to be sure, the media will start "exposing" a few of these fun facts AFTER the election, like Obama belonging to a Socialist party, to prop up their tattered image of being "objective" and "unbiased"). Please read the entire article linked here, especially the parts about Obama's idea of "justice" (particularly in regard to the church)--and pray, pray, pray.

The Obama Administration--A Look Ahead (Part 2)

Flustered
Before I go on with how an Obama administration would deal with domestic issues, we need to REALLY look at another facet of the Carter administration that we’ll more than likely see should Obama make it to the White House--the issue of being flustered under duress, especially by surprise events.

We’ve seen a glimpse of this with the latest election news regarding “Joe the Plumber” who, by simply asking Obama a straight question about his proposed taxes, got a Freudian-slip explanation about Obama’s wanting to spread the wealth around (by the way, for the rabid media out to destroy Joe: Obama came onto Joe’s turf, not the other way around; Joe is not a ‘licensed plumber,” because the company he works for IS licensed, therefore, he doesn’t need one; and Biden, in his high-priced exclusive “neighborhood,” is the LAST person who will find a plumber making $250,000 living near him--more than likely, he or she would have to earn at least a cool million to reside near “Mr. Working Class Roots from Scranton”).

What’s even more telling is Obama and Co.’s attacks on Joe, when the plumber started getting more media attention that focused on The Great One’s plan to raise taxes. Obama attacking a common man? As Tom Bevin of RealClearPolitics noted, it put McCain in a great position to defend the self-same common man while America watched. A note to Senator Obama from one of your Illinois constituents: keep up the good work!

(A side note on the media’s response to their own coverage of Joe: was it just me, or did poor Charlie Gibson on ABC News look like he was whining and WISHING Joe’s “15 minutes of fame” would be over and done? Too bad he didn’t have the same attitude about Cindy Sheehan a few years back).

But this attack exposes an attitude that we really don’t need in the White House--a flappable one that says and does stupid things when surprised. I saw a bit of this when Obama gave a speech last month, and a group of protesters, “Blacks Against Obama,” interrupted him. Obama looked taken back by the protesters, then--after they quieted down at his request--took a parting shot at them by mockingly saying “goodbye” when they were escorted from the rally. Compare this to McCain (not known for always having an even temper), when the Code Pink idiots disrupted him at the Republican convention: he made a funny joke about ignoring the “ground noise and static,” then said people needed to stop shouting at each other, before proceeding with his speech and not addressing the Pinkies again.

Obama, to me, seems a little, well, thin-skinned. He was all aghast when President Bush, speaking before Israel’s lawmakers about the folly of appeasing terrorists and rogue states, reminded them of a U.S. senator who said he was sure he could have talked Hitler out of invading Poland if given the chance. You can almost see Obama whining: “How DARE President Bush say that about ME!” Never mind that there WAS a senator in 1939 who actually made that statement (who was a Republican to boot). Then there is the Obama campaign’s attempted police action to prosecute those in Missouri who might criticize him.

We got to see a good deal of this with President Carter. When Mexico’s president criticized Carter during a dinner speech, Carter’s response was to childishly make a joke about “Montezuma’s revenge.” His infamous 1979 “malaise speech” (which you can probably catch on YouTube) was one gigantic flustering diatribe about how America didn’t have “confidence” (that is, confidence in HIM. By the way, this speech STILL grates me, since I have to listen to parts of it when watching my favorite sports movie, Miracle. But then, I guess that‘s why they invented fast-forward).

American athletes wanting to ignore Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet’s invading Afghanistan? I’ll have them arrested, he blusters. Ted Kennedy running against him for president? I’ll kick his hind quarters, he bellows (actually, Carter used the other word for that part of the anatomy). Carter’s flappable nature was stoked even more during the Iranian hostage crisis; I still remember his huffing through an announcement about cutting off all humanitarian aid to Iran. Even a Communist dolt who screamed at him during a speech (like I said, Leftists will be among the first to turn on you, Mr. Obama) was able to rattle him. No wonder Ronald Reagan clobbered him in their presidential debate!

So Obama’s response to Joe the Plumber’s honest question about his tax policy could well be but one key indicator of how the junior senator from Illinois would handle himself in the White House. Get ready for infantile outbursts, pining about hurt feelings and more “malaise speeches” about how America needs to trust their new political messiah. And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Next: Justice! …for who?

Obama's true religious beliefs

A note to the Matthew 25 Network and its faithful followers such as "James" (who complained on this blog site that Sarah Palin's "mean" speech against Obama at the Republican convention hurt Christians' ability to witness to unbelievers): you may want to check this article link--then examine whether you are being duped by Obama in order to get power. That is, if you have the courage to find out the truth.

The Obama Administration: What to Look For (Part 1)

It’s still three weeks away from Nov. 4, and yes, anything can happen, but right now--barring some kind of a super-major international incident--voters will more than likely put Barak Obama into the White House. McCain started getting traction early in September, until the economic freefall on Wall Street sideswiped his campaign. McCain would have been politically wiser to opposed the $700 billion bailout plan when it was first offered, and highlight the Democrat’s major role in keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from being put under sensible regulations that he called for in the Senate. For all intents and purposes, it’s water under the bridge now. For the best handle on how the race will wind up, you may want to check the Evans-Novak Political Report, which is usually very reliable in its election predictions--and for McCain-Palin supporters, it doesn’t look good.

So it may be wiser for me at this point to give a good preview of what we may be looking for in an Obama administration. We do have a precedent in recent history: a Democratic candidate who is a neophyte so far as national politics is concerned; who claims a fervent Christian belief in the face of some non-Christian stands; and who rides to power while the Republican candidate struggles with the albatross of an unpopular president around his neck. The year was 1976, and the new president was former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter.

International scene
Jimmy Carter became most famous for his Human Rights Campaign, which Carter seemed to apply only to faithful allies, while ignoring more serious human rights abuses in bigger states like the Soviet Union and China. This planted the seeds for the overthrow of the Shah of Iran--by no means the most humanitarian leader, but nonetheless a faithful ally to the U.S. in the volatile Middle East--and the takeover by the Ayatollah Khomeini (an even more evil dictator), whom Carter’s UN ambassador, Andrew Young, likened to a saint, even in the months immediately preceding the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by student radicals (one of which was likely the current nutty president of Iran, who Obama wants to meet with “without precondition”). Carter’s inconsistency in his foreign policy helped stoke this crisis; after helping to undermine the Shah, he decided to allow the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment (to show he was “tough“ after all), which enraged the Ayatollah and his Iranian followers, leading to the embassy takeover. Had Carter been consistent, he would have sent the Shah to Mexico City instead for the treatment.

The worst part was, of course, Carter’s decision to negotiate for the hostage’s release, instead of taking military action (aside from a poorly-planned rescue attempt) which more than likely would have nipped the Islamic Revolution in the bud. We’re now still paying for Carter’s weak leadership, as this revolution has spread and inspired the formation of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

And we can plan to pay for Obama’s weak leadership in foreign policy as well. More than likely, he’ll bring back veterans from previous Democratic administrations for more inept foreign policy decisions. And no doubt, terrorists and dictators will “test” Obama and find he will do nothing to really stop them. And should there be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil (there has been zero such attacks since Sept. 11, 2001 thanks to President Bush), we can look for an imitation of the Clinton administration’s “law enforcement” approach that Obama bragged about (he claimed this approach led to the arrest and conviction of those involved in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993--maybe he forgot to notice the fact that the towers no longer exist).

Yes, it will be an interesting first two years on the world scene: the Islamic nations will no doubt be cheering Obama’s victory, while bully states including Russia start gobbling up more territory, knowing the Great Leader will do nothing to stop them. Look for China to take even more aggressive action against Taiwan. Obama will, of course, take action--largely “symbolic” actions--such as Carter’s boycotting of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Voltaire once said that there is nothing more frightening to witness than ignorance in action, and we’ll be seeing those words come to life on the world scene with the junior senator from Illinois in the Oval Office “leading” America (and I’ll be sure to remind those who harped about VP candidate Sarah Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience--while ignoring Obama’s inexperience--to eat their words).

Next: The Domestic Agenda

Incredible election links

Some important info, via some good links, to give you a better picture of The Great Obama:

1) From The City Journal: Ayers tried to kill my family
Here you can read a fascinating story about Obama’s “someone in the neighborhood” Weatherman terrorist buddy Bill Ayers (a “someone in the neighborhood” who, by the way, Obama admitted to talking to on the phone in 2005, according to an Oct. 2 article in The New York Times).

Here’s the first paragraph: “During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up ‘a gentleman named William Ayers,‘ who ‘was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.’ Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: ‘The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.’ Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.”

2) From WorldNetDaily: Obama slanders woman born alive after abortion

With Obama launching a so-called “ProLife ProObama” campaign on the website of my “favorite” group, Matthew 25 Network, you might be interested in his campaign’s slandering of a woman who survived being aborted, who is challenging Obama on his blocking Illinois’ Infant Born Alive Act while a state senator. Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen’s challenge to Mr. “Abortion Reduction” is powerful, and Obama’s response scandalous, and it makes you wonder if the “enlightened” Matthew 25 Network has anyone there with a conscience left (by the way, Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act which would wipe away all remaining state restrictions on abortion). Are the unborn among those “poor” that the network claims to want to protect? Both Jessen’s powerful ad, and Obama’s knee-jerk pro-abortion response, can be seen at the above link.

No separation of mosque and state?

Muslim mosques holding voter registration drives in clear support of Barak Obama in swing states ... Okay, why am I not surprised?

An item from OneNewsNow has the story:

"The group, Muslim Americans for Obama [MAFO], insists that all of its voter registration activity is non-partisan, despite the fact that its mission statement says it was launched in August 2008 'to provide a vehicle for Muslim-American supporters of Barack Obama to organize and mobilize our fellow citizens to get out the vote to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.'"

Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch has the rest of the story. Spencer adds that he doesn't look for the IRS or anyone else with the PC police to jump on this violation of church-state separation (Hear that, ACLU? Got that, Americans United for Separation of Church and State? ... oh, that's right, you want separation of CHURCH and state. I guess mosques don't count.) If I tried a "Christians for McCain-Palin" drive at my church, on the other hand, you can pretty much guess how the media and powers-that-be would react (and I would probably be typing this in shackles).

But hey, it's nice to see Matthew 25 Network has a new ally (along with abortionists, 60s terrorist bombers, and so forth).

Fibbin' Biden

Another chilling indication of what this nation will be dealing with should the Great Obama and his sidekick Joe Biden win this November, from Jack Kelly’s article in the latest To The Point newsletter:

"‘All you have to do is go down Union street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years,’ said Sen. Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate to bolster his assertion he's in touch with the concerns of the middle class.

“That answer suggested otherwise.

"‘It came as a surprise to us in Delaware that Joe Biden recently had a meal and talked with patrons at Katie's Restaurant on Union Street in Wilmington,‘ said an email to National Review Online. ‘Katie's Restaurant closed years ago. It was on Scott Street in Little Italy.’

“The people who fill up at his neighborhood gas station can't pay for a full tank of gas, Sen. Biden said. Sen. Biden lives in a 7,000 square foot estate on a four acre lakefront lot in Greenville, which is described as ‘northern Delaware's priciest area.’

“Sen. Biden says things which are not true with passionate conviction. That's a polite description of a pathological liar.”

Of course, you won’t see THIS investigated in the MSM (surprise surprise). Just something that should keep you awake at night. Perhaps we need to adopt the slogan of Obama’s religious camouflage group, the Matthew 25 Network: Senator Biden, put away falsehood!

Palin-Biden debate: and the verdict is ...

Same verdict as the one on Palin's speech at the Republican convention. Democratic man gets beat up by a girl.

On the VP debate tonight

I'm sure most of civilization will be tuned into the VP debate tonight, especially with MSM continuing to blare out, "Will Sarah Palin fail? How will Sarah botch it?" and so on ...

With the moderator of this shindig writing a pro-Obama book ready for release on Inauguration Day, I'm sure we'll get plenty of "balanced" questions. Maybe during the debate, Palin can ask Joe Biden about his statement to Katie Couric, regarding how President Franklin Roosevelt went on TV in 1929 to address the great stock market crash (for those who need a history brush up, FDR wasn't in office until 1933, and TV didn't exist).

So enjoy the debate (as much as you can).

Oh, and a note to "James" who posted on my last blog entry about "Tim Oliphant": I assume you meant PAT Oliphant the cartoonist; Tim Oliphant is a journalist. Still waiting to hear all those specific "falsehoods" that Sarah's been spreading about Obama in such an ungodly manner (and maybe you can look into Obama's falsehoods about his missing all those lovely sermons by Pastor Jeremiah Wright while a faithful member of his church for 20 years, and his amnesia about his friendship and "community organizing" work with Weathermen Underground terrorist Bill Ayers).

On Oliphant's Palin attack: Where are you, Matthew 25 Network?

The recent beneath-disgusting attack by left-wing cartoonist Oliphant on Sarah Palin, the Pentecostal faith and even God--all in one cartoon--is more than just the latest in non-taste by leftists in attacking Palin. It also, once against, exposes the Matthew 25 Network for the blatant fraud that they are.

Matthew 25 Network was all aghast that when Palin made pointed jabs at Obama's paper-thin record during her Republican convention speech, urging her to "put away falsehood" and chiding her for not acting Christian.

Now, this network claims to represent Pentecostals who support Obama. Have these pro-Obama Pentecostals SEEN Oliphant's Sept. 9 cartoon? How about a campaign to "put away malice," Matthew 25 Network? Where are you when a Christian sister, the Pentecostal tradition you claim to honor, and the Creator of the Universe are all viciously attacked?

Just a tip: you may have a bit more credibility if you DID denounce this vicious assault on common decency and religious faith by Oliphant. In the meantime, while you are all "praying" with Obama's staff each morning, try using what's left of your worm-eaten consciences to reflect on your shallow, abysmal lack of moral backbone and true faith.

Obama thug tactics in Show-Me State

I usually don't run PR releases verbatim, but this statement by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt is right on target--especially in identifying the type of thuggery we could look forward to under an Obama administration:

"JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“'St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

"'What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

"'This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“'Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.'”

The deafening silence on this issue, by the way, is from the great civil libertarians (self) appointed to guard our First Amendment Rights. ACLU, where are you?

Quote of the Week

"The most hypocritical of the legion of double standards employed by the news media in this campaign is that a paucity of experience in foreign policy is considered disqualifying in the Republican candidate for vice president, but inconsequential in the Democratic candidate for president"--Jack Kelly, from Dr. Jack Wheeler's To The Point newsletter.

JFK and the leftist media’s greatest fear

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people--President John F. Kennedy

This has been one of my favorite quotes from JFK, and I believe it speaks loudly, now more than ever, of the dirty little secret about the mainstream media (MSM) and its allies among leftist blog outlets such as the Daily Kurs …I mean Kos.

The left wing is afraid of the people, the very people it claims to care so much about.

I could go on and on about this, why Joe Biden’s daily verbal missteps are covered over by a blanket of ignorance by the MSM, while similar gaffes would have been worldwide headlines had they been uttered by President Bush or Dan Quayle … why Don Imus was hounded out of the broadcasting business for an insensitive and ugly racist comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (for which he profusely apologized), while a far more alarming verbal assault against Sarah Palin by alleged comedian Sandra Bernhard--a sickening comment offensive to women and African Americans (that I won’t repeat here; go to the Drudge Report or Google to search for it, if you have the stomach for it)--goes all but unnoticed by the MSM (since it was against a Republican woman) …I almost feel like a broken record on this.

Here’s a little experiment: Since you may be heading to the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) anyway, check out all the links Matt Drudge puts on the page--to all the major news outlets, and a variety of news outlets across the spectrum, left, middle and right. Now go to the leftist ripoff of Drudge’s website called the “Drudge Retort” (www.drudge.com) and check out its links--every one of them is MSM or leftist; with no conservative sites ANYWHERE on the site.

You see, they CAN’T put any opposing viewpoints on this leftist website, because they’re AFRAID of them, and even more fearful that their readers might see them. No such fear is evident on Drudge’s web site.

Do those on the left really believe people are stupid, and have to be told the truth like little children? Are they so uncertain about their own beliefs, that they have to attack first and get the facts later (if they bother to get them right at all)? Are they of the belief that American citizens are incapable of thinking for themselves, if given various viewpoints? Given the duplicitous coverage by the media of the election, and hysterical ranting of leftists supporters (especially those openly calling for the destruction of Palin), I can only conclude that the left is permeated with fear of the very people they claim to champion. Ironic, isn’t it, that it was one of the greatest Democratic presidents that denounced this debilitating fear, which has gripped the very party he led.

2 good signs

Two REALLY good signs for the election:

From Siena College's recent New York poll: “With 50 Days Left, New York Is Far From True Blue. Obama’s Lead Falls to 5 Points; Down From 18 Points in June.”

Second headline: Lindsay Lohan lashes out against Sarah Palin--which can only swing more votes to McCain-Palin (among voters with any intelligence). Keep it up, Lindsay…let that ignorance flow!

Now for a cautionary note: While the Obama camp is frazzled by his apparent meltdown, it’s still only September. Events could transpire to swing the election either way. Still, it appears by the NY poll that even in safe blue states, Palin’s addition to McCain’s ticket is forcing them to re-examine the Great One’s paper-thin record. Further, what little of his message he was getting out is being muddled--partially by side issues like lipstick (his own doing; poor, poor judgment to use that wording after Palin‘s famous reference in her speech, regardless of whether he aimed it at her), but also by his own confused public stands. Four days after he claims on Sept. 4 he would not attack Palin …he does just that in a TV ad! It looks like voters are starting to take a hard look at the media hero…and they’re not liking what they see!

McCartney to play in Israel, tells threatening jihadists to “get back”

Jihadists have never been the sharpest tools in the shed in my book--they’re the same idiots who, as Mark Steyn noted, will claim in the same breath that, A) Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, and B) 9-11 was a great victory for Allah. Don’t try pointing out that illogic to a jihadist, since logic isn’t, er, one of their strong points anyway.

But the latest jihadist threats are a real gem--Islamic extremists are now threatening…one of the Beatles?!?

Paul McCartney has scheduled to play a concert in Israel, as part of that nation’s 60th anniversary celebrations, which has drawn suicide bomber threats from jihadists if he doesn’t change his mind. But Sir Paul is adamant about playing in Israel despite the threats, showing a lot of guts in the process by deciding to “let it be” (sorry, I couldn’t resist). He’s also braver than the Great Obama, who backtracked on his “united Jerusalem” pronouncement which he made in front of a pro-Israel group--the day after he made the statement.

Also, some of these jihad sympathizers are grumbling on their blogs that if McCartney goes ahead with the concert, they’ll NEVER play one of Paul’s records again (funny, didn’t some fans say that when the Beatles broke up in 1970? But I digress…) I’ll bet All You Need is Love isn’t on that jihadist play list.

Ironically, the Beatles were banned from playing in Israel in 1965, due to the government at that time being fearful of the band’s possible “corrupting influence” (not to mention, Israel’s music scene was, at that point, drenched in French pop culture--as in, “Elvis who?”).

Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch (jihadwatch.org) has the full report on this, humorously interspersed with some Beatles and McCartney song lyrics. McCartney, by the way, hosted the Concert for New York to benefit 9-11 victims, a month after the terror attacks. While I’m not a fan of some of his politics (he’s a big friend of the Clintons), he still gets a thumb’s up for standing up for Israel. Or in the language of the Fab Four, yeah, yeah, yeah!

In remembrance

This is a photo I carry around in my Bible.

I took it in May 1996, when I took my then-fiancée Melissa on a tour of New York City (this was the first time she got to meet my family, whom we stayed with on Long Island). We were on the Staten Island ferry so we could get a look at the Statue of Liberty, when Missy told me to take this shot of Manhattan Island--in part because of the Twin Towers. We visited World Trade Center in 1999, while visiting my sister Susan in the city (she worked across the street from the WTC).

We could never have imagined that on a fall day only several years later, these giant structures would be totally destroyed, with 3,000 lives snuffed out in a satanic-inspired attack on our nation.

I look at this picture not just on this day, but at times throughout the year. It reminds me that the great freedoms we have in this country, including the right to worship God and express our beliefs freely, must constantly be defended--"freedom isn't free," and we must always show the deepest appreciation to those who gave their lives on Sept. 11, 2001, including the brave fire fighters, police, and emergency personnel; those citizens who gave their lives to rescue fellow citizens in the Twin Towers; military men and women at the Pentagon; and the brave passengers who stood up to the cowardly terrorists on United 93 (and I stress cowardly; Osama bin Laden, who orders others to die for Islam, hides in a cave trying to save his own life). And we must always be thankful for those military men and women who continue to guard our freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We must be thankful to God for the fact that our nation has not been attacked since 9-11--and also give credit where credit is due for this, to President Bush and his administration. This event cannot slip away from our conscience; it should instead continually spur us to greater prayer for our nation, especially for our leaders as commanded by the Bible, and for a great reawakening of faith in Jesus throughout our land. Psalm 91:1.

Matthew 25 Network influence: slip slidin' away

Pity the poor Matthew 25 Network.

The outfit created by Barak Obama’s presidential campaign to deceive … er, to recruit Evangelical, Pentecostals and Charismatics into backing the media’s anointed great hope for America looked like they were on a roll to take a chunk out of this bloc of voters, or at least confuse them enough to make them stay at home. With an assortment of wolves in sheep’s clothing and a smattering of other “religious figures” (mainly from liberal churches), they splashed onto the scene by ridiculing Dr. James Dobson, and the media loudly sang of its wonder and praise of this “courageous” group.

Then Obama ran into a brick wall at Rick Warren’s “proto-debate” at Saddleback church, where he gave a really flaky answer on the abortion question, while John McCain, in contrast, gave a straightforward answer defending the rights of the unborn.

Now, they have to be in a real tailspin with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a Spirit-filled Christian who is strongly pro-life, being picked by McCain as his running mate for vice president. The group‘s “evangelical shock value” spokesman Brian McLaren (that is, one who brandishes the title “evangelical,” then contradicts evangelical values so he can be “different”) and friends can only muster up a whining response:

“The Matthew 25 Network is extremely disappointed in Sarah Palin's address last night at the Republican National Convention. We call on her to commit herself to campaigning in good faith, with love and respect for her political opponents and a strong commitment to truth-telling …”

Maybe if McLaren and company can convince their own leading candidate to do the same (for example, Obama needs to “put away falsehood,” as Matthew 25 likes to harp, and tell the truth about his relationship with former Weather Underground terrorist group leader Bill Ayers--the same Ayers who Obama claims to know only as someone in his neighborhood, but who actually launched Obama’s political career in his living room, and served alongside Obama in his “community organizing.” See my previous post).

To paraphrase an old Paul Simon song, Matthew 25 Network sees, with Palin’s addition to McCain’s ticket, their potential influence “slip slidin’ away.” And the evangelical community will be better for it.

Palin: ready to rumble!

Alaska Governor and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, speaking Wednesday night on her experience as mayor of Wasilla: "And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

In an outstanding speech at the RNC Wednesday, this was the line of the night--and not just by exposing Barak Obama and Joe Biden’s shallow attacks on her service as Wasilla’s mayor. It also throws the ball in Obama’s court about his “community organizing.“ Only Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has even bothered to check into this, meeting a bristling response from Obama’s robotic followers, who flooded a radio station Kurtz was on with complaints (but with no specific facts to contradict Kurtz’s research into this part of Obama’s resume).

Let’s put this issue into perspective: since Friday, when John McCain announced that Palen was his running mate, the national Obama cheerlead…er, I mean, media, were able to dig up all kinds about facts about Palin’s husband's 20-plus years old DUI, and about alleged, vague improprieties as governor. The media also looked on with silent approval when Daily Kos bloggers viciously attacked Palen’s children, forcing the McCain campaign to reveal that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, and was marrying the father (to Obama and Biden‘s great credit, they denounced this attack on Palin‘s children). And more sludge will surely dribble out before Nov. 4.

But since Obama entered the presidential race, NOT ONE of these media giants even looked into his “community organizing” with one Bill Ayers, a leader of the domestic terrorist group, The Weather Underground (also known by their other idiotic name, the Weathermen, stealing the reference from a Bob Dylan song). Obama claimed Ayers was just someone he knew in the neighborhood. Right, someone “in the neighborhood” enough to host Obama’s launch into politics in his living room, and to serve on some “community organizing boards” with the media’s savior of America.

This Bill Ayers is quite a character. His murderous group went around bombing government buildings--including the U.S. Capitol--and police stations from the late 60s to the early 80s, with Ayers later whining to The New York Times in 2001 that his terrorist group didn’t do more. When he was acquitted of one of these attacks (due to prosecution mishandling of evidence), he proclaimed he was “guilty as sin, free as a bird.”

Obama’s campaign response is weak, weak, weak, “Obama was only 8 years old” (so why does he associate with Ayers NOW?). “He has denounced Ayers’ crimes” (That’s news to me. Show me where and when). Of course, any revelation about Obama’s relationship with Ayers would require the media to turn on their anointed savior, and I’m sure you’ll instead hear cries of “guilt by association is not fair.” Now, if the media had ever found McCain “associating” with the likes of KKK idiot-in-chief David Dukes … oh, but I’m sure the media would handle it even-handedly (and also, by the way, there IS an Easter Bunny).

As I said above, Palin’s speech was a knockout, and I found myself laughing all the way through it. Of course, the MSM will dismiss it, with Eleanor Clift claiming that when Palin was picked by McCain, there was derisive “laughter” in newsrooms across America. After Palin’s brilliant speech, Clift and her leftist newsroom comrades are not laughing now.

Second best line of the night was from former NYC Mayor Rudy Guliani, about the feminist Democratic Party’s hypocrisy, in questioning whether Palin can be vice president while raising five children: “They never ask a man that.”

Early Christmas

When my wife broke the news to me this morning about Barak "The Inevitable" Obama picking Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, one tune started floating across my mind:

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas ..."

When I saw his possible list of VP picks earlier this week, I was pleading under my breath, "Oh PLEASE let it be Biden!" Yep, the same Biden whom, running for president in 1988, conjured up some coal miner parents by lifting a quote from British politician Neil Kinnock. He was caught red-handed (thanks to the Dukakis campaign), and he became the butt of some funny jokes that floated around the rest of that year.

And all you Obama worshipers who want CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE: your man, as one headline noted, just picked the ultimate Washington insider as his running mate! I also saw the quote by Rush Limbaugh this week, about his wanting Biden, because the Obama campaign would then have twice the arrogance.

To McCain: PLEASE don't exchange this Christmas gift by picking a pro-choice politician! Any other pick, even the younger governors of Alaska (Sarah Palin) or Louisiana (Bobby Jindal) wouldn't hurt at this point. In general, VP picks don't always win elections, but you can't risk forfeiting the conservative base (especially the evangelical vote, after Obama's breath-taking flop at Saddleback church last weekend). Otherwise, you'll soon be singing another famous Christmas tune... Nothing for Christmas.

Obama bombs

Is there any evangelical in America who can support Barak Obama after his dreadful performance in the presidential forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback church?

His stuttering answer on Warren's question about abortion, and his tearing down conservative Supreme Court justices--especially Clarence Thomas (that the two should be compared at all is ludicrous. What an insult to Justice Thomas!)--should make any thinking evangelical Christian examine if supporting Obama is the best reflection of their biblical values. John McCain gave good, straighforward answers, while Obama looked lost without his teleprompter.

It's amusing, by the way, to see the mainstream media circle the wagons for their savior. The recent hatchet job of a story by the AP about a recent anti-Obama book was especially revealing--not for the book it attacked (Obama Nation), but the one the AP reporter ignored and probably wishes would go away (The Case Against Barak Obama, a work by a National Review writer that appears more articulate). The AP story also took a swipe at WorldNetDaily (where Obama Nation writer Joe Corsi has a regular column), trying to slam it as a National Enquirer-like outfit (by stating that its lead story was about an alleged find of a "Bigfoot" creature--a weird story that was, in fact, also carried by many other news outlets with the same grain of salt. WND also has links to other news agencies as appropriate, for a variety of news).

My last question: what, oh what, will Matthew 25 Network do now, with their candidate going down in verbal flames in front of a giant evangelical church? Is Matthew 25 Network really going to lasso in all those evangelical and Pentecostal votes for Obama? Go to the web page (if you can stomach it) and check their endorsements from pastors and religious leaders--and see how many are actually from evangelical or Pentecostal churches (aside from a few wolves in sheep's clothing). If Obama wins in November, watch all those poor people Matthew 25 Network claims to care about REALLY suffer when the US economy tanks--and watch Matthew 25 Network magically vanish into the woodwork.

Is Obama "Gonna Fly Now"?

The more I see the media propping up Barak Obama’s campaign by puffing up his overseas photo op, I mean tour, the more I keep seeing images of the first two Rocky movies. Remember them? Poor Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) is a third-rate boxer hand-picked to fight the world champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). So Rocky has to get in shape--and his manager Mickey (Burgess Meredith) comes up with some pretty desperate training methods, such as punching raw meat. In the second movie, to prepare for a rematch with Creed, Mickey has Rocky trying to catch a chicken. “You’ve got the SPEED!” ole Mickey crows when Rocky catches the feathery prize.

This is kind of what we're seeing with Obama being accompanied by the "Big Three" network anchors for his overseas tour (which has no apparent purpose but to close the image gap among likely voters that he is far less able to handle foreign policy that John McCain). The major networks (with the exception of Fox) seem to be almost training Obama, pulling for him to make “memorable” remarks as he sits down to waste the time, er, to confer with world leaders. And on his return to America, you will be hearing the Big Three network anchors crowing, “He’s got the FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE!”

(Never mind the questions of where the Big Three anchors were on McCain's trips).

Of course, this posturing seems to be lost on the voters. Recent Rasmussen polls have Obama and McCain in a dead heat, despite the media puffery (and coverup of the Obamas' goofy remarks, including one where Michelle Obama laments most people wouldn’t benefit from the economic stimulus tax rebates, since $600 can only buy a pair of earrings. Imagine the uproar if Cindy McCain said the same thing!) and a largely ineffective McCain campaign (where’s Karl Rove when you need him?).

Political analyst Dick Morris speculates that Obama’s major flip-flops (or as the media likes to sugar coat it, “move to the center”) is exposing his true “politics as usual” nature. Obama truly is the Candidate of Change—he changes his position every 10 minutes!

drdobsonspeaksforme

I need a little help.

I’m thinking of starting a website, and need some ideas.

I learned this weekend about Houston mega church Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, and his cute website, "jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme," attacking Dr. James Dobson for defending himself against a Barak Obama attack in a 2006 speech to a liberal religious group, and bringing attention to Obama’s weird biblical views in the same speech (described in previous entry).

The good pastor, who is a spiritual advisor to President Bush (I think the president needs a replacement in this category) and who officiated at Jenna Bush’s wedding (I guess this is the part where I say “gasp!”), claims his website is done “in the spirit of love.” It was also set up with an unseen hand—not the Divine One, but with the aid of an Obama campaign worker, Alyssa Martin. It's also interesting how quickly this website was up and running, about 24 hours after Dobson's radio program about Obama.

But not to worry: Pastor Caldwell (whom I sure would NEVER think about using his connection to the president for any partisan purposes) regularly prays via telephone with Obama staff members (I’m guessing godly wisdom for Christian voters—considering Obama’s extreme left positions—isn‘t on that prayer list).

So in the spirit of love, I’m thinking about starting my own website in response. I’m torn between these possible addresses:

jamesdobsonspeaksforme

thatsdrdobsontoyou

pastorcaldwellisawolfinsheepsclothing

Well, which one do you think works best?

Oh, but he SPEAKS so well!

Is there nothing that can expose Barak Obama as little more than the second coming of Jimmy Carter? His speaking gaffes are bad enough, and even true great speakers like Ronald Reagan had their share. But it’s the factual contradictions , and the lack of media attention to them, that’s REALLY leaving me baffled.

Look at the entry below this one: his campaign outright LIED in its statement, flatly exposed by Obama’s own written words (and it’s especially interesting, in light of his campaign’s efforts to keep Muslim women, with their heads covered, out of photo ops). His youthful drug use, major issues in other campaigns, receives zero attention, in spite of AGAIN being written about by Obama himself (instead of some offbeat loony “investigator”).

For his latest twisting of facts, the media's new messiah slanders Dr. James Dobson, ridicules our service men and women and twists the Bible to fit his weird theological outlook (in the 2006 clip featured here on a Dobson broadcast, Obama was trying to impress Call to Renewal, a liberal religious organization). Where is the outrage from the Christian community over this open distortion?

Then there is his chilling video address to a radical organization made for the Iowa caucus (available on YouTube), in which he openly calls for disarming America, so that the world community will happily follow along (right). Even his commending the Supreme Court for bestowing constitutional rights on foreign terrorists who have declared war on us (including Osama bin Laden) has hardly raised any alarms.

The public seems to be mesmerized by Obama’s oratory skills, instead of examining the substance of his message. Sure, the mainstream media are (with a few exceptions) left-wing-but are they THAT ignorant? The only thing that seems to get the MSM attention is the bottom line: money. You may not remember how rabid the media was in opposing Ronald Reagan while he was president, especially in the re-election year of 1984. However, they also realized that to sell papers and airtime, they had to appeal to the public which, they rightly discerned, held the Great Communicator in very high regard. Hence, the investigation of Democratic VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro over her husband’s real estate dealings, and their backing off of Reagan ( that year, Reagan won every state except Massachusetts and Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota).

I’m not sure such a scenario will occur in this election campaign--but you never know, with gas prices going through the ceiling and Obama saying it would have been so much better if they went up a lot slower (yes, he said that). And should he become president and wreck the nation in several years, you can be sure these same leftists will turn on him (just as they turned on Carter in 1980). I just hope the church wakes up to what Obama REALLY stands for, instead of being “awestruck” by empty rhetoric and slick “religious consultants” (Obama’s director of religious affairs is a former AG assistant pastor; talk about your wolf in sheep’s clothing).

Another interesting question for Obama

"All of the claims about Senator Obama's faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama's stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school."—Obama campaign, Jan. 23, 2007 statement, regarding a story that Barack Obama attended Muslim school while living in Indonesia.

"In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies."—Obama, from his book Dreams of My Father published in 1995.

Obamaisms

Ddi you hear about the candidate who, in a speech in Sunrise, FL, greeted the crowd with, "How's it going, Sunshine?" Or who renamed Sioux Falls, South Dakota, "Sioux City"?

What about claiming, in a speech in Oregon, that he visited 57 states in the US, with one to go--Alaska and Hawaii?

Or claiming on Memorial Day that his uncle, serving in the US Army in World War II, helped liberate the Auschwitz concentration camp--which was actually liberated by the Red Army?

Is Dan Quayle up to his ole tricks again? No, because if it WERE Dan Quayle--or President Bush or John McCain, for that matter--these clunkers would be national headlines. No, these were uttered by Barack Obama, the American media's newly-anointed savior of the nation, so mum's the word on these gems, and lots of others, such as:

*Barak's African father and American white mother were able to marry, and have him in1961, because of the Selma civil rights march--which occurred in 1965.

*On May 13 in Cape Girardeau, MO, he claimed the war in Iraq was responsible for a shortage of interpreters in Afghanistan: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it is harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish--while Afghans speak Pushtu, Dari, and various tribal languages.

*In a May 16 press conference, he claimed, "When (President John F.) Kennedy met (Soviet Premier Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war." The two leaders met in Vienna in June, 1961; the Cuba Missile Crisis, which Obama claimed was resolved by the meeting, was more than a year later, in October 1962.

*On May 18, in an interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), he said: "I'm not very well known" in Kentucky compared to Hillary Clinton because of her husband and "her coming from a nearby state of Arkansas." Illinois--the state where he is a US senator--actually borders Kentucky; Arkansas does not (they are separated by Tennessee).

These and lots of other misstatements are not the recent product of campaign trail pressures: you can follow this link to a Chicago Sun-Times story about Obama's gaffes--from March of last year.

What COULD be the source of these seemingly endless flubs, which--had they been uttered by a Republican--would be keeping the watchdog media and David Letterman in soup until December?

Mainstream media pundits want to simply write it off to a lack of sleep. But geopolitical scientist Dr. Jack Wheeler (who cited most of these quotes listed above), notes in his To The Point newsletter, "A neuroscientist with years of research into drug abuse and brain chemistry tells To The Point that the behavior exhibited by Obama is consistent with the use of either amphetamines or cocaine."

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama admitted to drug use when young, that would doom any other presidential run (well, except maybe for Bill Clinton's): "Pot (marijuana) had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow (cocaine) when you could afford it. Not smack (heroin), though."

Wheeler's newsletter, while noting that youthful drug use does not automatically mean Obama is using illicit drugs today, "calls for Barack Hussein Obama to be drug tested.

"No urine test, which can be faked and is only good within a few days of drug use. The gold standard of drug testing is done with the [subject's] hair - for it is good up to 90 days.

"Hair drug testing uses a 100-milligram sample of hair cut at the scalp for an ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) test, then confirms the result with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. There should also be a DNA match by a separate lab between the hair sample and a cheek swab, with independent observers confirming the chain-of-custody for all samples.

"If Obambi has been using any amphetamines, methamphetamine, or cocaine within the last 90 days, the test will show it.

"...No accusations are being made here. To The Point is not accusing Barack Hussein Obama of illegal drug use. It is saying that he is behaving of late in such a way to cause suspicion that he might. That suspicion must be put to rest."

The rest of Wheeler's interesting take on this can be found at:

http://www.tothepointnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3208&Itemid=67

Regardless of whether this drug testing actually happens, you better check the conservative blogs and websites for more of these imaginative reinventions of American geography and history--if you're counting on our guardian watchdog media, PLEASE don't hold your breath.

In the meantime, stay tuned to this website for more of these timeless pearls of wisdom. And since the liberal pundits had lots of fun with President Bush's verbal missteps by dubbing them "Bushisms," I'll get into the spirit and officially dub the apparent Democratic presidential candidate's flubs as "Obamaisms." Enjoy!

Islamification of America continues

Follow this link to an article in the St. Cloud Times (MN):

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/NEWS01/105120058/1009

There, you will have to read extra carefully to catch the real story in the story. Basically, a student who needs a service dog due to having seizures (the dog carries a bag with medicine for bystanders to help the student in such an emergency) was forced out of attending his school--due to a threat from a Somali Muslim, who was insulted at the dog's presence, since the Koran bans Muslims from touching dogs. The disabled student was also jeered at by other Somali Muslim students at the school because of the dog (original story from Rush Limbaugh website). Wonder if the INS can start a few deportation proceedings for some miscreant students who really need to return to their beloved Somalia (not that they would; this is the same agency that gave Mohammad Atta, 9/11 leader, his approval to attend flight school months AFTER the terrorist attacks).

A few more points: those who want to give Islam a free pass from criticism, and allow it to become the dominant religion in the USA, can look forward to more of this from the "religion of peace."

Also, the newspaper pretty much all but buries the reason these miscreants threatened and taunted the student. Just imagine the headline if it were Bible-believing Christians: "Fundamentalist Christians drive disabled student ..." You get the picture.

On the Psalms

I wrote this in The Observer newsletter in Nov. 2006, and I thought it might be good to reprint it here:

I always enjoy reading the Psalms. One can easily relate to the wide range of emotions they express. I also find them nourishing when I am at a point of indecision in my Bible reading about what to study next.

Three books have been especially helpful to me in gaining insights into the Psalms:

Psalms: Prayer Book of the Bible by Dietrich Bonhoeffer—here, you can learn about praying the Psalms, especially praying them alongside Jesus. Bonhoeffer also gives valuable insights into prayer in itself. “Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.”

Understanding the Psalms by Tremper Longman III—gives excellent insights into the different types of Psalms, helping us to read them with greater depth. Longman also gives valuable tools for understanding the Hebrew Old Testament; his explanation of Hebrew parallelism (not the typical A = B understanding, but the more accurate A and what’s more B explanation) is worth the price of the book (this shows, for example, that Isaiah 53:5’s promise that “by His stripes we are healed” is not just a spiritual healing, as non-Charismatic scholars try to claim, but encompasses divine physical healing as well).

The New Psalter (or The New Psalter of Pius XII) by Charles Callan—you will more than likely have to hunt around in used bookstores or on the Internet for this one. It’s an old Catholic work written in 1949 (in English AND Latin!) that contains a solid translation of the Psalms. Callen’s introduction to each Psalm contains good, concise historical background—and his reflections after each Psalm are richly insightful, especially with the Psalms’ practical applications to our daily Christian walk.

For example, Psalm 11 deals with David’s being urged by his faint-hearted friends to “Flee as a bird to the mountain!” (v. 1; see also vv. 2-3) in the face of King Saul’s open threats. David nonetheless refused to leave his post in the court; “putting his faith in Jehovah’s protection, he resolutely decided to face the danger,” Callan says.

“In the face of duty it is cowardly and base to listen to the whisperings of fear, or sloth, or present ease,” Callan notes later. “Far better to fall at our post, and before the eyes of men apparently to fail, than to escape for the moment and then endure the tortures of a wounded conscience.”

Let me know if you find any of these books helpful in your reading of the Psalms, or if you recommend any other books about them.

Thoughts on polygamy

What to make of the polygamist sect in Texas, whose children are now in the custody of the state?

First off, regarding polygamy, Jesus makes clear what God’s will is for marriage, quoting from Gen. 2:24: “’For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall become one flesh …So that they are no more two, but one flesh.’ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:5-6, ASV).” Jesus, who was addressing the practice of easy divorce among the legalistic Pharisees, gives the reason why God seemed to allow polygamy in the Old Testament times: because of the hardness of the people’s hearts (v. 6). And Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:5-5, that bishops be the husband of one wife, most likely were given in the context of polygamy practiced at that time among the Gentiles.

Now, take a good look at this sect (really a cult, with a controlling jailed “prophet” as its leader) and, if Jesus tarries in returning, take a good look several decades from now. They could be considered pioneers in our downward spiraling culture. Mark Steyn, in his book America Alone, talks about another religious tradition where polygamy is accepted: Islam. Should this religion gain the ascendancy in America, (which it has all but done in Europe), Steyn pictures Hollywood dropping its propagandizing for homosexuality like a hot potato, and instead extolling the charms of polygamous relationships. “But that can’t happen here!” you cry out. Hmmm, were have we heard THAT before? Polygamy is already getting a positive play in the HBO show Big Love, so it’s not beyond imagination.

One final thought: the angst shown by our mainstream media over the sect is morbidly amusing. The same media that blares the message for people to make their own morals (or not have any), and has been a major force in making premarital sex and easy divorce all but the norm, is now aghast at a polygamous sect in its mist. “I’m shocked, shocked!” Captain Renault cries in the Humphrey Bogart classic Casablanca, at the gambling in Rick Blaine’s bar in which he had previously indulged (someone even hands the captain his winnings after he announces the bar is being closed down!). That’s the image that keeps coming to mind, when I hear the media harping on the “shocking” polygamy.

Obama pastor: practice what you preach!

This is just too unbelievable, from Investor's Business Daily (3/31/08):

"What could be worse than an Afro-Marxist preacher exhorting thousands of blacks to hate whites and swear off their middle-class materialism? One who does the exact opposite.

"Barack Obama had hoped the retirement of his fire-breathing pastor would put the controversy to rest. But the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is retiring in luxury — with all the trappings of the white "middleclassness" he warns his flock to avoid.

"Wright is forsaking South Side Chicago and the black ghetto for a gated golf club community in Tinley Park, an affluent suburb ...

"Nothing wrong with that; it's the American dream. Except that Wright has condemned that dream (along with America) in sermons he's delivered to the 8,000 mostly black congregants of Trinity United Church of Christ. He says it's all part of a white conspiracy to get blacks hooked on middle-class materialism and separate them from the inner-city and their African roots.

"He also preaches the gospel of 'Black Liberation Theology,' a false Christian doctrine promulgated by Marxist-leaning black writers of the 1960s that espouses "economic parity" and other collectivist claptrap.

"The concept of practicing what you preach is apparently lost on Wright.

"After decades of lecturing blacks to remain loyal to the black ghetto and eschew the white suburbs, he's now building a 10,340-square-foot mansion in the white suburbs. Among its amenities: an elevator, a rubberized exercise room and room for a future theater and indoor swimming pool..."

Read the rest of this incredible aricle here:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=291855469309054

Casey unmasked

A few blogs ago I commented about Barak Obama's atrocious pro-abortion view: how, as an Illinois state senator, he stalled legislation on an Infant Born Alive Act, to protect a baby who was born alive after an abortion murder attempt. Keep in mind, this law (signed on the federal level by President Bush in 2002), was not even opposed by chief pro-abortionist group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Now comes the word out of PA that Obama will pick up the endosement of Bob Casey Jr., the allegedly pro-life senator who rode to office on the name of his father, the great Gov. Bob Casey, who was banned from speaking at the Democrat's 1992 convention because of his brave pro-life stand.

Bob Jr. used this pro-life veneer to defeat Republican incumbent Rick Santorum, a TRUE pro-life senator, in the 2006 voter temper tantrum (Santorum was the one who was debating Barbara Boxer, D-CA, in 1999, when she made the statement that a baby is only a baby when it is brought home from the hospital. It's in the Congressional Record, but the watchdog media gave her a pass as usual. Now, if Dan Quayle had made the same statement ...not that he would).

Now we see the veneer ripped away from Bob Jr., who IMHO is an absolute disgrace to his father's memory.

Rev. 13 and the North American Union

Revelation 13:1  (ASV) And he stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy.

This verse about the rise of the Antichrist in the end times envisions a confederation of nations that will give their sovereignty to this ruler.
While the European Union is the most visible manifestation of this trend, the North American Union could also be the next possibility This economic agreement was signed by President Bush (a very sad surprise) and the leaders of Mexico and Canada in 2005, with the goal of unifying the economies of the three countries to be more “competitive” with the EU and China. It could explain why President Bush as not been very urgent in securing the U.S.-Mexico border, even after 9-11.
This agreement may not seem like much; how could it possibly lead to a North American Super-union? And if it does, who cares?
Consider that Europe now has a “European Supreme Court”--is such a development not possible in North America? And this court all started with an “economic” union of European nations (with France and Germany in reality calling all the shots).

Scenario #1: Canada protests to a Union commission, or even a North American Supreme Court, that US laws against same sex marriage discriminate against Canadians. US bans on homosexual marriage could be dashed.

Scenario #2: Consider that Canada has outlawed any “hate speech” against homosexuality, even from the church pulpit. With a North America Supreme Court, this can spread to America (don't think it's inconceivable that this court would overrule the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Some American courts are already leaning on foreign legal precedents to decide American cases, a ludicrous and dangerous development).

Scenario #3: Such a court could conclude that Sharia law favoring Muslims is permissible in sections of the US that want it (don’t look for the ACLU of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to charge to the rescue. In their view, “separation of church and state” only applies to Christians). Thus, places like Dearborn, MI could have sections of the city operate under a Sharia law that trumps any other local, state or national US law.

But why O why should I even waste my breath speculating on this, basing it on Rev. 13? 1 John 4:3 and 2 Thess. 2:7 tell us that the spirit of the Antichrist is already at work in the world--and we should never be unaware of Satan's schemes (2 Corinth. 2:11).

Larry Norman, RIP

This afternoon I was watching an Internet video from Hillsongs United, "One Way." It's breathtaking to me to see all the youth jumping and down and singing at the top of their lungs--to praise Jesus. As I watched the video (several times actually), I couldn't help but think about the man who really made it all possible--Larry Norman, who passed away last month at the age of 60.

Norman has been called the Father of Contemporary Christian Music (originally labeled Jesus Music), and deservedly so. In the late 60s, Norman was watching while an entire generation of young people were slipping away in rebellion, when he figured out that rock music could be used to reach out to them. At it goes with such groundbreaking music, he was scorned by "established" church authorities who labeled such Norman classics as "I Wish We'd All Been Ready" (about the Rapture) and "Sweet Song of Salvation" as the "music of the devil" (his answer to them was another classic, "Why Should the Devil Had All the Good Music?"). Ironically, Jimmy Swaggart, a major critic of Christian rock, admitted that his own "honky tonk" style Christian songs were unwelcome in churches in the 50s.

Of course others, including Billy Graham, concluded otherwise, seeing a new way to reach the young for Jesus and to encourage worship among youth. Norman's music stood out so much, that Time magazine named him the most important song writer since Paul Simon (of Simon & Garfunkel). Norman even got to share his witness with the Beatles' Paul McCartney, who had sought him out to discuss his music.

He walked away from Capitol Records when the company refused to title one of his albums "We Need a Whole Lot More of Jesus, and a Lot Less Rock N Roll."

Norman had an immense influence on subsequent Christian artists, including Randy Stonehill and Keith Green. At it was at a Vineyard Bible Study he led that Bob Dylan became a Christian, after which he released his now classic album Slow Training Coming.

Norman's influence on Contemporary Christian Music was no less of that of Elvis and the Beatles on rock music in general, opening a door for many young people to find Jesus and worship Him wholeheartedly. For that, the church world owes him a tremendous debt. RIP.

Trilemma

My wife asked me this morning why I haven’t written on this blog lately. Well, part of it may be I’ve been super busy with church and kids and Missy’s knee surgery and everything else. Well, maybe that’s part of it.

But I’m sure recent political developments have also had a lot to do with this. It was so much easier writing about the presidential election when there was, well, a clear-cut choice between George W. Bush (who the liberals are STILL campaigning against, even though he’s leaving office soon) and Senator John Kerry (a side note: I wrote a letter of encouragement to Kerry and his wife after they lost the 2004 election, due to the media’s hypocritical bashing of them. And what do you know: he actually wrote me back last December thanking me for the letter! I’m sure part of it was his upcoming re-election bid, but it was nice for him to recognize my letter nonetheless).

I’m still trying to come up with a description of the way I feel about the three major contenders we’re stuck with … wait, here’s one: when I was 15, I remember playing with some friends when I slipped on some ice and was knocked out cold for about a minute … I remember the numbness and disorientation when I regained consciousness. That’s about as close as I can get to giving you an idea of my bewilderment over the election.

But that’s what you get when you have three candidates bought and paid for by George Soros, President Bush’s multibillionaire archenemy. THREE candidates? Well, Clinton and Obama are a given, but McCain? You may want to make a merry stroll over to the NewsMax website for articles about how a McCain organization got loads of money from Soros, and how they seem to share staff members.

I don’t really need to go over the whole deal with Billary, I mean Hillary, so let’s jump over to the great hope for mankind, Barak Obama. He can forget my vote. Here’s someone who opposed a proposed Illinois state law that would have protected the life of a baby who was born alive after an abortion murder attempt. Keep in mind, this same law, thankfully signed on the federal level by President Bush in 2002, was not even opposed by arch-abortionist NARAL Pro-Choice America. Then there is his wife Michelle Obama, who urges a poor town in Ohio to not go into corporate America (and try to make a better life for themselves), but to follow her and Barak into public service. Just like the public service job she got as a hospital administrator, where she made about $120,000 per year—then watched her salary jump by $200,000 (you read that right) when her husband was elected to the state senate (it’s sort of common in Illinois, I’m finding out. The newly wedded bride of the state senate president, Emil Jones, got a human services administrative job out of the blue to the tune of $145,000 per year. But we’ve been assured that she was qualified. Uh, yeah, okay). And I’m sure Michelle Obama will follow through with totally leaving the corporate world behind—by resigning those corporate boards on which she is still serving. Throw in a shady money man behind Barak, and his quick rise through the ranks of the Chicago political machine, and you get a great picture of someone who REALLY doesn’t need to be leader of the free world.

So you can see my predicament (and those of millions of others). Do I try to ride out Hillary for four years, or take my chances with McCain? (And no, Ralph Nader, I’m not voting for you either). Maybe I can take the word of President Bush and Mitt Romney and trust McCain? Well, I’ll be sorting all this out for the next several months, so stay tuned.

Rooting for ...?

The primary in New Hampshire could see a dogfight in hte Democratic presidential primary; look for Hillary to rally the troops (already, there's talk of staff changes in her campaign).

So, Sean, who would YOU rather see take the Democratic nomination: Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton the "Inevitable"?

My gut opinion is best reflected by the words of Henry Kissinger, when he was asked about the Iran-Iraq War in the early 1980s: wouldn't it be great if BOTH could lose?

Election trail notes

A few notes from the election trail:

*Before you go agaga over Barak Obama, please follow this link to Ron Kessler's stunning story in NewsMax:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&promo_code=4274-1

There, you can read about Obama's pastor and some of his "interesting" racial views.

*The Clinton reign of terror over the Democratic Party may be over. Mainstream news outlets seem to be jumping off the "Hillary is Inevitable" bandwagon, as Obama picks up endorsements and young voters. Leaning on her husband's experience isn't working anymore (especially since it isn't really hers to start with). Her "natural constituency," women, are backing the seantor from Illinois instead of her. And you know things look bad when even the former president can't draw a crowd at the University of New Hampshire, with a good chunk of those attending walking out in the middle of his speech. Rush Limbaugh rightly observed that there has been a civil war in the Democratic Party between the Clintonistas and those such as Al Gore, over control of the party. Hillary may stay as U.S. Senator from NY for a awhile, but it appears (hopefully) that that's as far as she'll go.

End times speculation

I recently started an end-times Bible study on Wednesday nights in my church, and want to throw out a thought about how it will play out. If you want to jump all over me about why it's wrong, go right ahead ...

It has to do with Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until these things be fulfilled. Now, there are several views of what "generation" could mean here:

1) The Greek word could also be translated "race," so it could clearly state that the Jewish race would still exist when the end time events of Matthew 24 are fulfilled.

2) Another translation is that Jesus was referring to the generation of His listeners. While many of the Jews that heard Jesus' words no doubt saw a foretaste of the Great Tribulation with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (directly predicted by Jesus at the beginning of the chapter; the Christians, who remembered it, successfully escaped the doomed city as a result), the other events obviously were not fulfilled at that time, but were predicted for later in history (preterists, who believe this chapter and Revelation were only about this past event, don't like to hear that).

3) The third view is that Jesus is referring to the future generation that will see the events described; thus, it could be read "that generation" or "this generation (in question)" would see the fulfillment of the prophecies.

If we go with the third viewpoint, then Jesus is saying that the events described in Matthew 24 (and by extension in Revelation and Daniel) will occur within a generation, in rapid succession. Now, what exactly makes up a generation? I've heard it being between 33 and 40 years. Of course, a generation of people could go on a lot longer nowadays (for example, there are many still alive from the World War II "greatest generation", well over 40 years ago). I point this out in wondering about the succession of events. I've always been taught that after the Rapture (which I believe will happen before the seven-year Great Tribulation), the Antichrist would immeduately rise, after which the Tribulation would immediately commence, with Jesus' return coming at the end of the tribulation. In other words, essentially, the Second Coming would occur exactly seven years after the Rapture (and even mid-trib and post-trib views on the Rapture hold strictly to the seven-year time limit). My question is, could there not be more of a leeway in time? How long would the Antichrist be in power before the commencing of the tribulation? For that matter, would there be a few years after the Rapture before the Antichrist appears? Again, all this will happen in a generation's time, however long that is. And yes, it could simply mean that these events will occur within a generation (e.g., if the generation started in 2010, the events could begin in 2015 maybe). I'm just questioning whether we can go strictly by the "seven-year" sequence of events. This is just speculation on my part, and again, feel feel to correct me if you must.

My interest in this may have been piqued by past speculations, especially with regard to the nation of Israel's rebirth in 1948. There was a widespread teaching that the 33-year generation started then, which meant the Rapture would happen in 1981, and Jesus' return in 1988 (by the way, I still have a copy of a book by the man who wrote about the 88 reasons the Rapture would happen in 1988. It was his "sequel" to why it DIDN'T happen, because there is no zero year, the calendar jumps from 1 BC to 1 AD, and so on. Of course, he didn't mind "hedging his bets" with a lot of qualifications; "even if it doesn't happen in 1989..." blah blah blah). When that didn't happen, the beginning of the "last generation" was moved to the 1967 war, which means the Rapture occurs in 2000 and Jesus' return in 2007. Even claiming a generation was 40 years doesn't help these two theories. Now, I believe Israel's rebirth was a significant prophetic event, clearly showing that Jesus' return is near. The question I posed above regards whether everything will play out in exactly seven years, or whether there could be other timeframes in which the events will play out. Maybe the last generation will start at the Rapture. You may write me with your own question, or with your gracious corrections to my wayward speculating. Just something to think about.