Sarah Palin - The Tale of Two Babies

Here's a pro-life ad a few friends of mine produced.

Powerful!

Pollster Zogby predicts a McCain landslide

While most polls show Obama ahead nationally, a few that include third party voters and likely voters are tied or go in McCain's favor.

On Thursday, Pollster John Zogby released a national poll in which John McCain had a slim two point lead over Barack Obama.

Similar results were seen in two other polls released on Thursday. A George Washington University Battleground poll showed McCain up by one point and a Gallup poll showed them tied.

Zogby was one of the most trusted pollsters in the 1990s when his polls were accurate to within one percent on average. The key to his success lies in the way he approaches "likely voters" over registered voters. He gained renown in the 1996 Presidential election when his final poll came within a tenth of a percentage point of the actual result.

Zogby was the only major pollster to predict the cliffhanger election of 2000, while most others predicted Bush winning handily.

Another of his "pet doctrines," which I've read in various interviews, is that large blocks of "unsure" voters tend to wait until election day to decide.

In the 2004 election, Zogby lost some credibility when on the very day of the election, he predicted a huge victory for John Kerry. Some accused him of trying to skew the results in the western time zone states with a perceived Kerry trend in the east. Despite his personal prediction, Zogby's final poll showed Bush with a one point lead over Kerry. Zogby later released an apology in which he stated, "I will do better next time: I will just poll, not predict." - John Zogby, November 8, 2004

Since John Zogby is a self-described Democrat, and a liberal by most accounts, I find the following news item of interest:

According to John Zogby, president of Zogby International, Barack Obama still needs to sell himself to the country. If not, voters will likely side with “a comfortable old shoe.” That shoe is John McCain, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle quoted Zogby as saying. Zogby also questioned if Americans are still asking of Obama, “Who are you, where are you from?” - The Boston Herald, 9/25/08

To put this a few other ways:

1. The make-up of the electoral college favors rural voters.

2. No Democrat since Jimmy Carter has won more than 49 percent of the popular vote. Clinton won with 43 percent and 49 percent. Carter won with 51 percent to Gerald Ford's 49 percent.

3. Both Carter and Clinton ran as moderate Democrats and appealed to rural voters in the south.

4. Obama may have reached that Democrat "iron ceiling" of 43 to 49 percent.

5. Media run polls tend to underestimate Republican strength and especially the outcome of the more conservative or moderate candidate.

We saw that especially with Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton in the primaries. They both won huge victories in states where they were polled as close or trailing.

6. This is not a national election, it is a state by state election where the Democrats are historically more vulnerable.

Despite McCain's showing in the national polls, he only has to pick up one or two states currently in Obama's column to win. If we use the rule that the tie goes to the Republican, Zogby could be right in predicting a McCain landslide.

7. Even during the national economic turmoil, the numbers remain fairly competitive.

Listening to Zogby, one could only predict a McCain resurgence if an economic package is passed early next week with McCain seen as favoring the average taxpayer in the bailout.

The Party Is Over

Rusty Thomas is one of the few people I trust who has true prophetic insight into what is happening in America. A while back I posted his imprecatory prayer proclamation to the state of California. I post this as well. It is not a predictive prophecy in the biblical sense, but it applies scripture to the current situation America is facing. I endorse it fully.

- Jay Rogers

A Message from Elijah Ministries

"To make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

Dear Champion of the Lord and the Preborn,

The Lord richly bless you! Based upon our earlier message, I decided to send out a national press statement called "THE PARTY IS OVER." Please keep this in prayer. It is scheduled to be released tomorrow morning. If you find any merit, please pass it on.

- Rusty Thomas

THE PARTY IS OVER

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17) ."

For the last twenty years, courageous men of God have warned our nation of these days. Our nation has sowed to the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. America stands on the verge of possible economic collapse, where the bail out cure may be worse than the financial disease. Meanwhile Russia, China, and the Islamic nations smell our vulnerabilities. Added to these dangers is the increase of natural disasters. What can our beleaguered country do in such a time as this? Repent and bring forth fruit meet for repentance.

Legalized evil has flourished under our watch and stands as God's indictment against America. We can run, but not hide. America will never escape God's accountability for shedding innocent blood through the crime of abortion and parading our sin like Sodom through the godless, homosexual agenda.

The message and mandate are clear, either abortion and the homosexual agenda ends or America as we know it will end. Until now, America has refused to connect the dots between our spiritual and moral condition and the litany of woe challenging our nation. We pretend this party with death and perversion will continue with our homes, churches, institutions, and economic security remaining intact. Thomas Jefferson stated, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Due to the seriousness of the hour, the call is twofold. First, every Church needs to immediately form a pro-life and pro-family missions program to address and defeat the abortion industry and the homosexual agenda, while at the same time opening our hearts to those enslaved by Satan's lies to see them liberated by the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If, however, the Church continues to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to these sins that have reached heaven, our survival as a nation will continue down the primrose path to destruction. The Church's silence and inaction is partially responsible for the corruption of our nation to continue unabated.

Secondly, we call upon all branches of government to recant of calling good, evil and evil, good by codifying the abominable practices of abortion and homosexuality into law. For far too long, they have defended the indefensible. They cannot make straight what Almighty God has called crooked and expect America to thrive as a nation.

If we summon the moral will to do these necessary changes, we may avert going the way of every other nation that shook its puny fist in the face of a Holy God. Otherwise, America prepare to reap what you have sown!

Obama Nation? A prediction of the November 4, 2008 Electoral Map

With the current economic crisis and the trooper-gate flap in Alaska, liberal pundits are predicting a sure Obama victory in November. My prediction is that McCain will have pulled even in the polls even before the first debate next week. On November 4, the Electoral College vote will be so skewed, that every media outlet will be embarrassed that they missed the obvious.

This is just my objective analysis of what I think is sure to happen. In other words, don't believe the liberal media hype! In the primaries, Obama usually polled a few points higher than where he ended up in the final results.

Although I am a big fan of Sarah Palin, I am not a McCain supporter. I may end up voting Constitution Party for the fifth time since 1992.

Here is what the Electoral College map could look like on November 4.

McCain vs. Obama -- It's all about the electoral college

Looking at an electoral map of the country, such as the one Dick Morris put out earlier today, it's hard to see how McCain can lose the 2008 presidential election. History shows that whenever a Democrat wins the presidency, he begins with a sizeable lead in the polls at the time of the Democratic convention. As time inches closer to election day, the Democrat invariably loses ground.

Obama's lead is one of the slimmest in history this early in the campaign. Although the popular vote shows Obama ahead by 2 percentage points, most of that can be explained by the huge lead he has in California and the Northeast -- the bluest of the blue states. For instance, a lead of 15 points among California's 12 million voters translates into about two million votes. Assuming 100 million Americans will vote on November 4th, the imbalance in California alone accounts for Obama's slim lead.

Looking at the remaining states on the map, I can't see how McCain can lose.

1. All McCain has to do is pick off one or two purple states currently in Obama's column, such as New Mexico or Colorado (or one of the yellow states on Morris' map) and it will be all over.

2. Pick up both Pennsylvania and Ohio and it's a sure victory for McCain. He then can afford to lose several of the smaller "swing" states now in contention and still win.

3. The polls for Obama in the primaries showed an effect in which the numbers were inflated compared to where he ended up on election day -- in some cases much inflated.

This is explained by the fact that undecided voters will often tell pollsters they support the more liberal candidate, but when these moderates and independents go to the voting booth, they most often shy away from the liberal or progressive candidate and vote for the "safer" moderate or conservative.

Come November 4th, there may be not just a McCain victory, but an electoral college landslide akin to Reagan '82 and '84, and Bush '88.

What McCain needs to do to ensure a Republican landslide

1. Hammer on the fact that Obama is the most liberal of the 100 Senators. McCain voted with the Republicans 90 percent of the time, a slogan that Obama is using to tie McCain to Bush. But this ought to backfire on Obama since he voted with the Democrats nearly 100 percent of the time. By comparison, the Independent "maverick" Joe Lieberman voted at a 90 percent rate with the Democrats -- a record the Democrats cited in trying to oust him. McCain needs to run ads showing the Democrats' hypocrisy on this issue: "How can Obama reach across the aisle if he is so far to the left?"

2. Emphasize McCain's history of opposing lobbyists and special interest groups while blaming the savings and loan crisis on the Democrat's reliance on money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run their campaigns.

3. Counter the perceived strength of the Democrats in the current economic downturn by continuing to preach the theme of a pair of proven reformers who will shake up Washington.

4. Continue to call on George W. Bush to fire a few well-chosed political cronies in Washington as a signal of what McCain/Palin will do when they take office.

5. Portray the McCain/Palin team as representing the common people, while showing Obama/Biden as elitist insiders.

As every jet fighter pilot knows, McCain just needs to gain a slightly higher advantage over his opponent, and then hone in on him from above firing as often and as hard as possible to bring the Democrat campaign down in flames. It's really a no-brainer.

McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in May, 2006

I never thought I'd be writing a blog entry defending John McCain's record, but the Obama campaign has responded to the recent loan company bail-out by charging that McCain has "lobbyists" on his campaign staff. However, Obama's campaign staff is more directly linked to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama is a top recipient of contributions from these organizations.

Here are the top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 1989-2008:

1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849

An article from June 11, 2008 reports that "Barack Obama's taking serious heat for his reliance on former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson to vet potential vice presidential prospects. Obama has presented himself as an outsider and a Washington change agent and Johnson, whose favorable loan deals with Countrywide Financial Corp. made him a lightning rod, is as inside as they come in the capital. How much of an outsider can Obama be, really, GOP skeptics ask, if he's turned to somebody like Johnson for important spadework in finding a running mate? Johnson announced he quit the Obama campaign earlier today, but the question likely will linger. John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, also has ties to Fannie Mae, though less directly."

In 2005, the Democrats voted adown a bill co-sponsored by McCain that purported to bring reform. Could it be a coincidence that Obama is now scrambling to deflect the blame with irrelevant charges?

On May 25, 2006, John McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He co-sponsored the S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced in January 2005.

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years, I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a co-sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Here is a summary of the bill: 1/26/2005–Introduced. Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

An electoral college landslide for McCain?

Even without Sarah Palin on the ticket, John McCain already had the electoral college sewn up just after the Democratic convention.

That's if the pre-convention polling results of the last 35 years are an indicator.

Let's look at the data. A Democratic challenger needs at least an 18 to 19 point lead going into a convention.

McGovern had a 17 point lead in 1972.

Mondale had 14 in 1984.

Dukakis had 11 in 1988.

All ended up as landslides for the Republican candidates on election day.

On the other hand, Carter had a 21 point over Ford in 1976 and he barely eeked out a win in one of the closest elections in history.

Bill Clinton had the largest lead in history prior to the Democratic convention in 1992. Then the Democrats got an additional 16 point "bounce" (the largest in history) causing Ross Perot to drop out of the race temporarily. Of course, Clinton went on to win.

Barack's outlook is dismal if we use this as a precedent.

Obama went into his convention with a 3 point and came out a 6 point lead -- the lowest bounce ever.

The Democrat insiders saw the handwriting on the wall. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska both were asked to fill the vice president slot before Senator Biden. They saw the numbers and decided not to go down with a sinking ship. Biden apparently thought he had nothing to lose.

Now McCain is up by three or four points nationally according to the most recent polls and has been gaining a point or two per week in the key counties and states. The momentum is swinging toward McCain in every state.

The liberal media is going to keep saying that it all comes down to Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico. If McCain loses all three, Obama loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college. If McCain can take just one (which is almost a certainty) he slips in. If he wins all three and perhaps one or two more of the "blue" states, then it is an electoral college landslide. There is the strong possibility that even states such as Washington and New York are now moving toward McCain.

Of course, the media will try to paint it as a horse race and do everything they can to spin public opinion toward Obama, but this is going to be a landslide victory if trends continue -- not as big as Nixon over McGovern in 1972 -- but still a landslide.

(Thanks to JAZ for his historical analysis and insights.)

Why does the universe exist? - An answer to atheism

When I was a freshman in high school, I encountered the following argument for the existence of God. The argument was a lengthy quote in a book I was reading by Dr. Henry M. Morris, founder of the Creation Research institute. I have found this argument to be air tight and irrefutable. It became the basis for accepting many tenets of Christian orthodoxy that many intellectuals and "free-thinkers" of my generation have dismissed out of hand.

Case in point: Atheists charge that Christians need to resort to "special pleading" in explaining the supernatural accounts of the Bible. Special pleading in this case is the introduction of unprovable causes to explain unproven effects. That is, given a biblical history that includes miraculous events that are, by definition, "impossible" according to natural scientific laws, the only way to rationalize these "supernatural" occurrences is to postulate the existence of an all-powerful Creator God. The atheist argues that miracles do not occur in the observable universe for the simple reason that natural laws prohibit supernatural occurrences. Therefore, the lack of the "necessity" for a supernatural Creator Being leads the atheist to a firm lack of belief.

I would respond to the charge of "special pleading" by stating that atheism requires special pleading, but Christian theism does not.

Theism just proposes a logical solution to the primary existential paradox.

What is the Existential Paradox?

I will here explain the existential paradox -- the problem of existence -- in the rational terms of physical science. I have quoted and paraphrased Dr. Henry M. Morris' argument in several places.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning in that the universe could never have existed in a time prior to being in a state of total available energy.

Why?

Simply because the First Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The First Law states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed.

Science cannot explain why matter cannot be created or destroyed. We just know that this is impossible in a purely natural system governed by physical laws. Matter and energy may be converted one into another, but beyond that, energy simply has "no place to go."

The Second Law states that the quantity of available energy is decreasing.

Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy is progressively greater until, finally, we reach the beginning point, where available energy equals total energy.

Time could go back no further than this. At this point, both energy and time must have come into existence in our known universe.

One might hypothesize that the universe was simply "still" at this point and had no beginning. However, this is impossible, since movement is always taking place wherever there is matter even if it is the movement of kinetic energy at the molecular level.

One might also hypothesize that it is meaningless to talk about a "before" in time when the universe was compressed into state of total energy because at this point in time, as time and matter are relative to each other, eternity existed in a moment.

While this is true, it doesn't solve the problem of there being a system with all the available energy in the universe being compressed into a single point and space in time.

The scientific conundrum from a purely metaphysical naturalistic point of view is that energy cannot create itself, or come into existence from non-existence by itself.

Something else besides the known universe must exist in order for the known universe to exist.

The most scientific and logical conclusion we could possibly state is that:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

The atheist will not accept this conclusion, however.

He instead hypothesizes that either:

1. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time.

2. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

3. Some force more powerful that all the energy in the known universe brought our universe into being.

When he makes the first two assumptions, however, he is denying his own metaphysical naturalism, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes.

In the third assumption, the atheist is only denying the inevitable, that someone or something created the known universe.

In all three cases, the atheist is really resorting to creationism, but just refuses to acknowledge a personal Creator God.

If the atheist would be epistemologically honest in admitting this, Christian theists could have some respect for their position and meaningful dialog would result.

But since this is not the case, all the atheist can do is attack belief in God as something he lacks. He can never defend his on position without resorting to the convoluted and contradictory argument that attacks the supernatural as something that is not naturally possible.

He is correct. Natural laws cannot explain or describe supernatural events adequately. However, the universe itself according to its own self-contained physical laws requires a supernatural cause.

What is Imprecatory Prayer?

Imprecatory prayer is essentially praying the Psalms of the Bible and specifically naming the enemies of God who refuse to repent. In scripture, imprecations are prayed for political leaders or powerful people who threaten the peace of God's people.

However, imprecatory prayer is directed primarily at God's covenant people, not the unconverted or those who are not part of the covenant. The imprecatory prayer asks the blessings of God on His people if we obey the Law, and curses of God if we disobey. Throughout the Bible the blessings and curses of God are delineated as part of God's covenant. Deuteronomy 28 and 29 contain lists of blessings and curses for God's people. Many of the Psalms of David also contain imprecations.

The Beatitudes of Luke 6:20-26 contain the curses of God (in the form of "woes") as well as the blessings:

Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man’s sake.

Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
For so did their fathers to the false prophets.

- Luke 6:22,26

Paul commands us to pray and sing the Psalms (Eph. 5:19) – all of them, especially the imprecatory Psalms that call down both God’s destruction and conversion of the wicked (Psalms 74, 83, etc.). In fact, imprecatory prayer has been part of the liturgy of various church denominations for centuries – especially in funeral services.

One of the most famous examples of this is the Requiem by Mozart.

Confutatis maledictis
Flammis acribus addictis,
Voca me cum benedictis.

When the accursed have been confounded
And given over to the bitter flames,
Call me with the blessed.

A vital feature of imprecatory prayer is repentance in order to receive God's blessing. But another feature is rejoicing over God's judgment of sinners. In the 1990s, I published a series of articles in The Forerunner about imprecatory prayer and applied it to the abortion issue and pro-life activism.

Author Ray Sutton calls this the "Covenantal Lawsuit:

One of the greatest concerns is the “wicked people” – abortionists, pornographers, statist politicians, etc. – who stand in the way of the visible reign of Christ (Heb. 2:8ff.). How should they be dealt with? Because the Biblical covenant commands Christians to be lawful, they are not allowed to use violence, except in the event of self-defense and a legally declared war by proper civil magistrates. Are they, therefore, left only with what some Christian activists call “a smile and a ‘God loves you’”?

No. The Bible specifies a special kind of lawsuit that can be filed with God against the wicked called a covenantal lawsuit. This Biblical concept is consistently used by the prophets. In a covenantal lawsuit, the blessings and curses found in Deuteronomy 28 are turned into accusations against lawless covenant-breakers and enemies of the Church, calling down God’s sanctions on them. Yes, a covenant lawsuit asks God to remove the wicked. God removes the wicked one of two ways: by conversion or destruction. So, a covenantal lawsuit is not “unloving.” But it is a Biblical method for taking dominion when opposition is met! A Christian’s greatest weapon in the face of opposition is not a “carnal” weapon but a spiritual one (2 Cor. 10:4), the covenant itself turned into a lawsuit before God (That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant)

The imprecatory prayer can take the form of a proclamation signed by church ministers and members calling political leaders to repentance. In the 1990s, many Christians became interested in how this could apply to the president because of his avid pro-abortion agenda. Bill Clinton was a member of a confessional church, which made him, at least confessionally, a Christian subject to sanctions of the church.

To be consistent, we ought to pray for all our leaders in this manner, not just the ones we don't like. For instance, if John McCain were to be elected and continued to support embryonic stem cell research, homosexual rights and so on, then the church would be responsible to call the president to repentance.

This could take the form of praying specific imprecations (curses) found in scripture if the president does not uphold God's law. The prayer would be published and the president would be warned and implored to obey God's covenant.

An example

Psalm 109:8 is a prayer of King David when Saul was persecuting him.

"Let his days be few,
And let another take his office."

This is essentially what I believe we should pray when John McCain (who is a church member and claims Jesus as his Savior) is elected. If he were not to be proactive on the pro-life issue as promised, then he would be under God's judgment. The church's responsibility is to proclaim this publicly through imprecatory prayer.

An explanation

The above is intended as an explanation to the many who have responded to an earlier blog post in which I referred to imprecations in passing. This can be wrenched out of context and framed in terms of "praying for so-and-so's death."

That is technically correct, but if taken out of context, it is a misleading way of phrasing it.

It is important not to take imprecatory Psalms and prayers out of context. I advocate praying imprecations precisely as stated in scripture. Of course, the reaction to church leaders who advocate imprecatory prayer is always going to be negative, especially when understood in the context of a liberal or atheistic worldview.

I may also be presumptive in thinking that most Christians understand the following:

1. That Christians understand election and reprobation -- I am afraid that most think that all may repent if we just give them the benefit of the doubt and pray for them long enough. But it is possible that John McCain is not one of the elect and no amount of time and prayer will change this. If so, then it is better that he be removed from office and a Christian that upholds God's law would take his place.
   
2. That most Christians understand that no one can really pray effectively for God to "kill" anyone. God is sovereign and He isn't moved by prayer. It is just the opposite. God moves us to pray according to His will. That is why it is important to pray both blessings and curses of the covenant when we pray for our leaders (and especially for ourselves). If you read David's Psalms (especially Psalm 7) David prays that God would judge him if he is disobedient or has sin in his heart.
3. That people understand that John McCain is not pro-life. A lot of people think he is. I'd just recommend researching his record. Some say he's pro-life about 75 to 80 percent of the time.

So let me know really what you think.

Is John McCain pro-life?

Is imprecatory prayer hateful?

Does the church have the responsibility to pray both the blesings and curses of God for our leaders?

The Atheist Syndrome

Dr. George Grant sat for a video interview a back and he talked about the book, The Atheist Syndrome. The author, John Koster, profiles the lives and personalities of four of most well-known atheists and their followers. In the most extreme cases, atheism is not just a healthy skepticism, such as agnosticism (the admission of "not knowing" if there is a God) or "free thinking" that eschews supernatural theology in favor of naturalist explanations. The atheist claims to speak as infallibly as God in claiming there is no God. In its extreme form, atheism is a mental disorder.

George Grant explains:



If you think this is pure polemics, I'll go as far as to agree that on the surface it seems that this profile is too naïve. To say that all atheists are bed-wetters, sexual deviants, victims of abusive fathers and promiscuous mothers is at best an over-generalization based on four of the most well-known atheists and some of their followers. I'd never go to this extreme to say all atheists are like that.

But there is a syndrome that is very real and more endemic to atheists than any other group.

Since 1987, my passion for ministry has focused on media projects, eschatology, theonomy, evangelism, foreign missions, political action and pro-life activism. Therefore, most of the criticism I get from our web presence has been from liberals, witches, pagans, and pro-abortion advocates. It is completely understandable and expected. The liberals (both theological and political) fear that a growing Christian movement represents a throwback to the fear and prejudice of the so-called "Dark Ages." Witches and pagans fear that biblical law will lead to a return to the "burning times." Pro-aborts oppose pro-life activism out of their desire for selfish autonomy and a license for irresponsible behavior.

Most of the emails and comments I have received from these groups have taken the form of hysterical screeds. In effect, they say: "You Christians want to kill and repress us all!"

Of this group, King Solomon lamented when he wrote:

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing" (Proverbs 28:1).

When faced with left-wing paranoia, I usually try to explain in a rational and calm tone that there is always great freedom in a Christian society for people to hold other views and practice their religion in private just as long just as they do not break the civil laws of the society. Of course, Christians want these laws based – if not wholly, then at least in principle – on biblical law.

As a person who was converted to Christ as an adult, I realize that everyone is in a different place in their journey toward God. We can offer a great deal of tolerance when dealing with groups who do not share our worldview. It took me 23 years to see the truth. I try to keep that in mind and that I should bear with people who don't see it my way.

My vision for a Christian America is the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell – a ruler who invited Jews to return to England 100 years after being banished by King Henry VIII. Cromwell also protected the rights of Roman Catholics to worship publicly in Protestant England – although he was adamantly opposed to their theology on a personal level. He strengthened a republican form of government in England and fought the idea of the "divine right of kings."

Recently, due to some side comments I made on a blog post regarding imprecatory prayer, I've flushed out droves of new antagonists – the militant atheists. Except for a few notable champions, most prefer to remain anonymous while sniping at Christians and all theists in general from the bushes. Their most effective field of battle is the blogosphere of course.

They are even more hysterical than the usual suspects – the liberals, pagans and pro-aborts – but they are different in that they share in common several pathological characteristics. While I don't necessarily think that Koster's thesis is entirely correct, I've noticed several common denominators among atheists – or at least the these anonymous atheist flamers on the Internet. These include:

1. Decrying the supposed stupidity and lack of intelligence on the part of Christians without ever condescending to a focused debate on worldview issues.
2. The use of invective, profanity and ad hominem attacks when refuting Christians, ironically acting extremely insulted when the tables are turned.
3. Focusing on the supposed hypocrisies of Christianity, while never owning their own behavior or the inhuman criminal history of recent atheistic societies.
4. An obsession with sexually demeaning comments bordering on harassment in an attempt to assault the moral sensibilities and sexual ethics of the Bible.
5. An obsession with irrelevant details.
6. Frequent accusations of lying and dishonesty even while purposefully interpreting Christian writings and biblical theology in a skewed and satirical manner.
7. An irrational insistence that experimental science is the only form of rational thought. In other words, a belief in metaphysical naturalism (the idea that all truth is knowable through naturalistic experimentation and observation) rather than traditional scientific rationalism (the idea that science can only observe, reproduce and describe natural events according to an imperfect paradigm.)

I didn't need to do case studies or conduct a scientific study to discover this syndrome. I have enough data in my mail box over the years. (I am sure that I'll get many more of these now as a result of P.Z. Myers free advertisement of my website.)

No atheist's response is complete without the "bearing false witness" charge. Although mountains of materials defending Christianity have been written and collected over the centuries, the charge is always that it is a "lie" to say so. On the contrary, if a religious opinion can be proven demonstrably wrong, it is only an opinion, not a lie.

Another ploy is to portray Christians as "hateful." The idea that Christianity promotes a "love you neighbor" ethic is freely admitted by atheists when they berate us for our alleged "hatred hypocrisy." They need to borrow from Christianity's moral code of the "law of love" even while they mock us!

I sometimes use sarcasm in my responses to non-believers. Jesus and the Apostle Paul used sarcasm, so it's not wrong to use it in a measured way. But usually I try to answer rationally – not with my answers, but with a theological consensus based on years of study on the matter. I don't get into arguments over things I know nothing about. In this case, silence is usually treated as an admission of surrender.

It is supposed to be hypocrisy for Christians to treat biblical morality as binding on non-believers. It's hypocritical for us hold a black and white view of morality. Who are we to say what is "good" and "evil"? But that's not to stop the pot from calling the kettle black. Atheists have their own version of morality that they seek to impose on society.

Neutrality is a myth. Every civil law is an imposition of someone's morality on another person. No culture can exist for long as an amalgamation of diverse "moralities." Eventually one worldview is going to win out. And that is really what this debate is about. It's a battle for our culture. The militant atheists are worthy adversaries in this battle because they understand that theirs is a battle for cultural dominion far better than most Christians. Although atheists are a small minority, they understand that they can win by holding forth in the battle of ideas. No matter how vacuous they may sound at first, many of their core ideas are already the ruling presuppositions of the media, entertainment industry and liberal politics.

That is why the Sarah Palin nomination has them hysterical. Win or lose, she is a bright, young, articulate defender of the Christian political worldview who will be around for years to come.

So get ready. The culture wars are back.

Why I support Chuck Baldwin for President

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

- John Quincy Adams

Have you considered voting for the Constitution Party candidate in the last few election cycles, Howard Phillips or Mike Peroutka or Chuck Baldwin, but were discouraged by the following argument?

“A vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama!”

or …

“You are throwing away your vote on a candidate that can’t win!”

There is a fundamental problem with this statement in that it assumes that the Republican choice is acceptable. I had this argument with Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primaries. I argued that Mike Huckabee was an acceptable candidate and actually had a chance of winning. If only the Romney and Paul supporters would unite behind the frontrunner we could have beaten McCain.

The problem with my thinking was that the Paul supporters – even though they could not win – thought Huckabee was an unacceptable choice. While I disagree with them, I respect them for their uncompromising stance.

Likewise, I would vote for Sarah Palin without any hesitation she were running for president. She's not perfect, but acceptable. I am willing to make a mistake on a relative unknown who has done all the right things so far and stands for all the right things (at least in word). However, Sarah Palin isn't running for president, John McCain is. It is the "known" quantity of McCain that I can't support. I simply can't bring myself in good conscience to support a liberal Republican.

The Constitution Party is by far a better choice. I am supporting Chuck Baldwin because he's the best man running. If you doubt this, I ask you to visit his website and make your decision based on his positions.

http://www.baldwin08.com/

The Constitution Party is the only political party that recognizes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of humanity in its platform. Up and down, every issue that Christians care about is advocated – not without flaws – but in a far better way than what I have seen in any other political party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Now some will object:

“What if millions of Christians support Baldwin, but we get only 10 percent of the vote and throw the election to the Democrats?”

It’s possible.

Many people blame Ross Perot for Clinton’s election to office with 43 percent of the vote in 1992 and then 49 percent of the vote in 1996. But there is a flip side to the argument.

First, the Republican Party needs Christian conservatives in order to win. If we “throw” an election or two, the damage is short term. Then we may get the candidate we want in the next cycle, or else the Constitution Party is an option again. It’s the age-old political strategy of purposefully taking one step backwards in order to take two steps forward. If we continue the way we are going now with the Republican Party, we are surely going backwards. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 spawned the “Contract with America” – a conservative movement that didn’t go far enough and yet brought the greatest era of economic growth our nation has ever seen. A loss is not a loss when the better of the two frontrunners is a disaster.

Second, there are probably just as many disaffected leftists who would vote Green Party, Libertarian Party or some other third party instead of voting for a Democrat from a congressional session that has a 17 percent approval rating. When they see many of us leaving the Republican Party, fewer of them will be afraid to leave the Democrats.

Third, we will win eventually. I believe strongly in the “Puritan Hope” – that one day the whole earth will be filled with the glory of God. Supporting the Constitution Party is supporting the winning side. It is the only self-consciously Christian party. It can be our vehicle until something even better comes along. America will be a Christian nation, or another Christian nation will take its place. If we succeed in restoring America to the vision of our Puritan and Christian Patriot forefathers, our support of the Constitution Party in the darkest days before the fall of western humanism will be a source of joy and pride for our children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, I am afraid that future generations might look back and see that I supported “the lesser of two evils” – and hid my talents in the ground, while our country’s destiny weighed in the balance.

I realize an Obama presidency would be a disaster. I hope and pray that if it is truly a choice between Obama and McCain that somehow McCain wins and he either repents of his weak views on the sanctity of life, marriage and big government – or that he dies soon after his election and Palin gets the executive office.

And yet God holds us accountable for our actions as individuals. If we have the choice between two sinful actions and a morally correct decision, and yet the morally correct decision would cause us to suffer a personal setback, then it is still wrong to pick the lesser of two evils. We only win when we obey God.

Is Baldwin God’s Candidate?

I am not claiming that Baldwin is “God’s candidate.” Every Christian needs to follow his own conscience on this matter. If you can vote for McCain with a clear conscience, then by all means do it, but remember, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

But if you think your only option is a vote for McCain, consider this. Twenty years ago it would have been unthinkable for evangelical Christian to support a candidate who said in 2005:

The constitutional amendment [banning gay marriage] strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.... It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/

Since that statement McCain has equivocated all over the place on the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions – he's for fetal tissue research, but he's "pro-life" – and so on.

If McCain was acceptable or even near the threshold of acceptability I'd vote for him. However, a vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

Now most of my friends are supporting this man simply because he suddenly talks the right talk. We are no longer governed by the rule of law and we Christians need to do what our conscience tells us to do in order to resist lawlessness.

If we support this candidate, how far will we be willing to compromise 20 years down the road?

God does miracles and it's possible that some weird national crisis could catapult a third party candidate into national prominence. It has happened a few times in our history, Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 being the most notable example. However, God does not usually perform "miracles" without a human agent acting according to natural means. God sets up providential circumstances and then requires His people to act in the right way to receive the blessing.

Most people don't want to admit it, but we are living in the first stages of a tyrannical state. I don't think it is as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us think, but it is headed in that direction. What was unthinkable 20 years ago is reality today and God only knows what lies down the road if the slide is not reversed.

Can the slide be reversed? Can we restore our nation as a beacon of righteousness? Will God do such a miracle and bring a spiritual awakening to our land?

Yes, under one condition.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. – 2 Chronicles 7:14

Samuel Adams said referring to the overthrow of George III’s tyranny in America:

He who sets up and pulls down, confines or extends empires at his pleasure, generally, if not always, carries on his work with instruments apparently unfit for the great purpose, but which in his hands are always effectual ... God does the work, but not without instruments, and they who are employed are denominated as his servants; no king, nor kingdom was ever destroyed by a miracle which effectually excluded the agency of second causes ... We may affect humility in refusing to be made the instruments of Divine vengeance, but the good servant will execute the will of his master. Samuel will slay Agag; Moses, Aaron, and Hur will pray in the mountain, and Joshua will defeat the Canaanites.

Yes, God does the work, if His people are willing to obey His commandments. I pray that enough would be willing.

PZ Myers weighs in on my Sarah Palin entry

One of my good friends here in Florida is a young media expert who keeps telling me that I should post more of my writings to my blog instead of constantly writing to a ring of five or six friends with my most imaginative ideas. His rationale is that a blog that goes viral is a valuable commodity. At first, I doubted that most people are ready for my ideas in their raw form, but now I think he may be right. At the very least, I will get some attention.

I found out today that my most read read blog post so far for the month of September is my recent entry about Sarah Palin, in which I suggest that (even though I may end up supporting The Constitution Party once again) I am secretly (now not so secretly) praying that McCain/Palin beats Obama/Biden. Then when McCain wins, we ought to pray for McCain's true conversion making use of imprecatory prayer.

I must be doing something right when PZ Myers calls me a kook.

See: Pharyngula Blog

Myers, if you remember, was the outspoken atheist featured in Expelled the movie.

As an atheist, he thinks that imprecatory prayer is hateful and outrageous. Of course, he gets the intent wrong: I want God to bless the president (whoever he is) if he does right in the eyes of God, and curse him if he disobeys God's law. It's the prayer of David for King Saul in about a dozen or two Psalms.

(Note: Although David's Psalms were used of God to bring about Saul's death, David loved Saul and wanted to see his true conversion.)

PZ didn't read our imprecatory prayer articles.

But due to PZ's blog entry I've gotten a lot of notice as an example of an extremist right wing Christian hate-monger.

Once again.

He even throws in a Mr. Rogers' joke. It's very funny actually. Ironic. If PZ only knew the how mild-mannered and congenial I am with my high school students. I am Mr Rogers!

One my most favorite passages of scripture is Judges 5:20, the Song of Deborah:

“They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.”

The idea of course, is that every political battle, every war, is also a spiritual battle when it involves God's people. Justice is written into every atom of the universe. There is a war going on, a spiritual revolution. There is no neutral ground on which to stand. And judgment at the moment of our death is inescapable.

So I need your advice.

My next entry on Sarah Palin vs. Obama/Biden may be called:

"Deborah vs. Sisera: the stars fought in their courses"

- or -

"The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Girly Men"

(I won't explain this last one now. Just read the John Knox article here.)

Which do you like better?

The Todd Bentley "revival" fall-out

"I insisted much on the necessity of a new birth, as also on the necessity of a minister's being converted before he could preach aright. Unconverted ministers are the bane of the Christian Church. I think that great and good man, Mr. Stoddard, is much to be blamed for endeavoring to prove that unconverted men might be admitted to the ministry. A sermon lately published by Gilbert Tennent, entitled 'The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry' I think unanswerable."

- George Whitefield, Journal, 1741

If you are a person who was affected by the "revival" meetings conducted by Todd Bentley in Lakeland, Florida this past year, you might be confused or asking questions in regard to the fallout surrounding his ministry.

I hope you will read what I have to say here and consider it.

Prior to August 3rd, I had an internet conversation with a friend whose church is experiencing a similar "revival" movement. I had heard a message on CD from the pastor of this church and I thought it was very sound. At the time, I spoke my mind that what I had seen of Bentley on GodTV looked "vacuous" in comparison. A few days later, Bentley was forced to step down from public ministry. I wrote to tell my friend that I blame those people responsible for endorsing this as much as Todd Bentley.

How can it be a "revival" if the leader is preaching heresy and engaging in immoral behavior?

My friend wrote back to say that it is really too bad that people have shut out Bentley's message just because he faltered.

I then explained that I shut out Bentley's message even before I knew about his moral failings. It was the message that made me shut out the message! And in the end, we know a tree by its fruit.

My friend then suggested that to be consistent I should not receive the message of God's grace carried through prophets such as King David, King Solomon or the Apostle Paul, since they too sinned. Yet they were used of God to write scripture. I might as well in effect "shut out" what they have to say about God too.

So the reasoning goes.

I've heard the "David" argument many times before.

I have one word for that idea: antinomianism.

This is the heresy that faith is divorced from works or that faith does not produce obedience to the law of God. If these men are preaching the Gospel yet living in gross unrepentant sin, then they may not even be converted.

Here is what I believe God is leading me to say about all of this.

There are revivals all over the world today. They aren't in the spotlight or on GodTV every night. But they are genuine. I am not saying we should not seek God or that there isn't something wonderful going on in churches who are promoting "revival." I am just against the idea of treating these men differently when they sin and preach heresy because they supposedly have the "anointing."

The Emperor's New Clothes

The strategy of preachers in these revival meetings -- Lakeland, Toronto, Pensacola, etc. -- is to tell people who see their nakedness, that they just aren't "spiritual" enough to receive all the wonderful things God is doing, that they are "blocking" the anointing, and so on. It's a heresy in and of itself -- elitist Gnosticism.

Beyond the issue of personal character, I don't believe that meetings emphasizing gifts, miracles and the "presence" of God are necessarily "revivals" at all. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Once we are saved, we do not become sanctified through spiritual experiences. We become sanctified by obeying God day by day as we are enabled by grace. In other words, there is no "fast track" to sanctification.

Therefore, we cannot "miss the anointing" simply because our hearts are not "open to receive" an experience. There are no higher levels of anointing you can attain in a revival meeting. It's complete nonsense. It's manipulative and it's totally contrary to the message of historic revival -- the message of the Gospel.

In 1994, I decided that experiences with God are a good thing, but you can have them in your living room -- or anywhere God chooses to move. Four years ago, God healed me of a ten day bout with atrial fibrillation in a hospital room. I was simply praying by myself. I rebuked the enemy and my heart converted to a normal rhythm. A coincidence? Maybe. I believe it was a providential healing through prayer. But this experience didn't bring me any closer to God than I was a minute before. Even though I certainly felt closer to God due to that experience, it didn't change my standing in God. Our position with God is a judicial standing, not an experience.

People feel the rush they get in a room of thousands of people worshiping God, and they assume this is the "presence" of God. It's not a bad thing to feel this, but it's totally contrary to scripture to claim that our standing with God is gained through a good feeling or an experience.

My Eyewitness Account

1. I was living in Orlando during Rodney Howard Browne's "laughing revival" in Lakeland, Florida in 1993. I visited several times and wasn't overly impressed. There was not any "supernatural presence" of God there that I could not find through personal devotion or in any church service or prayer group.
   
2. I moved to Melbourne, Florida soon after that and was disturbed by the worldly carnality of Michael W. Thompson and the antinomian teachings of Randy Clark. I wrote a position paper on that in 1994 called Revival: It's No Laughing Matter. I won't repeat the content of it here, but I tried to explain what historic revival is and why this was not it. This was several years before the leaders of that renewal movement were exposed in sin.
3. I lived in Pensacola during the Brownsville Revival. I had a friend who came all the way from Russia to sit in those meetings. He claimed it was the strongest anointing he had ever experienced. I sat there with an open mind and an open heart. I just couldn't bring myself to fake being slain in the spirit or to lie and say I experienced something amazing when all I saw was a religious meeting with a lot people seeking an experience.
4. Todd Bentley was more vacuous than all the others, but I expected the usual crowd to go along with it and claim, "This was the greatest revival since The Great Awakening!" as they always say. Even though I live in nearby Kissimmee, I did not visit the Bentley meetings.
   

How many times can people be fooled by the Emperor's new clothes?

I am nothing special. I don't have a "super-anointing" or a special gift of discernment. If it were not for the grace of God, I could be fooled too.

In fact, you may think I am fooled by a "hard heart."

So I will leave you with this.

George Whitefield preached that one of the signs of God beginning to judge a nation is that He will give the church over to unconverted ministers -- even those who do not behave as sinners -- and God will turn the people over to blindness so that they will receive them as angels of light.