The Fruits Of Non-Judgmentalism

July 5th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

The Fruits Of Non-Judgmentalism
Pubescent, Pregnant, And Proud
By Mike Azinger

No too many years ago in America, if a high school girl became pregnant she was shuffled out of town under the blanket of darkness to have the baby in anonymity. The baby would subsequently be given to a loving family (defined, then, as consisting–absolutely–of a mother and father)

It was reported recently that in Gloucester, Massachussetts, seventeen Gloucester High School girls made a pact to become pregnant so they could rear their children together. When the teenage girls found out they had achieved their ignoble goal, they began high-fiving each other. The other girls involved in the pact who had failed to get pregnant looked on with the same emotions girls used to have when watching the girls do backflips who beat them out for cheerleading squad. Backflips, high-fives, cheerleading squads, pregnant teenagers–what’s the difference in this brave new non-judgmental world we have created?

The first rule of being a good post-modern American citizen is learning to be non-judmental. That is, never condemn anything as being wrong (lest you get condemned for condemning; or get judged for judging) even if a mother drowns her kids in a bathtub or a politician attends a church for twenty years where the pastor damns America.

Or a girl has a baby out of wedlock.

The only thing more ubiquitous in American society than the newest fruit of feminism–a boy being driven around by a girl–is a girl walking around pregnant without the slightes blush or the least bit of shame. Why should they be ashamed, though, since these out-of-wedlock teens have been “congratulated” ad nauseum by sychophantic, sympathetic, smiling adults who don’t dare condemn the unwed mother for conceiving her child in fornication? Not only do they not overtly disaprove, they don’t even flash an inconspicuous frown out of the very real fear of being labeled judmental or, worse, a moralist. Heaven forfend!

There is a pregnant young girl with no wedding ring who works the drive-thru at our local Tim Horton’s. She smiles and is fairly friendly (they never are, it appears to me, overtly friendly), and is blatantly unashamed of her ever increasing out-of-wedlock tummy. She has never, no doubt, heard a single condemning “tsk-tsk” or “Why aren’t you married, young lady?” from her nonjudgmental customers-or friends or family for that matter. She couldn’t have–not more than once anyway. For if she had she would blush, or hide her eyes, or be noticably conspicuous of her belly. In fact, she looks at you, not only without a hint of shame, but with a look like she’s expecting you to hand her a shower gift instead of money for your coffee.

No customer–or anyone else in this post-modern, non-judgmental culture–would dare say a word to this young girl. She is not a young lady. Let’s at least hold that tenuously standing standard for our posterity. A lady would have kept her purity at best, and, at least, left town to have her baby for an intact family to love and rear. But not only did my Tim Horton’s gal not leave town, she took a job–not baking donuts in the back where no one could see her, but right up front in the drive-though window where she could receive accolades her entire 8-hour shift.

Sinners today have the boldness to publicly delve into the vilest of debaucheries. Whether it’s tatooed bodies, gross immodesty, hard-core pornography or unabashed fornication or adultery, modern-day sinners aren’t the least ashamed of their transgressions. Why? Well, because no one calls them transgressions. In fact, no one really labels them at all; hence their boldness.

Who is afraid to murder someone when they will receive the sympathy of being called mentally ill? Who is afraid to commit fornication and adultery when no one even frowns? Who is afraid to leave their spouse when it is accepted as commonplace or, worse, pitied because the poor soul was “trapped” in a bad marriage? Who is afraid to commit any sin when we’ve decided that sin no longer exists?

We no longer judge bad behavior, and when bad behavior is not judged and punished speedily it increases exponentially. Parents weren’t routinely killing their children 50 years ago.

The average Christian–let alone the average citizen–on the other hand, can’t seem to summon the courage to label (judge) behavior for risk of being called something as banal as judgmental or a moralist. Call me both–because God commands it.

One who is being judgmental, you see, is simply making a moral judgment based on what he sees or on the information he has been given; one who is a moralist is simply making a judgment based on morality.

It used to be the sinners who were ashamed of their sin; now it is the Christians and moralists who are ashamed of their beliefs in absolutes. Being ashamed of being good is not a new concept in the world (Peter denied Christ), but it is something fairly new in our culture to have the prevailing zeitgeist bent severely against believing in right and wrong.

Once, a girl who was unchaste–at the very least–or who became pregnant–at the very worst–was labeled a whore– There is a word that makes us uncomfortable. In our society there is no such thing any more. Now whores are not only not condemned, they are congratulated. That is why they can get jobs at Tim Horton’s. Or anywhere else for that matter except perhaps as a church secretary.

Girls who are not married and are still in high school who high-five each other for accomplishing conception should not surprise us. What is not condemned in society will become commonplace. When judging someone for their actions became the greatest sin, other more gross sins began to smile. Their day was coming.

And it is here.

High five!

God Loves Lobbyists

June 8th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

God Loves Lobbyists
(Well, Some Of Them Anyway)
By Mike Azinger

_______________________________________________________

Then came the daughters of Zelophehad…and they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation…saying Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the Lord, and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: Thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. (Numbers 27:1-7)

The four verses following the above text record God giving new law to Moses for the nation of Israel concerning the protection of a daughters’ inheritance (like the Zelophehad sisters) who had no brothers who would otherwise receive their father’s inheritence.

The sisters Zelophehad were lobbyists extraordinaire, and, as far as I can tell, set the example for the Law Of First Mention in Scripture concerning lobbying: Petition the leader of the nation personally and pray for God to get involved to change unjust laws. Christians needs go and do likewise.

God, unlike our semi-phony (McCain) to wholly phony (Obama/Clinton) presidential candidates, never condemned lobbyists. In fact He welcomed them. And Moses, unlike our current semi-phony to wholly phony presidential candidates, never ran on an anti-lobbyist platform. He, like God, also welcomed them.

(A parenthetical thought: What do you think would have happened to the two daughters of Zelophehad if they had taken these same requests to the “Prophet” Mohammed? “Allah” (we know he’s not real, don’t we?) would have had them stoned. But that mean old fire and brimstone God of the Old Testament not only did not have them stoned, He heard their request, and in love and tenderness, agreed with their requests, and, in great condescension, changed the law of Israel because of the humble petition of two lowly Jewish sisters. That is kindness. That is tendermercy. And these girls were the original lobbyists.)

God loves lobbyists–the right kind of lobbyists anyway. And there are many in Washington, D.C. that He loves too. And the Founding Fathers loved lobbyists. We know they did because they made it part of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Redress”, according to Merriam-Webster, means “to set right” to “remedy”. If the government does you wrong, you have a constitutional right to have it “set right”, to have it “remedied”. That is your right. That is my right. In fact, if we are transgressed by the government it is our obligation and duty as Americans to seek “redress”. If we have rights we should exercise them or they are in essence useless aren’t they?

Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and even the “venerable, straight-talking” John McCain like to pontificate on the evils of lobbyists, but that of course is poppycock coming from candidates who are not statesmen but mostly opportunistic camellians to the core, who on the outside gleam with superficial righteousness.

The First Amendment of the Constitution gives Americans the right to lobby for “redress of grievances” and our phony-baloney presidential candidates should pick up James Madison’s masterpiece (when they’re not busy destroying our freedoms) from time to time and read it and study it and memorize it and–here’s a thought!–create laws within its constraints!

Without Washington lobbyists and–more importantly–the great army of individual God-loving, Constitution-loving lobbyists, we would surely by now have lost our right to assembly, our right to bear arms, our right to private property, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, and many more of the rights and freedoms the Founding Fathers by God’s mercy and grace have given us.

We have, of course, already lost many of our Constitutional rights and freedoms to the atheists and the liberals and the far left. Our defeats to Satan’s ilk only stands as a rebuke to God’s people that we have been weak and cowardly and complacent and apathetic and content to be on the losing side, or worse, content to not even join the battle. God is no loser; he’s simply waiting for us to go to war and waiting for us to ask Him to join us.

“Blessed be the Lord God my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight.”

God, no pacifist He.

Christians need to fight; Christians need to lobby. The two are the same. For who is it, if it is not our government–that blasphemous Leviathan–that is crushing our Christian liberties. Make the phone call; send the email; write the letter; attend the town-hall; march in the streets; tell your friends; take up arms if necessary, but let your voice for right be heard!

We don’t need fewer lobbyists, we need more of them. Many, many more lobbyists–corporate and individual–who love God and have a burning desire to fight for the biblical truths that America was founded upon, and to fight to keep America free and Christian. We need radical Christian lobbyists to take on the radical God-hating lobbyists of the left. We need lobbyists who understand that what is at stake is nothing short of the survival of the greatest nation in history.

Unborn babies can be killed in American because somebody lobbied. Homosexual marriage is becoming legal in America because somebody lobbied. Prayer and Bible reading are all but obsolete in our public places in America because somebody lobbied.

Goliath cries, “Blasphemy!”

Why aren’t Christians collectively reaching for a stone?

America’s biggest sin is idolatry. We are terribly immoral, yes, but that is because we are increasingly indulgent in our love of idolatry. Have you seen how God judges idolatry? Read Deuteronomy 28. Have you seen how God judged nations with weather catotastrophes? Have you seen The Weather Channel lately? Have you seen our weather in the last ten years? Do you know that our government borrowed billions of dollars from the Chinese–yes, the Chinese–for our stimulus checks? Is it not plausible to say that God’s iron hand of judgment is beginning to close?

Government, among lesser things, is our new god. Government is large because we love it. It is large because we feed it. It is large because we want it to protect us and provide for us; and therein lies our idolatry. God and God alone is our protector. God and God alone is our provider. And He is a jealous god. He will destroy, not his competition, because His competition is hollow and cannot speak and cannot hear, He will destroy the worshippers of His competition, who can speak and can hear–and can make choices of whom to worship.

Whenever there is a great natural disaster around the world, look first for idols. The tsunami destroyed lands of great idolatry. The earthquake in China also. Natural disasters in the Bible always come from the hand of God, always with purpose, always with a message, and always–almost always– in severe judgment.

Have you seen the Weather Channel lately?

Nations that cannot govern themselves God sends others to govern. The men He sends have names that send chills up the spine because they are names of brutality: brutal like Stalin, brutal like Castro, brutal like Mao. We don’t believe it can happen in America, but at the end of the path we are on stands–unmoveable and with iron fists, cold and merciless–a ruthless leader. His name is Dictator; and he will not be our friend.

The sisters Zelophehad were wise and bold in their errand, and they acquired the ear of God. They did it by lobbying the leader of a nation first. Not only were they successful, but they received the response of God Himself.

May the Lord give His remnant a boldness of this kind.

In The Beginning

May 4th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

In the Beginning
Observations On Atheism And the Origins of Life
By Mike Azinger

“I want to know how God created this world….I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”1 Albert Einstein

“…and I deserve to be called a Theist.”2 Charles Darwin

_______________________________________________________

I’ve got something funny to tell you.

There exists in America –in the world even–a large group of scientists, philosophers, and college professors who believe the following hypotheses with all of their hearts: something can come from nothing; matter comes from non-matter; life comes from non-life; order comes from disorder, the laws of physics “arise from the void”3, and natural law breathed itself into existence.

I told you it was funny.

Except that most Americans aren’t laughing–they’re agreeing.

Well known social commentator George Gilder, who years ago became skeptical of Darwinian evolution, makes several brilliant and fascinating observations in his excellent article Evolution and Me from last years’ National Review magazine. Gilder makes the point that Darwinists make the mistaken claim that matter came first and that from matter came information.

But Gilder says this is contrary to the laws of the universe. In the universe (specifically, the world we live in) information, Gilder says, always precedes matter. But for the theories of evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life and, thus, information (intelligence) from non-information. “As I pondered this materialist superstition,” Gilder said, ” it became increasingly clear to me that in all the sciences I studied, information comes first, and regulates the flesh and the world, not the other way around. (emph. mine) The pattern seemed to echo some familiar wisdom. Could it be, I asked myself one day in astonishment, that the opening of St. John’s Gospel, In the beginning was the Word (emph. in orig.), is a central dogma of modern science?”3

And, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Information–God–first, then matter.

Antony Flew is a former world-renowned atheist who, after 50 years of diatribes against theists and Christians, recently converted from atheism to theism (though not yet to Christianity) and wrote a book about his conversion called THERE IS NO A GOD: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind. Though he still harbors much of the pride and arrogance of the intellectual atheist (he attributes his conversion to theism (actually deism), not to God himself, but to the arguments of other Christian philosophers and to his unflinching loyalty to Socrates’ maxim of “follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads.”) One certainly hopes that the argument he’s following eventually leads him to the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone can save him from his sin and give him eternal life.

One of the reasons Flew gives for his turning away from atheism is the problem of evil–an existential conundrum for the atheist that, of course, can never be explained outside of the biblical worldview. But Flew gives other examples also for his conversion, including the stubborn facts about the make up of the universe.

    “Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants–the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance–had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed.” 4

Those who can’t determine the obvious–yes, Virginia, there is a God– by a quick look out their window will be helped along by fascinating data like the above. And it is fascinating indeed. Dr. John Polkinghorne, who is president of Queens College, Cambridge, a famous quantum physicist, and also a former atheist, made the following brilliant and illuminating statement about the beginning of the universe:

    “In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then mater would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe’s history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10[to the 60th power]. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark.5 (emphasis mine)

Another word for all of that fancy jargon is: Impossible.

It is amazing to me the straw foundations upon which atheistic Darwinists build their worldview frame work. Their conscience alone cries from deep within their hearts and minds that there is a God of unfathomable power who made them, and creation itself shouts His praises in their deaf ears every second of every minute of every day of their unbelieving lives.

But they will not hear. They fool themselves into thinking that because they have convinced themselves that what they believe is so, they are protected from the consequences of their actions, they are shielded from the wages of their sin, they are impervious to reaping their whirlwind, and they are excused from the judgment of of their unbelieving hearts. But they are not. Imagine their faces when they find they find that they are without excuse for their rebellion against God and without mercy and pardon for their actions–”To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners haave spoken against them.” (Jude 15)

I have many times used the illustration of holding my open hand out to my side, observing that nothing is in my hand, and then making the point that a million, a billion, a trillion years from now “nothing” will still be in my hand. Abraham Varghese in his Appendix to Antony Flew’s book uses the illustration of imagining a marble table in front of you and that even in an infinite amount of time that marble table could never come to conscious life. Something never comes from nothing. Life never comes from non-life. Matter never comes before information.

Which brings us to the origon of the universe. Varghese makes the point that we know that every thing that is in existence came from something that existed before it. Everything had to have a creator except for whatever it was that began the universe. Either there is a God or the universe began by itself. “Take your pick:,” Varghese said, “God or the universe. Something always existed.”6 Whichever you pick, it is a matter of faith. Faith that the universe is pre-existent or faith that God is pre-existent. I’ll take God.

“The fool hath said in his heart,” wrote the Psalmist, “there is no God.” Darwinism and atheism make these foolishness and unbelief of fools’ more convenient. Their self-delusion is laughable and horrible at the same time. Especially when one ponders the horror of their eternal destruction at the hands of a just God.

When that happens, it suddenly won’t be so funny.

_______________________________________________________

1 There Is A God, by Antony Flew, p.98
2 Ibid, p. 106
3 Ibid, p. 87
4 Evolution and Me, National Review magazine, July 17, 2006
5There Is A God, p. 115
6 As quoted in Can Man Live Without God, by Ravi Zacharias, p. 84
7 There Is A God, Antony Flew, p. 165

Divorce in America: Past and Present

April 19th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

Divorce in America: Past and Present
By Mike Azinger

“Modern society tends to construe marriage as a kind of contract. This tendency is familiar to us from the sordid divorces of tycoons and pop stars, and is made explicit in the `prenuptial agreement,’ under the terms of which an attractive woman sells her body at an inflated price, and a man secures his remaining assets from her future predations. Under such an agreement, marriage becomes a preparation for divorce, a contract between two people for the short-term exploitation of each other.” (Emphasis mine)
Roger Scruton, “Becoming a Family” from Modern Sex, Edited by Myron Magnet of City Journal magazine

_______________________________________________________

“Marriage becomes a preparation for divorce”: an appropriate phrase for no-fault-divorce America. When citizens are not willing to strengthen the marital fabric of a society, without which it cannot survive, and are not compelled to preserve the covenental undergirding of this most essential cultural institution, then marriage does becomes little more than preparation for divorce.

Early America (1700s) did all that it could to protect and strengthen the familial unit, and laws against divorce were the vigilant watchmen on that wall of defense. That tradition of vigilance remained strong for most of our nations’ history and changed only very recently, mostly–predictably– in the sixties and seventies.

Before no-fault divorce laws, if a mother divorced her husband, she would lose custody of the children and the same for the father. Divorce was rarely even sought unless the behavior of the husband or wife was unbareably egregious; dissolving a marital contract for “irreconcilable differences” was unheard of.

And a father was not allowed in those days to simply abandon his family without fear of consequences.

    “Above all, a husband was legally bound to provide for his wife and children. A Virginia bill drafted by [Thomas] Jefferson said, ‘All able bodied persons…who shall desert wives or children, without…providing for them shall be deemed vagabonds, and shall be sent, by order of an Alderman, to the poor house, there to be kept to labor…not exceeding thrity days.’” 1

Dessertion was considered a crime (as it should have been and should still be) as it is the cruelest of violations against the weak and innocent and even more so because it is against one’s own flesh and blood.

From the time before we were even a nation called America, divorce laws were very stringent. In the North, divorce was against the law with few exceptions; in the South it was against the law, period. And in the rare occurences of divorce, the man was given custody of the children (in stark contrast to today’s laws, where the mother is almost always–even if she initiates the divorce–awarded custody) because he was recognized as the head of the home and the authority thereof. According to Thomas G. West in his book Vindicating the Founders, “If a marriage was dissolved, the husband as head of the family, received custody of the children along with the legal responsibility to maintain them.” 2

Things–you may have heard–have changed.

Any casual observer of history knows that everything–everything– changed in the sixties and seventies, and marriage and marriage laws were no exception. No-fault divorce swept the nation, like the proverbial plague it was, in the sixties and seventies (and since), and the marriage institution has never been the same. Divorce was already on the rise and no-fault laws sped up that rise dramatically.

Fathers seem to get the blame for most divorces, but what all but few cultural commentators even mention is that, contrary to common thinking, it is most often the mothers who want out of the marriage (at least two-thirds of the time) and not the fathers, and the reason that these mothers most often give is the nebulous and inane excuse of “[having a] growing sense of dissatisfaction and emptiness.” 3

Divorces often end up in a place called “family court”, an oxymoronic, Orwellian destination designed to sever this most holy of creations that was never meant to be in “court” and certainly never meant to be severed. It is here where fathers are most often the whipping boys.

Family courts have become, according to Joseph D’Agostino, in his review of Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody, nothing less than “all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself.”4 These courts’ treatment of parents and families is brutal and even Stalinist, issuing unconstitutional rulings ranging from jailing of parents, severing contact between parents and children, or even taking parents’ children away from them as a result of the slightest accusation from a neighbor or school teacher.

After the divorce is final, fathers have had to pay as much as 2/3rds of their income in child support and have even been jailed for merely speaking to their children on the street. How common this is is impossible to know because family courts usually operate outside of the public view and with little oversight whatsoever.

Of course if America, in its pride, had not decided that a covenant as holy as marriage - a covenant between a man and a woman and God Almighty-was a thing not to be taken seriously, family courts and other horrors of divorce would simply be moot. But we did decide, and we forget that many of the awful stories we hear in the news, like fathers killing their children to get revenge on their wives, and boyfriends beating or killing their girlfriends children, did not happen in a vacuum. They happened–most of them– because of divorce. And that is all.

All of the news about divorce is not bad, however. There is good news on the divorce front that has gotten little play in the media.

In their article Crime, Drugs, Welfare–and Other Good News in Commentary magazine, Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin list some amazing statistical good news about the moral direction of American society. Violent crime fell dramatically between 1993 and 2005 to levels not seen since 1973; teenage drug use, which rose dramatically in the 1990’s, fell 23% with the use of many drugs falling farther than that; welfare–which peaked in 1994–has been reduced in every state by at least one third and in some states up to 90%; teen use of alcohol has fallen sharply since 1996; the birth rate for teens has decreased by 35%; abortion rates, after reaching a high of 1.6 million in 1990, have dropped signifigantly to less than 1.3 million, a level not seen since the original Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. 5

And divorce? Hang on to your hat: the divorce rate in America has fallen to its lowest level since 1970!

Perhaps the pendulum’s momentum is pulling back. Perhaps a trend is beginning. Perhaps–as has been noted by many–the victims of divorce from the 70s and 80s are growing up determined their children will not experience the excruciating pain and loneliness that they felt; that they will not do to their children what was done to them. Perhaps a generation of young people are rejecting the moral relativism of their hippie parents and are, ironically, rebelling against the rebellion of their rebel parents. Perhaps all of the preaching and praying and fighting of God’s people from the last 30 years has not been for nothing. Perhaps God is not done with us yet.

So it is worth the time we spend in prayer; the effort and toil to live holy lives; the stubborn commitment to a life lived long and clean and unrecognized and faithful. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much! So it’s worth the time we spend in the Bible; the time we spend teaching God’s word; the time we spend sharing the gospel; the time we spend calling and writing our elected leaders; the time we spend in whatever we’re doing standing for what is right.

Sometimes God lets us see progress in a dry and barren land.

1 Vindicating the Founders, by Thomas G. West, p. 101
2 Baskerville Exposes the Abusive Power of Family Courts, Joseph A. D’Agostino, Human Events, 3/3/08
3 Ibid, also Vindicating the Founders, p. 104
4 Crime, Drugs, Welfare–and Other Good News, Commentary magazine, 12/07, Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin

_______________________________________________________

*Movie On Evolution–From Our Side This Time!
*Divorce and unwed parenting cost U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion annually
*Big Pro-Life Victory in Oklahoma
*Planned Parenthood Kills Record Number of Preborn Babies
*GW Students Refuse To Condemn Genocide
__________________

Frequently, success is what people settle for when they can’t think of something noble enough to be worth failing at. -Laurence Shames

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Who Slew the Strong Man?

February 28th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

Who Slew the Strong Man?
What Happens When Dads Are No Longer With Their Families

By Mike Azinger

Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. Matthew 12:29

Marco Polo returned to Europe from one of his many travels and told a story that made the hair on the back of Western necks stand on end. The story he told was of a beautiful and powerful Asian woman named Aiyaruk, who was a skilled archer and wrestler. Aiyaruk vowed to marry any man who could defeat her in wrestling. According to Marco Polo, the beautiful warrior died an old maid.

This is no minor anomaly. This is a mind-boggling anomaly. But how it could it be? How could a female warrior defeat any and all of her male challengers?

It could be that, though beautiful, this ferocious female fighter was also grossly androgenous and only attracted wimpy men to her arena whom she could easily vanquish. Or, it could be that she was a not-so-uncommon exception in a non-Western society that told its little girls that they could be anything a man could be and told its little boys that growing up and being manly was patriarchal and chauvanistic. It could be, in the culture that created Aiyaruk, that the women were more manly than the men. It could be that Aiyaruk grew up in a society just like ours. Don’t look now–her American sisters are rising…

Gladiators anyone?

Hillary Clinton anyone?

The verse above–Matthew 12:29–is Jesus speaking, asking the question that Americans need to be asking today. That is, how can the enemy break into the house and get the spoils except he first bind the strong man (a beautiful phrase)? The irony of the “strong man” in American families today is that he doesn’t need to be bound–he’s often not even there. And if he is, he’s often not a strong man because he is in subjection to his beloved feminist bride, Aiyaruk of the West.

Feminism has driven many men from the home or made the scenario possible for him to have never arrived there in the first place. Men have been effectively emasculated by the feminist movement to where he is afraid to even act like the man he knows he was made by God to be.

The feminists are masters at name calling and began their war firing the lethal “male chauvinist pig” gun. A “male chauvinist pig” is simply any man who dares to make a distinction between the sexes. That animal was slaughtered long ago and served with toast and eggs and the threat of being called a “sexist” was the knife that slaughtered it. A “sexist” is simply a term used by some baby-boomer-brat who didn’t like anyone (usually a man) making an observation of the natural distinction between the sexes. Being called a “sexist” has slain many a strong man.

Satan has been successfully removing the “strong men” from the home for years now, and the consequences have been devastating.

According to Thomas G. West in his excellent book, Vindicating the Founders, a 1988 National Health Survey of Child Health “found that ‘young people from single-parent families or stepfamilies were 2 to 3 times more likely to have had emotional or behavioral problems than those who had both of their biological parents present in the home.’ Other studies show that illegitimacy and divorce are specifically associated with children’s poor school performance, poor self-control, drug abuse, criminality, and incapacity to provide for themselves and form stable marriages when they become adults. Allan Bloom observed that bright college students who are emotionally scarred by their parents’ divorces also often lack the intellectual daring needed for penetrating thought.”

West goes on to say that after a divorce, “children suffer intense grief, fear, anger, and a shaken sense of identity.”

And then there’s child abuse. West notes a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 1993 Incident Study of Child Abuse: “Compared with children living with both parents, these single-parent children had a ‘77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse.’”

In stepparent situations psychologysts Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that “‘preschoolers in stepparent-natural parent homes were 40 times as likely to become abuse statistics as like-aged children living with two natural parents.’”

Who does the abusing? According to the study above, “the stepchild, not the natural child, was almost always the victim,” says West, adding that “Birth parents are also more abusive when there is no spouse present.”

West also addresses the controversial issue of daycare: “Social scientists have found that day-care children are ‘more anxious, aggressive, and hyperactive than those cared for at home by their mothers. They are also less willing to trust and obey their parents…and have trouble making friends.” West adds, “In a study of third-graders, extensive infant care outside the home ‘was the single best predictor (in a negative direction) of children’s peer relationships, compliance, work habits, emotional health, sociometric status, and report card grades.’” These problems occur with children in high and low quality day-care and with in-home sitters as well.

In Vindicating the Founders, West makes the strong argument that in the early founding of the American republic, marriage was heavily guarded by society. “From the time of the founding,” West explains, “until relatively recently, laws were written to support stable family life…In the South divorce was simply forbidden in the early republic. In the North it was permitted but granted on very few grounds.” Husbands were “legally bound to provide for [their wives] and children.” A husband took on a wifes’ pre-marital debts and was held responsible for crimes committed by a husband and wife together. “If marriage was dissolved, the husband, as head of the family, received custody of the children along with the legal responsibility to maintain them.”

By law, the husband and wife were considered one. No-fault divorce did not exist. As West explains, “Men and women who chose their mate foolishly usually had to live with that choice for the rest of their lives…But the laws and customs that limited male and female choices were believed to be on balance good for everyone, especially the children.” [emph. mine] In those days parents actually thought of children first.

While feminism and no-fault divorce laws have done much to contribute to the high divorce rates among whites, the welfare state has nearly destroyed the black family. Thomas West quotes the discerning cultural commentator George Gilder who wrote, “‘Female jobs and welfare payments usurped the man’s role as provider, leaving fatherless families…Welfare destroys the incipient families of the poor by making the struggling male breadwinner superfluous and thereby emasculating him emotionally,” driving him to the streets and gangs and drugs and alcohol. ‘This,’ said Gilder, ‘is the source of the tangle of pathology in the ghetto: the dissolution of the ties that bind men to their children.’”

In 1967, 22% of black children were born to fatherless homes; it is now nearly 70%. In the black community, the strong man has been mercilessly slaughtered.

Many American children have become fatherless because the strong man has been usurped by feminism or supplanted by divorce and welfare. Many more children have only temporary or part time fathers. The strong man has been vanquished; the spoils–our children–have been sacked by day-care, divorce, and homes cut in half emotionally because of a father who never even showed up.

May God raise up “strong men” in our nation again, and may the Lord “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest [He] come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6)

If the strong man does not rise again, the family will not be restored. If the family is not restored, our churches will not be restored. If our churches are not restored, our nation will not be restored.

God help the strong man.

_______________________________________________________

Ann Coulter on why we won’t have another Reagan for a long time: Click Here

David Gelernter on the feminists’ destroying of the English language: Click Here

_______________________________________________________

Thoughts So Far–2/11/08

February 10th, 2008

McCain is in danger of–like John Kerry–straying in the territory of the absurd by talking incessantly about his war record. We got it already, Senator, and only little men talk incessently about their war records.

McCain is praised most highly for the two virtues that he is only perceived as having: Loyalty and Courage. Not that McCain didn’t show courage and loyalty as a POW (again, he’s told us many times, he did), but it is the lack of loyalty and courage he showed thereafter. He came home and had an affair on his first wife (before 1992 this actually mattered) and then began stabbing the Republicans in the back on the big and weighty issues in the U.S. Senate. In part:

    *McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for millions of illegal aliens)
    *McCain-Feingold (unconstitutional damage to free political speech)
    *Gang of 14 (14 senators who made it more difficult for Bush to get Supreme Court nominations through
    *Lying about Romney’s stance on the war
    *Voting TWICE against Bush’s tax cuts
    *Fought torture (waterboarding) for captured terrorists
    *Publicly insulted Falwell and Pat Robertson and the Christian Right

People are saying that McCain’s American Conservative Union (ACU) rating is 83%. True, but on the most important issues of our time he runs to the enemy and fires against his own team.

In a recent National Review article, Thomas Sowell made the point that Benedict Arnold was a war hero too. Sowell:

    Let’s talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

    Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming president of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

Concerning Huckabee, he’s done. He’s hanging on for some unrevealed reason that he’ll reveal to us at some point. The point of anyone caring, however, has already passed.

There is something about Huckabee’s make-up that has always made it impossible for me to take him seriously. Every time I see him I want to yell, “Fill ‘er up!” I keep waiting for him to yell out into the audience, “Hey, Andy, I got into the Marines. Leavin’ in the morning!” Gomer Pyle. That’s who. Gomer Pyle. And, no, he’s not that conservative.

His views on social issues were refreshing but there was always something snake-oil- salesman about him. I have never trusted him since I saw him wearing weirdly short shorts on the cover of World magazine when he first announced his candidacy last year. Then he takes shots at Romney for having money and being successful (so does bitter-man McCain, by the way), then he lies about a cross in his Christmas commercial, then he runs from his stance of wives being under the authority of their husbands, then he lies about raising taxes, and his stance on immigration, and pardons, and won’t condemn the train-wreck Sandra-Day O’Connor, and everything else it seems. I was never for one second enamored with the guy, and I’ll be glad to see him go. And I’m a Baptist.

Hillary Clinton must be wondering what in the world happened to her candidacy (coronation): she was supposed to be done with this whole primary mess by now, and, look, she’s even behind in delegates after losing Maine on Sunday. Obama is just better. He wasn’t at first, but he’s caught his stride–figuratively and literally. Even when he’s walking to the lectern to deliver what he knows is going to be a barn-burner speech, he walks like he’s in charge; with a stride, a cadence, a purpose, a confidence that he is making history and when he opens his mouth the wheels of history will begin to turn again, and he will be making more history. Because the more that listen the more that will become his people. Not just his supporters. His people. He may be unstoppable all the way to November.

His speech is pretty; but with Obama, America’s freedoms will suffer. When he speaks, quit listening to his rythm and cadence and expert use of tone and volume and listen to what he says. His words should send chills up the spine of every Constitution-loving American.

Hillary’s too. But we knew that. We know she’s dangerous because we see it on her face. We don’t know that about Obama because we can’t see it on his face. We like his smile. He’s kind. He’s charming. He’s not Hillary. He’s not mean.

That may make him the most dangerous of all.

The next four years are likely going to be difficult. It is very likely that we will lose house seats, senate seats, supreme court seats, and it likely–like a falling sequoia crusing the smaller trees beneath–will effect Republican seats all the way to small local races all across the country. It will likely get very bloody.

But, there is God we haven’t mentioned. That is on Whom I will be calling. He’s more power than all of them.

Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered!

Republican Debates on Fox

January 10th, 2008

Frank Luntz’s focus group gave my man, Fred Thompson, the victory in tonight’s debate in a dramatic fashion: going in only 3 of 28 people in his focus group supported Thompson; after the debate approximately 2/3 of the people thought Thompson won. I was thinking during the whole debate that Thompson was doing well and was glad to see the focus group confirm my thinking. No doubt the conservative Republicans watching in South Carolina thought the same thing.

Thompson must do very well in South Carolina or, according to a top level staff members’ blogsite, he will have to pull out of the race. All of the candidates (with the exception of–I felt sorry for this guy–Ron Paul) sounded to me more conservative than ever, and they all (with the exception of–I feel sorry for this guy–Ron Paul) invoked Ronald Reagan as an example. They are all far from Reagan’s conservatism, but at least they use him as a standard.

The tragedy of this whole campaign season is that many of the states felt the need to rush their primaries to the beginning of the year so their votes would “matter.” Now the voting process is so compressed back to January and February that the nominees will be chosen before America will have a chance to really get to know the candidates; and also when a superior candidate could have risen to the top with a longer primary, giving him more of a chance to show conservative leadership in the Republican contest.

Thompson, in my opinion, could be that conservative casualty.

After tonight, however, his fortunes may be rising.

Observations on New Hampshire

January 9th, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

Observations On New Hampshire

A female caller on Rush Limbaugh today said Hillary’s tearfest would set feminism back 30 years. What the PC substitute host didn’t say was that, if so, it would be the crowning achievement of Hillary’s thus far sorry life. That little sob session may also have given her the victory in New Hampshire.

I must admit to being effected by it myself, perhaps because it was the first time I’ve ever seen the woman display an act of genuine (if, indeed, it was genuine) humility. Perhaps it effected other voters too. Or perhaps they stole the election. Hey, it’s the Clintons.

Obama still has a good shot coming out of the unpredictable New Hampshire primary since many of the states he is going into have a large black Democrat constituency, and they are likely going to want to see a black man win. How in the name of common sense any one could support either one I have no idea, but the up-for-grabs excitement predicted on the Republican side is coming to pass in the Democrat race also.

McCain won as expected, but New Hampshire has an open primary (independents can vote either way, D or R), and McCain’s middle-of-the-road politics appeals to moderates of which there are many in New Hampshire, and the moderates brought him to victory. Plus McCain won there against Bush. McCain’s squishy politics–i.e., McCain-Feingold, support for illegal immigration,etc.–makes him anathema to most conservatives.

My man, Thompson, did awful (if you can dignify 1% with the word “awful”), but I still have high hopes that his steady conservatism will cause him to rise like a Phoenix in South Carolina, which is where he made a bee-line to yesterday. It’s still any man’s race, though, and likely that McCain, Romney, or Huckabee will end up the nominee.

If George Allen would have just called that stupid cameraman a “moron” instead of a “macaca” I believe we would not be going through this whole mess!

Thoughts On Iowa

January 5th, 2008

To me, the most exciting element of the Iowa causus wasn’t necessarily who won and who lost, but who came in third: Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson.

Hillary’s third place finish is exciting in that it could mean the beginning of the end for the Clintons in presidential politics in particular, and –oh, please, Lord!– the end of the Clinton era in politics in general. Amazingly, Hillary is looking bad in New Hampshire’s polling too, where she is now 10 points behind Obama.

Obama is only exciting to me because of the now (up until very recently I did not think it possible) very real possibility of his beating Hillary. Not that he is any better than Clinton in terms of political philosphy by any means, as they are equally radical in their leftist beliefs, and equal, almost, in their animus towards what Christians and conservatives stand for. They both, I believe, would be glad to throw us all in jail or hang us from the highest tree, the only difference between them being that Obama wouldn’t be so mean about it.

The other exciting “third” was Fred Thompson, who I still believe is the most conservative candidate in the race and the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the Democrat candidate, whoever he may be. He has to kick it up a notch, however, and start firing up that large segment of the base itching to get behind him.

No one else will galvanize Republicans enough to beat the Democrats; they all sound so nauseatingly moderate.

—————–
________________________________________________

Death Penalty For All Child Molesters

Why isn’t the above headline part of the stump speech of every Republican candidate?
________________________________________________

Insights on Immigration

January 1st, 2008


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

Insights On Immigration
Did America Always Have Indiscriminate Immigration?
By Mike Azinger

The tragic news of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has saturated the air waves the last few weeks, but what many of you may not know is the story of the first assassination attempt on Bhutto’s life just a few weeks earlier at her homecoming rally on October 18th. 140 people were killed by a suicide bomber, who, in this case, was actually as innocent as his victims.

Innocent, only because the suicide bomber who attempted, albeit unwittingly, to take Bhutto’s life was a one-year old child, sacrificed by his jihadist father.

Ah, the religion of peace.

Apparently, Bhutto saw the young child and beckoned his dad to bring the child over for a kiss and a photo, when an alert someone got between them, and Bhutto’s motorcade sped her to safety. 140 others weren’t so lucky. And six weeks later neither was she.

Our current president, discipled at the feet of his father’s politics of sweet moderation, grew up to give us the politics of compassionate conservatism, which–who would have seen this coming?– also includes leaving open thousands of miles of border to our “friends” to the south and whomever they want to bring with them–be it MS-13 gang members, ex-convicts, or–it’s bound to happen sooner or later–suicide bombers with their one-year-olds in their nap sacks.

Our president–who just last week signed an energy bill that will ban the common light bulb as of 2014 (yes, really) has confused being “compassionate” toward illegal immigrants with being derelict in duty.

Our current problem of immigration only became pronounced when Mexico’s economy went, uh, south in the 1990s and Mexico’s people subsequently went north shortly thereafter. (And I’ve not seen a presidential candidate strong on immigration as far as the east is from the west.)

Our problem with immigration isn’t so much Mexico and their poor economy and lawbreaking Mexican citizens crossing our borders; it is more so America’s lack of confidence in absolutes that we once believed in because we once believed the Bible and were once a Christian nation unashamed of our roots in Christian Western civilization.

According to Diana West, in her new book, The Death of the Grown-Up, a watershed event in America’s immigration policy took effect in 1965 with the passing of the Immigration Act by the U.S. Congress.

West says:

    [Congress] introduced entry criteria that effectively favored non-European over European immigrants, and weighed “family reunification” concerns over a potential immigrant’s skills. (emphasis mine)

What West’s sentence says is weighty enough, but what it implies is perplexing: Once upon a time in America–when we weren’t afraid to offend the sensitivities of other whining Americans–we were bold and confident enough to say that we want immigrants from Europe (because Europe–the fountain of Western Civilization–was the greatest civilization) and we wanted our immigrants to have some kind of skill and–this was unsaid, but still true–roots in Bible Christianity.

Thomas West, author of Vindicating the Founders, makes a similar point concerning what the Founding Fathers believed about immigration and naturalization.

    “The Founders’ policy generously welcomed as equal citizens people from many nations and religions. However, there was a concern that immigrants might come in numbers too large, or from countries too despotic, to assimilate to the American way of life. There was also a concern that newcomers would not possess, or be in a position to acquire soon, the principles and habits necessary for democratic citizenship. Naturalization in early America was therefore limited primarily to those who had been formed by Western civilization.”(emphasis mine)

Jim Beller, in his book on American Baptist History titled America In Crimson Red, made a similar and illuminating point about the Baptists in early America who could no longer evangelize the American populace at a significant rate because the immigration population was becoming too great to keep up with.

    “As the population of the United States exploded in the cities, immigration brought more Europeans. For the most part, they brought their Catholicism or their Lutheranism and their alcohol. The challenge of taking the Gospel to the enormous ends of America became nearly insurmountable. “(emphasis mine)

The time period Beller was referring to was roughly the mid-19th century, when the American population was but a shadow of what it is now, so imagine how far Christians have fallen behind now in evangelizing our increasingly secular, increasingly illegal-immigrant-filled culture.

According to Thomas West, Jefferson and Hamilton also opposed “indiscriminate, massive immigration,” because, according to West, “As a nation based on the idea of equality, America has been a melting pot. It has taken people from diverse tradition and turned them into freedom-loving and decent citizens. But when their numbers are large, immigrants can change the attitudes of those already living here.” (emphasis mine)

Attitudes like patriotism and which God to worship.

Before our nation adopted the philosophy of multiculturalism and lost its monolithic Christian worldview, we weren’t afraid whom to pick to be our neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow countrymen. But we are nonjudmental now, and sorry if your neighbors end up being MS-13 gang members or ex-cons or current cons.

The Lord has a soft place in his heart for the stranger: Love ye therefore the stranger [guest, foreigner, alien, sojourner]: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deut. 10:19) (Interestingly, a stranger could never be the Israelites’ king (Deut. 17:15).)

But God is also for holiness and purity: [Solomon’s prayer in II Chron. 6:32,32] Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for thy great name’s sake, and thy mighty hand, and thy stretched out arm; if they come and pray in this house; Then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for; that all people of the earth may know thy name, and fear thee, as doth thy people Israel, and may know that this house which I have built is called by thy name.

If they come and pray in this house, Solomon said. Praying in the house of God–that is thorough nationalization.

Not only are illegal immigrants not praying in our house; they won’t pledge allegiance to our flag.

Time to start choosing our immigrants again. And priority one should be that they love America and America’s God.

That would be a good start.

Choosing a President

December 17th, 2007


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

Now is the time of year to blast away at the secularists out to destroy Christmas; but, as fun as that is, another writing project has kept me from my Guarding the Landmarks articles the last month, and the political winds blowing hard this December have swept me past the Christmas war into the battles of politics. Bah Humbug!

In 2000, the decision of whom to vote for was an easy one, as George W. Bush was boldly proclaiming that his favorite philosopher was “Christ, because he changed my heart,” and John McCain was just as boldly blasting the Christian right. Uh, let’s see here, Bush or McCain, McCain or Bush?…Um, I know, George Bush! That didn’t take a rocket scientist.

This year you may need to be—if not a rocket scientist —at least a brain surgeon (assuming a rocket scientist is above a brain surgeon) to make the right pick on the Republican side.

After I lost the Republican primary for U.S. Congress in 1998, I was asked to endorse the pro-choice candidate to whom I lost, which, after much counsel and deliberation, I finally did. (Many of you will think that I compromised, and perhaps I did. My thinking was—and is—that any stripe of Republican is better than any stripe of Democrat because when a Democrat wins, you strengthen the side that believes in abortion, gay marriage, surrender in war, high taxes, liberal judges, etc. On the other hand, when a Republican wins—no matter his stripe—they at least strengthen the party that stands for the opposite.) After my endorsement, a kind lady wrote me a letter saying that the candidate I endorsed was a choice of the better between two evils. God, she said, never asks us to choose between evils—that is, He never asks us to choose evil at all.

Hadn’t thought of that one.

But how about this: God indeed doesn’t ask us to choose the better of two evils; but we aren’t choosing evils in this election, we’re choosing a president. And someone is going to be President, so we better choose the best candidate we possibly can.

Let’s be realistic, in post-modern America we’re not going to get a right-wing, Bible-believing Baptist (or even evangelical for that matter). We didn’t even get that in pre-post-modern America! George Bush is a good man, and I’m sure he loves the Lord, but he has also, as a Christian president, abandoned Israel, continuously praised a false God (Allah), and time and time again looked to big government to solve private sector problems. “When somebody hurts,” Bush once said, “government has got to move.” Someone should tell our born-again president that helping the hurting is the church’s job, not the government’s.

We have five or so “top-tier” candidates, all of whom I have serious issues with, but all of whom would also, of course, be light years better than any Democrat candidate who comes out of the primaries.  

Below are short pros and cons on our top-tier guys:

Romney: Romney’s biggest weakness is known by all—his Mormonist views (in case you just landed from Jupiter)—and his other weaknesses are known by most: flip-flopping on abortion, gay rights, et. al. The good thing is he has most recently flipped (or is that flopped?) to our side. The guys is a mega-successful businessman (which may or may not be good: businessmen, from my observation, tend to lack moral depth and political vision) and he was very successful in saving the Olympics. The speech he gave at George H. W. Bush’s presidential library was brilliant, transcendent, and inspiring—the best rhetoric of the campaign yet. It was not on Mormonism per se, but on higher things—freedom of religion, the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, the greatness of the American ideal. It brought me from not considering Governor Romney to giving him strong consideration. He is a close second now—in my mind at least—to Fred Thompson.

Huckabee: I have had a problem with Huckabee since he posed in       too-short shorts on the cover of World magazine last spring. He looked so goofy, so undignified, so desperate to be casual and loved, that I have never been able to shake my negative perception of him. He is also a big-government conservative who supported immigration, plays in a rock band, waffles and ducks and dodges too many questions, and never plants both feet or fires with both barrels.

Thompson: Thompson is my pick so far. Thompson had a solid conservative voting record when he was in the U.S. Senate and has years of political experience (he goes back to Watergate days when he served as counsel under Jim Baker). His weaknesses are immigration and supporting tort reform (Thompson doesn’t just play an attorney on TV—he is one in real life), and not voting for all articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. His young wife will probably hurt him with women.

McCain: McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, bashed Christian conservatives in the 2000 primaries, gave us the train-wreck of so-called campaign-finance reform in his McCain-Feingold bill, and he also supported Bush’s immigration fiasco last summer. McCain also opposes torturing prisoners, which, in my opinion, is grandstanding and showmanship, since he was a prisoner of war himself. I may be wrongly judging motives, however.

His strengths are that he is a war hero, he has consistently supported Bush on the Iraq War, and—this may be the best reason to support him—he called a kid a “little jerk” on the campaign trail. More kids need called “little jerks” these days.

Giuliani: Don’t vote for Giuliani.

In 1996, I attended the Republican National Convention with my father and my brother in San Diego, California. On Wednesday night, my brother and I attended a large, nationally known church in the area, and there on the front row, to our surprise, sat Elizabeth Dole. Her husband, Bob Dole, was the Republican candidate running against Bill Clinton, and she later was elected to the U.S. Senate. The preacher asked Mrs. Dole if she would like to come to the pulpit and say a few words about her husband. To her credit, with her Bible sitting on her lap, she declined and said she just came to listen to the sermon. Very admirable. However, if you ever heard Elizabeth Dole on the stump, you would think she is a moderate Republican with a not-so-moderate streak of feminism running through her. Mrs. Dole’s belief in the Bible rarely made it into her policy and speeches.

To a lesser extent, that is how I see George Bush and Mike Huckabee. Bible principles do not necessarily govern their policy and political philosophy. 

We are better off with a strict constructionist president who will adhere to his beliefs in the Constitution than with a squishy Christian president who will wiggle and waffle all the way through his presidential term(s).

Charles Krauthammer made an interesting point in a recent article:

  When Mitt Romney’s father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don’t even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo, or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?

The Mormon issue is a big issue, but not a disqualifying one. All of the top-tier guys have issues that bother us. So did Reagan. When Reagan was governor of California, he passed some very liberal laws—on abortion and immigration. He grew in conviction and greatness as his presidency moved on.

Let the true conservative rise to the top in the shaking out of the campaign trail. There are a number of good men running who would make a good or even—at some point and time in the hot furnace of the White House—a great president.

And no one will have to choose between the lesser of two evils—we’ll be choosing a president. Did you hear that? Choosing a president.

Thank God for America!

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Fundamental Top 500

The Baptist Top 1000

Pretending to Love our Children

October 23rd, 2007


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

Pretending To Love Our Children
By Mike Azinger

“If I know [my children] are going to be someplace—either a hotel or a house—it gives me a sense of security. There’s always a chance that alcohol will be involved at that age. Let’s face it, you and I know it happens. I think these children chose to be responsible and, unfortunately, they got in trouble for it.” —Patrick McNeill, who rented three $199 rooms on New Years’ Eve in Harrison, NY for his son and his friends. Six years earlier, in 1997, McNeil’s older son became intoxicated in a bar and drown in the East River.  —Excerpt from The Death of the Grown-Up by Diana West

___________

Amidst the incessant chatter in American society over the concern for “the children”, the famous quote from Hamlet about the phoniness of inordinate objection comes to mind: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” 

When it comes to our love and concern for “the children” that’s what methinks—we protest too much. We give the impression that we love our children and that it is our supreme goal in life to protect them, physically and emotionally, by going to whatever measure necessary to prove it— measures like bicycle helmets, car seats, time-outs, not keeping score, healthful school lunches, drug education, sex education, fire safety, ad nauseum warnings about drunk driving and safe sex; safe drinking water, lead paint, asbestos, self-esteem, ADD, and ADHD, and on and on and on.

Have you seen the silly ubiquitous picture in your local newspaper of the local high school kid walking or driving a golf cart wearing “beer goggles” barely able to stand up, giddy with vertigo? Beer goggles—if you haven’t been keeping up on the latest PC fads in American high schools—are worn like ski goggles and give the sensation of driving intoxicated, causing you to stagger when walking or to swerve when driving. High schools take time from not teaching American history to put these students through these “goggle” drills with everyone, including the students, pretending the drill is worthwhile, productive, and actually effective. On the edges of the newspaper photo you will see the token non-judgmental deputy sheriff smiling on and the token school teacher doing the same, as if drunk driving is cute and not to be taken seriously. Drunkenness and drunk driving are not actual transgressions in our PC world, you see, they are simply unsafe. In our culture being unsafe is the transgression because calling drunkenness a transgression would infer a moral law. Morals and moral courage are all but gone, and as a result we no longer have the courage to call things wrong anymore—so we turn them into silly games.

We have a society of parental “protest-too-muchers” because we have a society of adults who are still children (the average video gamester in America is age thirty, and 25% of American men ages eighteen to thirty still live at home), who are, it seems, wholly incapable of instilling right and wrong in their kids; of saying no to their kids; of going against the grain of what other parents allow (“Susie’s mom is letting her go!”), and, who—here’s the real killer— often themselves engage in the immoral and boorish behavior with their kids. As one author said—our parents need parents!

We cluck on and on about our children’s safety, and we display our phony angst to show how much we care—that we are virtuous because we care. Virtue has travelled from the heart to the stomach—from actions to feelings; from the rock of absolutes to the shifting sand of values. We are “protesting” loudly and conspicuously from the rooftops about the safety of our children because we know how cruelly we actually do, in reality, treat our children. We don’t love our children in America; we just pretend to; and as long as we all shut-up about it, no one will be the wiser.

No one, except the children.

If a society really loves its children, won’t that society have a lot of children (seen any big families lately?), won’t it spend time with its children,  dote on its children, teach discipline to its children, sacrifice for its children, and make sure that its children are loved? And won’t a society with genuine love for its children care more for the soul of its children than even for its safety? Or for its health? But we have failed in all of these, and worse, instead of fixing our failures, we replace them with faux-gestures of love like bicycle helmets and $1,000 birthday parties and then dip them into the sewers of our cruelty. We are so used to these cruelties, however, that we hardly think they are cruel at all. But they are cruel indeed.

Every year in America, we kill millions of babies before they are even born—before they can even grow into being children. Abortion, in fact, culminated to its logical conclusion in Maryland this past month when a woman went into a local hospital bleeding from her uterus. She had just given birth, but there was no baby. The police went to her house, found a dead baby, and ended up digging up several more graves in her yard where babies she had given birth to in the past were buried. Now, watch this: Because it is not illegal in the state of Maryland for a woman to kill her unborn baby (it is her choice to kill or let live—she is the god of her universe!), the woman walked out of the hospital a free woman. Now, really watch this: The murderer mother and her boyfriend are suing the city.

I would say that is cruelty.

If a child makes it out of his mother’s womb alive, he then has a good chance of being neglected by his parents by being sent to a day-care center or a baby-sitter where he will be watched all day (watched but not necessarily loved and nurtured) by a woman who can never love him the way his natural parents would.

Paul said in Ephesians not to walk “as other Gentiles walk…who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” Even mothers, the last bastion of gentleness, mercy, and moral hope in a society are “being past feeling.”

I would say that is a cruelty.

After abortion and day-care, the child then runs a 50/50 chance of having his world destroyed by parents who decide that life is more convenient for them to break up rather than remain as husband and wife. I didn’t say more convenient for the child (who, rest assured, is never asked!) I said for “them”—the parents. Someone said a thousand deaths is a statistic: a single death is a tragedy. Likewise, a 50% divorce rate is a statistic; little Mary’s or little Billy’s world being dashed to pieces by whirlwind of divorce is a tragedy.

I would say that is a cruelty.

There are many more methods of cruelty we Americans have concocted: we leave our kids by themselves after school, we send them to schools where they are in danger—body and soul; we teach them in school that God is a myth and evolution is fact and that right and wrong do not exist; we no longer spank our kids depriving them of the crucial lesson that wrong choices bring painful consequences; we teach them that drugs are harmful, that unprotected sex is harmful and that getting drunk is harmful: but we never teach them that these behaviors are wrong, that they are a sin against a holy God, that fornication and drunkenness and drugs that destroy the mind are sins that God judges in the severest terms, and that, yes, their bodies are in desperate danger when committing these sins, but 10 times more—100 times more!— their souls are in eternal danger! Not telling our children (and young people) these truths is the epitome of cruelty. 

The high school girl in the newspaper photo was having great fun driving her golf cart around with beer goggles on. The nonjudgmental teacher   next to her was smiling too—not genuinely—but smiling like she knew she was supposed to in this warped scenario. But like most adults overseeing children today, she is not a mentor like she is supposed to be; she is, in fact, cruel. She will never tell her students that there is right and wrong and that drunkenness—among other things—is not cute but a sin against a holy God. Telling the truth is real love; beer-goggles-love is pretend. 

Postmodern America—like a camp meeting preacher—shouts from the hilltops the false doctrine of safety over virtue; it shouts it loud enough to drown out any and all competing voices. The moral relativists and atheists have been shouting it so loud and so long that they have convinced themselves it’s true.

Methinks we better start shouting back; for the children’s sake. 

 

 

_______________________________________________________

Bauer on Presidential Candidates

Take Heart

Yesterday, I had the honor of chairing a two-and-a-half hour meeting of 60
pro-family, pro-life leaders as we continued the process of reviewing the
records of the various Republican presidential candidates. I wish that
every values voter could have been in the room to hear the discussion. I
think you would have been encouraged by what you heard.

We were all acutely aware that this is a very emotional time, when people
are helping various candidates and have strong views on strategy. It would
not have taken much for the meeting to spin out of control. Knowing that
anger and disunity could destroy us, we began the meeting in prayer. And
we ended on our knees in prayer!

In fact, the one vote we had was a unanimous vote to ask the president and
congressional leaders to declare a day of prayer on Thanksgiving for the
nation to remember that God is the author of our liberty and our only sure
protector.

The months ahead will continue to be challenging. Values voters are still
sorting out their options. As I am sure you know, Mitt Romney and Mike
Huckabee did very well in the straw poll conducted by Family Research
Council Action. In my poll last week, Fred Thompson was in first place “by
a mile,” and a new CBS poll shows that he is now the first choice of
“weekly church attendees.”

The field is winnowing out, but it still appears that three candidates are
vying for the votes of men and women of faith. The weeks ahead will be
exciting, and, hopefully, the final result will be the defeat of Hillary
Clinton!

Bauer on Hillary Fundraising “Discrepencies” and his in-house Pres. Poll

“Oops, I Did It Again”

No, this isn’t about Britney Spears. Fresh off one Chinese fundraising
scandal involving Norman Hsu and the Paw family, today’s Los Angeles Times
carries a scathing report on what could likely become another major scandal
for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

During 2004, Senator John Kerry raised $24,000 from the poorest Chinatown
neighborhoods in New York City. Yet, according to the Los Angeles Times
report, Hillary hauled in “a whopping $380,000” from “a single fundraiser
in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty.” The money came from
dozens of individuals who identified their occupations as “dishwasher,”
“waiter” or “chef.”

The Los Angeles Times examined 150 records and here’s what it discovered:

“One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or
business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public
records. …Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, …that the Times
called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.”

Further into the report, the Times describes a visit to 44 Henry Street in
the hope of interviewing Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000 to
Hillary’s campaign:

“A tenet living in the apartment listed as Li’s address said through a
translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for
the last 10 years. …Census figures for 2000 show the median family income
for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living
below the poverty line, more than double the city average.”

So, how did Hillary get the cash? The Los Angeles Times notes, “Clinton
has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations… The
organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal
enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous
influence over immigrants. …In some cases, donors said they felt
pressured to give.”

Others, however, said they gave hoping that if Clinton becomes president,
“she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move
toward citizenship.”

Those of you who think that having Hillary Clinton in the White House for
four years will somehow help our cause or energize our movement are totally
missing what a new, more powerful Left will do if liberal Democrats control
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. One of the first things at the top of
Hillary’s agenda will be a massive amnesty bill that will radically change
the voting patterns of this country and alter our political landscape
forever.

Values Voters Vet The Field

The 2007 Washington Briefing got underway today with speeches from most of
the Republican presidential candidates. The values voters who came to
Washington, D.C. heard remarks this morning from Sam Brownback, Tom
Tancredo, John McCain, Fred Thompson.

This afternoon, speakers included Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul, along with
former Senator Rick Santorum and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Tonight,
Phyllis Schlafly, Governor Mitt Romney and I will address the audience.

Tomorrow, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Mike Huckabee will speak, along
with Judge Robert Bork and Bill Bennett. And tomorrow night, we will cap
off the event with a gala dinner honoring Dr. James Dobson for his decades
of leadership in the pro-family movement.

For those of you not able to attend the Briefing in person, C-Span is
providing live coverage of much of the event, so please tune in!

The Votes Are In…

Yesterday, I asked for your feedback as to which candidate you supported
for the Republican presidential nomination. Hundreds of CWF supporters
responded and our staff has been frantically counting the votes this
morning. Here are the top five:

5th Place – Rudy Giuliani 4%
4th Place – Undecided 6%
3rd Place – Mitt Romney 12%
2nd Place – Mike Huckabee 27%
1st Place – Fred Thompson 45%

_______________________________________________________

Philadelphia punishes Boy Scouts for ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals

Family of Woman Who Died at Massachusetts Abortion Center Speaks Out

Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution

Washington Capitol Welcomes Back Baby Jesus

Planned Parenthood Charged with Violating Kansas Abortion Laws

Christian authors strive to dispel ‘myth’ of feminism

Michigan Voters Get to Decide Nativity Case

Bauer blasts Rice for comments re: establishment of Palestinian state

Mom Awarded $85,000 for Daughters’ Exposure to Motel Porn

‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ banished by California

Ohio House No Longer Censors Prayers

Culture Watch

September 23rd, 2007


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

Quit Calling Me Buddy

By Mike Azinger
www.guardingthelandmarks.com

I am not a Tiger Woods fan if for no other reason than that I like rooting for the underdog; which happens to be anyone and everyone playing against Tiger Woods. So, every week my boys and I root against Tiger. Well, actually, I root against Tiger—my boys love him.

Tiger is not hard to root against simply because he seems to have little personality and little grace in victory for those he so regularly vanquishes. He will destroy Jack Nichaulas’s record for most majors won in the not so distant future because, for one, he is superior to Nichaulas or any other player now or ever in mental strength and toughness. And this—his dominant mental toughness—is, perhaps, the most interesting dimension about Tiger Woods.

That is because his mental toughness was put there by—you better sit down you wild eyed feminists—a strong dominant father figure. Yes, Mr. Woods, former Army special forces, trained Tiger with—sit back down, feminists—military tactics. Yes, Tiger Woods is far superior than any golfer alive—or perhaps any golfer who has ever lived—mainly because of two wonderfully politically incorrect reasons: the military, and, even more so, because of the training of a strong father.

I root against Tiger, however, because, mostly because he wins or nearly wins almost every tournament he plays. But every tournament he enters—by his mere presence—becomes many, many times more exciting. He is a phenomenon— he is masculine; he is passionate; he is driven. Though I always root against him, I hope he plays the game of golf for a long time.

But what does that have to do with how we address each other? Very little, but I needed to philosophize on Tiger a bit.

Back to the subject; and I’ll begin with a “Tiger” illustration.

Several weeks ago I was watching Tiger Woods being interviewed by a sports caster almost twice his age. As the interview wound up, the sports caster thanked Tiger for his time, and Tiger said, “Thanks, buddy.” Tiger Woods may well be the greatest golfer to have ever played the game, but his “Thanks, buddy” makes him also one of the most condescending. I heard someone say once that even Elvis Presley—that greatest of American iconoclasts—called other men “sir.”

Is Tiger, because he is great at swinging a metal club at a hard white ball now above the common graces and manners and expressions of honor and reverence that make American society livable, and fulfilling and great? Are his elders not worthy of more respect than an “Ok, buddy”?

If I don’t know you, don’t call me buddy. If I don’t know you well, don’t call me buddy. If I haven’t known you a long time, don’t call me buddy. If you’re not at least twenty years older than I am, don’t call me buddy. And if you think you are better than I am—and even if you are better than I am—don’t call me buddy. If I’ve known you since we played “smear the queer” at recess, well, then you can call me buddy.

“Buddy” is a term whose use has skyrocketed in America discourse because of our egalitarian society where no one is better than anyone else, and where we don’t keep score. An article I read recently wondered how it is in a culture without absolutes, we constantly use the word “absolutely.” We have destroyed the great pillar of absolutes and the smaller pillars like respect for your fellow man and for your elders were smashed along with it. Howl, fir tree, a mighty cedar is fallen.

A culture where hierarchy and achievement are despised, where winners are anathema, and where achievement is scorned likes the word “buddy” because it’s use (in the mind of the user anyway) brings down the person to whom you address it to your level or below. It’s the automatic equalizer: or better still, the instant—coining a word here—demoter. Just spray your friend with “buddy” and he is automatically inferior.

“Buddy” is bad. But it gets worse.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes recently, and I heard Bo Dietle (a former policeman) call some arrested pipe-bomb makers: “gentlemen.” A few days before that I also heard an announcer on Fox News refer to a child molester as a “gentleman.” A society that calls perverts and murderers “gentlemen” is a society wholly incapable of recognizing, facing up to, and dealing with evil. Pipe-bomb makers and child molesters are perverts and murderers and should be hung at sunrise. But we call them “gentlemen.”

Our post-modern America is so Topsy-turvy, effeminate, black-is-white-white-is-black, cowardly, and feminist-driven that we feel dignified, non-judgmental, and self-righteous when we call child-molesters and bomb-making terrorists “gentlemen.” Here’s some self-righteousness for you: child-molesters and terrorists are set on fire of hell, and if we had an ounce of civility every child molester in America would be hung at daybreak. Pipe-bomb makers: Ditto!

Got that, gentlemen at Fox?

No wonder we’re divided on the war, a large segment of this country thinks America is evil and the terrorists are mistreated and misunderstood. A significant part of this country thinks we should adopt the religion of the men bent on our destruction. A large portion of this country believes America is the enemy and hates what our nation represents. We used to call these people traitors, but now we dare not even call them unpatriotic even if what they are doing is treasonous. The terrorists aren’t our enemies, in our non-judgmental country, they are “gentlemen.”

Franklin Roosevelt began the wretched societal menace of addressing people by their first name, which teaches us that familiarity of those with whom we are not familiar is most often initiated by cads and scamps and—God willing—it will join “casual Friday” on the ash heap of history. (Casual Friday is on the ash heap of history, isn’t it?)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced addressing each other by our first names; “buddy” is simply its offspring. Leave it to a liberal Democrat to pass on to his national posterity. Thanks to Roosevelt and a whole bunch of other moral relativists we now call our elders “buddy” and our most deranged criminals “gentlemen.”

Judah, the eldest son of Jacob—for all his faults—gives us a fine example of how to address a stranger. He addressed his Pharoah brother (at the time not knowing it was his brother) in the following manner:

And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants: behold, we are my lord’s servants… (Gen. 44:16)

I think a “buddy” in front of Pharoah Joseph would have justly landed Judah in Joseph’s old cell. Surrounded by a bunch of, well, uh, “gentlemen.”

But I’m not suggesting a jail cell as punishment for our disrespectful, egalitarian culture. For now, a mere flogging would do.

Ah, forget that—we won’t even flog those gentlemen child molesters.

_______________________________________________________

Gary Bauer Email:Free Speech At Columbia

As you may know by now, Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
outrageous request for permission to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, when he
visits New York City next week, was denied. But that hasn’t stopped
Columbia University from inviting the Holocaust denier to speak at its
World Leaders Forum, which is sponsored by the Columbia School of
International and Public Affairs.

Columbia’s decision has provoked criticism from many quarters, but the
school remains obstinate, and its President Lee Bollinger defended the
school’s decision to invite the man whose government is providing the
weapons used by Iraqi insurgents to kill U.S. soldiers.

Gary Bauer, September 18th

One Month Later…

New polling data in the early primary state of New Hampshire suggests that
there is no frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination and that
the race is extremely volatile.

In an August 15th poll by the respected firm Rasmussen Reports,
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney enjoyed a commanding twelve-point lead
over Rudy Giuliani, 32% to 20%. Senator John McCain and Fred Thompson were
at 11% each.

As the former governor of a neighboring New England state, many political
observers believe that Governor Romney has a reasonable shot at winning New
Hampshire and building momentum for his candidacy. But a lot has changed
in the past month.

A new Rasmussen poll of New Hampshire voters released today still has
Governor Romney in first place, and Mayor Giuliani is still in second
place. But the race is clearly tightening. Here are numbers: Romney 25%,
Giuliani 22%, Thompson 19%, McCain 12%, Huckabee 4%.

In national polling, the shift is equally dramatic. On August 13th, the
Rasmussen poll had Giuliani leading the Republican race with 27%, Thompson
was second at 22%, Romney was third at 14%, and McCain was fourth at 10%.

Yesterday, Rasmussen released an updated national poll putting Thompson in
first place with 28%, Giuliani second at 19% (the first time Giuliani has
dipped below 20% in the Rasmussen poll all year long!), McCain in third
place with 13%, and Romney in fourth place with 11%.

Clearly, Senator Fred Thompson is enjoying a bounce from the formal
announcement of his candidacy. It remains to be seen whether or not he can
sustain this success.

But I also suspect that Giuliani has suffered a hit to his “tough on
crime/terrorism” persona after his recent debate performance where he
defended New York’s sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

Worse yet, he followed that up with a well-publicized dust-up with talk
show host Glenn Beck over illegal immigration. During that exchange,
Giuliani unbelievably said that entering the country illegally should not
be a federal crime.

Like his stand on taxpayer-funding for abortion (he supports it) and
homosexual rights (he has led “gay pride” parades), Rudy is now returning
to his liberal roots on illegal immigration, and I hope he keeps it up. I
don’t believe he will ultimately be that strong of a candidate in November
of 2008 against Hillary Clinton, and the more he tells us what he really
thinks, the less likely he is to win the Republican nomination for
president!

Good News From Unlikely Venues

It is not often that I can report “good news” in the cultural war coming
out of the courts, but this morning, the highest court in Maryland upheld
the state’s law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The court conceded, however, that its opinion did not preclude the Maryland
legislature from redefining the state’s marriage law in any way. So while
the debate over the meaning of marriage is still very much alive in
Maryland, at least it has been left to the people’s elected representatives
for now.

Yesterday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he
would veto a bill passed by the radical state legislature redefining
marriage as the union of “any two persons.”

In announcing his decision to veto the bill, Gov. Schwarzenegger also
warned liberal politicians that he would continue to veto similar
legislation if they keep pressing the issue, because the people had already
settled the question by overwhelmingly passing Proposition 22, which
defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. “It would be wrong
for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it,”
Schwarzenegger said.

This victory may well be short-lived, however, as the California Supreme
Court is set to take up a case challenging the law this year or early next
year. Depending on the court’s decision, Californians may once again have
to take serious action to defend our fundamental values from radical
politicians and activist judges. And that’s exactly what their neighbors
to the north are doing.

Concerned citizens in Oregon are mobilizing a signature petition effort to
counteract a civil unions bill passed by the liberal legislature this year.
They are taking this extraordinary step in defense of the state’s marriage
protection amendment, which passed in 2004 by a vote of 57% to 43%. Yet,
in spite of that overwhelmingly vote, the politicians in the legislature
still caved to the demands of the militant homosexual movement and passed a
law creating same-sex “marriage” in fact, if not in name.

If you live in Oregon or have friends or family members there, please visit
http://www.ConcernedOregonians.com to find out how you can help defend
traditional marriage.

_______________________________________________________

Gay-Activist Suit Prompts Loss of Church Group’s Tax Exemption

POLL: Does the Bible still promise land to Israel

Gun rights advocate says teachers should conceal and carry

Episcopal church faces large departures over gay bishops

Public interest group still battling to obtain Hillary Clinton’s First Lady records

Senate votes to eliminate funds for Mexican truck program

President Bush Again Withholds Funding From Pro-Abortion UN Group

Poll Shows Rudy Giuliani Losing GOP Support With Fred Thompson Running

Fred Thompson: Rudy Giuliani’s Pro-Abortion, Republican Views Don’t Mix

Ten Commandments gaining favor in federal courts

Maryland High Court Affirms Marriage

Culture Watch

September 9th, 2007


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

_______________________________________________________

When Small Men Cast Long Shadows, it is a Sign the Sun is Setting. -Unkn.
On 9/11 and Since
(originally posted 9/10/06)
By Mike Azinger
www.guardingthelandmarks.com

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, I received a call from a very good friend of mine from Nashville, Tennessee, Bub Smith, telling me to drop whatever I was doing and turn on my TV. I sat down on my couch with my cup of coffee, as the early morning sun shone through the windows, already making bright what would soon become a dark and unforgettable day. I flipped on the TV not knowing that with a half-second click of a remote control the rest of my life would change - as the life of every other American would change that day too.

In the south tower of The World Trade Center, on the 89th floor, the daughter of my mother’s very dear friend, Liza Adams, was just beginning her work-day, when what I saw happen on TV happened to her in real life. Liza’s daughter’s name was Mary Lou Hague, and she was as pretty as an autumn sky, blessed with her mother’s charm and grace, and, as the New York Times obituary said, had a Miss America smile. Mary Lou was told by authorities that it was safest to stay in the building rather than try to escape down the stairs. Sadly and tragically the authorities were wrong, and she died that day at the hands of brutal Islamic terrorists when her tower was the first to fall in surreal fashion as her family - and all of America - looked on in horror.

In September of 2006, a mere five years later, we have now - as we had then - a brave and focussed President with a ten-foot tall attitude about killing terrorists. Unfortunately, he also has hundreds of yapping, spineless, traitorous Democrats snapping at his heals and screetching over and over - parrot-like - “We’re doomed!”, We’re doomed!”, Victory can’t be won!”, Victory can’t be won!” President Bush is one big man among many tiny ones; one tall man among many, many small ones; and the small ones won’t shut up, and, worse, there are so few standing against them. They are, it seems, winning the battle of PR, so tragically essential in a generation weened on pictures and sound bites. These small ones, I think, are casting the longest shadows. And - as the quote in the headline above says - “When small men cast long shadows, it is a sign the sun is setting.”

I believe the sun may be setting on this great and glorious republic. Perhaps because we don’t have the spine or the will to preserve her. When we have child molesters, murderers, and traitors swarming us like bees, and we don’t have the moral courage to exterminate their godless lives, one wonders if we have the stomach to end the lives of those who desire to kill us. Instead, we invite them to speak on our college campuses and march into the U.N. and give speeches; we even allow them to teach the lies of Islam in our public schools while in those same public schools we have declared jihad on the Lord God who made us the great nation we are!

If the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Murtha end up victorious on November 7th, it will be a good indication that the sun is setting. In corrupt societies, as in corrupt organizations, the scum - not the cream - rises to the top, and let’s be honest - the leadership of the Democrat Party is scum. They are liars, cheats, backbiters, slanderers, baby-killers, thieves, and on and on. To say the least, they are small men.

A friend of mine made a brilliant observation once after passing a fruit tree that had a branch broken from the weight of the apples growing on it. He looked and thought: A tree, broken by its own fruit. President Bush has been - by the good hand of God - extremely successful in keeping America safe from another attack by terrorists. Ironically, as the quiet of safety keeps us from remembering what the terrorists did on 9/11, his success is making the war in Iraq seem unnecessary and without purpose. In some ways, he is a tree broken by his own fruit.

But - in the war on terror anyway - he is a tall man who casts a long shadow. May God give us more like him.

_______________________________________________________

MTV Will Air Bisexual Dating Show

_______________________________________________________

Texas seminaries victorious in ‘landmark’ religious freedoms case

_______________________________________________________

School asks student to replace Bible reading with book about witches

_______________________________________________________

More Families Choose Homeschooling

_______________________________________________________

Media analyst: Craig scandal overshadowing big story in Florida

_______________________________________________________

Pennsylvania court ruling makes it illegal to view child porn online

_______________________________________________________

Christian valedictorian sues over forced apology following graduation message

_______________________________________________________

Duty is ours; results are Gods. –John Quincy Adams

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

August 22nd, 2007

Testing

Culture Watch

August 12th, 2007


Evangelist Mike Azinger
Vienna, WV

Public Pools: Pathway to Pornography?
By Mike Azinger

_______________________________________________________

“The rise and progress of swimwear in our culture reveals not only a great deal of flesh, but also a great deal about our society. [Authors] Kidwell and Steele observe that ‘the history of swimwear is connected to our changing perceptions of modesty and immodesty…’”

*Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America, by Jeff Pollard

I was driving across town last week on the busiest street in the city when I came upon several teenage girls in bikini bathing suits standing on the sidewalk in front of the Auto Zone parking lot. They were shaking their hips and holding signs over their heads advertising a car wash. Normally I drive by this increasingly common scene and just shake my head in disgust and disbelief without actually doing anything abou