8 Nov

For the entire blog, click on


Now we have taken the approach to dealing with terrorism by demonstrating to prospective followers the conflict between terrorism and what they for the most part hold most sacred – that being their religious commitment.

Now we can and to some degree will take that approach to the conflict in North Korea BUT let’s be aware that the main motivator of North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Ill is not necessarily religious in nature. The dictator rather seems most motivated by his own egotistical nature.

Kim Jong Ill is in many ways a duplicate of his father, Kim Ill Sung. That latter randomly made claims about himself that cannot possibly be true. Supposedly he placed chess champion Bobby Fisher in check mate in six moves. He again supposedly defeated tennis champion Roger Federer in straight sets and defeated Tiger Woods in golf by himself driving 18 consecutive holes in one.
On one occasion Kim Ill Sung issued an invitation to basketball star Michael Jordan to visit North Korea. Jordan declined but one has to wonder if perhaps Kim Ill Sung intended to at least make the claim that he defeated Jordan in one-on-one on the basketball court.

Now does Kim Jong Ill perhaps believe that his father did all of these things? If so perhaps he sees himself as impenetrable to the effect that he eels equipped to develop a military capable of defeating the United States.
One point here that I think was a bit reckless on the part of President Donald Trump is that, in both internet tweets and his address to the United Nations, the President kept referring to Kim Jong Ill as “Rocket Man.” Presumably that is a reference to Elton John’s song by that title although I read through the lyrics and did not get the impression that Rocket Man is a spaced out loon but rather a lonely astronaut longing to be back home.

What ever the case, President Trump’s term likely outraged Kim Jong Ill in private. The UN address in it’s self did seem to accomplish one very positive result. Afterwards China instructed all of its banks to not do business with North Korea. This in itself does much to weaken North Korea and may in fact prove to be the one thing that prevents war between the U. S. and North Korea.
But please remember two things about oriental religions that still may play a role here.

First they place great emphasis on keeping face among their adherents. I once knew a young oriental lady who had risen rather high in the business world. However an anticipated promotion that she had been expecting did not materialize and the young woman became very depressed. Feeling that she had embarrassed her family and lost face, the woman went into her garage, turned the automobile on and then laid on the ground with the exhaust pipe in her mouth purposely breathing in the gas fumes. Death did not result but severe brain damage did and the young woman ended up a medical patient with little hope of recovery.

Please bear in mind that Kim Jong Ill may himself have such a view of losing face that he is willing to submit his own military troops to entering a battle they cannot realistically hope to win. Certainly the United States cannot be expected to just sit back passively and allow NK missiles to land on American soil.

Let’s also be aware that oriental religion envelopes a different definition of the word “Truth.” American generally hear that word and just presume that truth is what is true. That seems simple enough right?

But let’s at least try to look at this through the eyes of an adherent to oriental religion. Let’s consider the following Hindu riddle:

Let’s say that a man or woman is walking through a dark alley. He or she sees a long thin object but cannot make out just what it is. Well he/she concludes that the object is a poisonous snake and runs away in the opposite direction.
The another individual comes along and sees the same object. He/she presumes that it is a stick off of a tree. So he/she walks on past.

Now what was it? A snake or a stick? Well you and I, who look at the situation through the eyes of most Americans will respond “It was most probably a stick otherwise the second individual would have been bitten in the leg. But it was either one or the other (or possibly a third option).

HOWEVER the oriental religionist will conclude that it was both a stick and a snake. Since truth is seen as determined only by perception then it was a snake for the first individual as that is how it was perceived. But for the second individual it was a stick.

Now the weakness of such a position would seem obvious. Christian Apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias, himself of a Hindu upbringing, notes that truth is always an “either or.” It is never two contrary conclusions. Ravi further notes that, even though this aspect has been woven into religious thought in the far east, it is not even considered plausible in everyday activity. Ravi states “Believe it or not, even in the heart of Bombay, India, the very core of the relevant truth movement, we still look both ways before crossing the street. Because we know that it is either us or the bus. So practically speaking truth is always an either-or. Always one or the other. It is never both.”

Now again all of this may in fact be irrelevant in dealing with Kim Jong Ill as the man seems more motivated by his own megalomania than anything else.
If in fact this proves to be the case then America may well have to acknowledge the fact that there is such a thing as a “Just War.” That is to say that war is never desirable but there may in fact be a situation in which it is the only option.
The following are generally accepted criteria for a Just War and I think they are quite reasonable:

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler’s Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. President’s Clinton’s attacks on Serbia in an effort to keep his affairs wth Monica Lewwinski out of the headlines is typically considered a violation of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice”.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.


31 Oct

For the entire blog, click on

A friend recently raised the question as to why the Democrats would be so bold as to try to pin the blame for collusion with Russia on Donald Trump when they knew that they themselves had committed treason and might run the risk of being exposed. Here is my answer:

My tendency is to think that the Democrats were so confident that they would never be exposed that they felt it safe to make up stories without basis. This was based on past experience. Before Donald Trump, no Republican had ever dared to expose their lies. Nobody ever called attention to the fact that Democrats had opposed both the abolition of slavery or the civil rights amendment.

Regarding abortion we got watered down statements like that of Dan Quayle that “abortion stops a beating heart.” Meanwhile Al Gore could stand up and declare that he was so very concerned that banning partial birth abortion might endanger a woman’s health and go unchallenged by G. W. Bush. A response such as “How stupid can you be to think that preventing an assassin from poking a catheter in her baby’s neck while it is on the way out of the womb and sucking it’s brain out would in any way make the mother any healthier ???!!!.” Trump would have said that. But not Bush, not Quayle, not Dole, not Romney, not McCain, not a hundred others. Only Trump (and likely Rush) would dare to say that.

And which one of the above would ever dare to tell Hillary that she would be in jail if it were not for the Obama administration covering up for her? Only Trump (and again probably Rush & Hannity).

And which one would dare to call the New York Times and the Washington Post FAKE News and ban them to the back row at press conferences? Only Trump.
So I think the Democrats were confident that nobody would ever be bold enough to accuse them of promoting FAKE News and then turn the tables on them. But it has happened and now they are running scared. And I think that is why God placed Trump in office. Yes the man has faults. Yes he has a tendency to be profane. Yes he has spoken disrespectfully of women. And I am not excusing that. Mr. President you need to get before God and allow Him to smooth out those rough edges. But God saw a quality in you that was not present in others and I think He knew that was what we needed.

We needed first the courage and then the humility of Teddy Roosevelt who recognized the unpopular fact that a black man, Booker T. Washington, was the most capable of straightening out our economy and allowed him to run the country behind the scenes for eight successful years.

But God sent both of these men.

We needed the boldness and straightforwardness of Ronald Reagan. It was one thing for him to, in the presence of others shout out “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall !” But it was another for him to sit face to face with the dictator himself, to endure his threats and mockery, to turn his back on him and toward his own advisors, who had encouraged otherwise, and state “Gentlemen, this meeting is over” – then to walk out on a man that Hollywood admired and bear the scorn of a hostile press while Gorbachev sat there stunned; knowing that America had just won the cold war.

But God sent such a man.

We needed the commitment, the leadership and the integrity of George W. Bush to get us through the ensuing and troubling days after 9/11.

And God sent such a man.

But that was then and this is now. And now we need a straight shooter. YES A STRAIGHT SHOOTER. We need someone who will not be distracted by the concern that he might hurt someone’s feelings. Jesus never spoke disrespectfully but he certainly told it like it was – even in the presence of Pilate and Herod (“your sin is greater than theirs”). And as in Jesus’ time, corruption has found it’s way behind the scenes and we need someone to bring it out in the open. But we don’t have a completely pure vessel like Jesus so God chose a straight shooter in spite of his rough edges.

Atheist Richard Dawkins recently said that Christians need to be mocked and humiliated into submission. And Ravi Zacharias responded by saying that “I agree with that and I think he should start by doing that in Saudi Arabia.” Obviously Dawkins will not because those who hold the power of the press can be incredibly intimidating. But not to a bold straight shooter. Trump instead walked his pretty wife through the Saudi palace with her head uncovered (and let’s not overlook her own courage as a decade earlier such an act would have brought the death penalty). And yet the Saudis were afraid to oppose him. Instead they cheered him and gave him their highest award.

I would as well – my own highest award – to a straight shooter with rough edges who nonetheless remained a straight shooter when we needed that quality most.

Years back the great recording artist Bill Gaither recorded a song that I think is appropriate to close with – “THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.”

Let the Church be the Church
Let the people rejoice
For we’ve settled the question
We’ve made our choice
Let the anthems ring out, songs of victory swell
For the Church triumphant, is alive and well

[Verse 1]
You know, this ship’s been through battles before
The storms and the tempests and all the rocks on the shore
Though the hull may be battered
Inside it’s safe and dry
It’s gonna carry its cargo to the port in the sky

God has always had a people.
Many a foolish conqueror has made the mistake of thinking that because he had forced the Church of Jesus Christ out of site, he had stilled its voice and snuffed out its life,
But God has always had a people.

The powerful current of a rushing river is not diminished because it’s forced to flow underground. NO THE PUREST WATER IS THE STREAM THAT BURST CRYSTAL CLEAR INTO THE SUNLIGHT AFTER IT HAS FORCED IT’S WAY THROUGH SOLID ROCK.

There have been folks who like Simon The Magician sought to barter on the open market that power which cannot be bought or sold,
But God has always had a people.
God has always had a people.

There have been times of affluence and prosperity when the Church’s message has been nearly deluded into oblivion by those who sought to make it socially attractive, neatly organized, financially profitable,
But God has always had a people.

Yes it’s been gold platted, draped in purple and encrusted with jewels.
It has been misrepresented, ridiculed, lauded and scorned
But God has always had a people.

And these followers of Jesus Christ have been, according to the whim of the times, elevated as sacred leaders and martyred as heretics.

Yet through it all, there marches on that powerful army of the meek.
God’s chosen people who cannot be bought, flattered, murdered or stilled.
On through the ages they march, the Church! God’s Church triumphant!


Listen child of God, its alive.
Discouraged pastor, it’s his church and it’s still alive.

Lonely missionary, sow that seed with confidence.
The Church is still alive.

Old saint, you’re not alone or forgotten.
The Church is still alive.

Its alive my broken-hearted friend, it’s still alive.
Busy mothers, just keep trusting in Jesus,
the Church is alive.
You’re not alone out there, just keep looking to Jesus.
The Church is alive.

And faithful fathers, there’s rest in the Lord.
God’s Church is still alive.
So family of God lift your hands,
lift your hands and praise the Lord.

The Church, God’s Church triumphant is alive, it’s alive my friends. Alive and well

HOWIE’S HANDBOOK FOR MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (now ain’t that a braggadocious title?)

30 Oct

(now ain’t that a braggadocious title?)

It CAN be done. This is how I would do it.

table of contents
CHAPTER 13: MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION GREAT AGAIN (and why it is already in the making)

HOWIE’S HANDBOOK FOR MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (now ain’t that a braggdocious title?)

25 Oct

For the entire blog, click on



As the title implies, this is a rather lofty adventure and one that I do not fully expect to accomplish. Let me state upfront that I do not ever anticipate a time in which peace envelopes the world until Jesus Christ returns. Until then we will always find something that will divide us.
Nor do I anticipate any great applause for this manuscript; that for two reasons:

(1) I step on a lot of toes in this work. Just for example I call for the black community to consider that, while racism certainly exists, their own lower economic status and seemingly inability to overcome it, may in fact be more attributable to the their having an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 73%. When I annunciated this over the Internet, two black men and one white woman immediately labeled me a racist while a black woman posted that I was a pitiful example of a human being.
(2) I also tread on some sincerely held end-times beliefs which insist that the Church of Jesus Christ will become less and less significant in the end and only be restored at the time of Christ’s coming. There are alternative understandings of such passages but either way we are never called to cease trying to do good regardless of the state of the Church. Even William Miller, who convinced large masses that the end would come in 1844, nonetheless authored the hymn “We Will Work Till Jesus Comes.” It is my hope that the Church has not lost this determination to make the world a better place in spite of such beliefs.

So let’s go on an adventure with high expectations as we journey through this series of articles. Let’s make every effort to lay aside preconceived notions and see if in fact there just might be an answer to dealing with terrorism, the situation in North Korea. global warming, the racial tensions that threaten to strangle America from within, etc. And lets look at the Church itself as it is often badly in need of being made great again. Let’s even consider the possibility that God is in the process of taking back the education system and of making atheism a discredited ideology even in the scholastic field.
So again let’s enter into the adventure with an attitude of both openness and expectation that America and the world can indeed be made great again.


25 Oct

For the entire blog, click on


The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision on Roe versus Wade, legalizing abortion, seems to have numbed the concerns of many Americans over the death of a child. In fact there are numerous abortion advocates throughout the country who still maintain it’s legalization is actually a public service. In the day after the initial SCOTUS decision, it was com…mon for abortion clinic workers to be faced with the question “Is it a baby?” Their common answer was “No it’s just a fetus.” Now unbeknownst to most of the young women, fetus is actually the Latin word for “baby.” However the implication was that the substance within the woman’s body was just that – a substance – perhaps a blob of protoplasm, but certainly not something that might be labeled as human.

Likely in the early days many of the clinic workers believed this. Not all did though. One worker described being assigned to “the sink.” This was where body parts were to be washed away through a large drain. The clinic worker described both seeing and dissecting small arms and legs in order to make them fit down the drain. However the pro-Life crowd was not about to let this assumption pass. During the Presidential debates in 1984, President Reagan stated “It may well be that with enough research we could determine whether or not an unborn baby experiences joy, comfort, pain and other things that would qualify it as a living person. I happen to believe that it is.” Now President Reagan could only say that as a statement of faith. However in time it was demonstrated that an unborn child does indeed experience all of these things.

For a time there was a media battle between pro-choice advocates seeking to keep new research from becoming public and pro-life advocates seeking to gain a voice on any of the three major networks. Pro-Life leaders attempted to distribute photographs of aborted fetuses to the press. They were grotesque figures with the look of excruciating pain etched in their faces. It made me cringe to look at them. However, with rare exception the secular press refused to publish them, saying that they might cause people to suffer emotional damage. This by the way was the same press that didn’t hesitate to show the mutilated body of an American soldier during the Gulf War.

In time it was demonstrated scientifically that a child does indeed experience extreme pain during an abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an abortionist himself, abandoned the practice and published an ultra sound movie of a fetus during an abortion. It was called “the Silent Scream.” It was obvious from the film that th child was maneuvering in every way possible to avoid the foreign object poking at it. Eventually, the metal object found its target, and the child was beheaded. A speaker at our Church quoted Nathanson as saying “It is incorrect to say that you once were a fertilized ovum. In reality you ARE a fertilized ovum. You just grew up.”

In response to this the CBS television network invited Nathanson to appear on their “CBS Morning News” to defend the integrity of “The Silent Scream.” They placed him opposite four pornographers (that’s right, pornographers) who were introduced as “medical doctors.” However when introducing Dr. Nathanson, one of the foremost medical experts in the country, they simply referred to him as an “anti-abortionist.” One the broadcast, one of the pornographers made the ridiculous claim that what Nathanson was calling the “baby’s head was just excrement from its rectum. This sort of journalism was moderately successful for a time. However in time sonogram pictures became more and more clear. It was obvious that Dr. Nathanson had been correct.

It was at this point that the pro-choice crowd altered their strategy. Rather than trying to deny the humanity of the fetus, they began referring to it as an alien invader in the woman’s body. If the woman did not desire to be pregnant than it was stated that the fetus was simply an invader – no different than a rapist. The first to proclaim this was the feminist author Eileen McDonagh. In her book “Breaking the Abortion Deadlock from Choice to Consent”, McDonagh made the following statements: ” . . . a fetus takes her body and holds it hostage . . . it doesn’t have the right to intrude upon it’s mother’s body without her consent . . . The fetus essentially seizes hold of the woman’s body and uses it to further it’s own ends and purposes, regardless fo the negative effects it may have on it’s host . . . A woman cannot be obligated to donate her body to maintain the LIFE OF A FETUS . . . the state has an obligation to protect a woman from wrongful pregnancy that the fetus is indeed guilty of.”
McDonagh was so enthusiastically received that National Organization of Women President Patricia Ireland called a special “Reframing Abortion Rights Briefing” in 1997 with McDonagh as keynote speaker. After hearing her presentation, Ireland stated “It reminds me very much of marital rape . . . I am having these visions of all the science fiction television shows that are on now, you know, “The X-Files” and “Millenium”, all of these. I am envisioning someone being kidnapped and held hostage for nine months, and their blood increased and taken, and a new organ is grown in them.”

The battle cry was on!!! It was sounded in pro-abortion rallies across the nation. An unwanted fetus is a rapist and must be killed!!! American Family Association President Don Wildmon recalled one NOW speaker who made the statement “If someone was raping my daughter and the only choices I had was to allow the rape to take place or kill the rapist then I would choose the latter. Abortion is no different. It should be legal to kill the intruder.”

Aside from the ludicrous nature of the above statements, it didn’t seem to occur to the women that McDonagh and others had now publically acknowledged that abortion involved the killing of an innocent human being. How could you kill something if it wasn’t alive to begin with? Had this been 1973 (the year Roe v Wade was passed) it is likely that most everyone would have reacted with horror. However by now, vast numbers had become numb when dealing with this Culture of Death.

From what I can tell the major proponents of abortion today are such simply because of the financial gain it brings or, in the case of liberal politicians and movie actors, because of the career ending threat that opposing abortion can bring. In 1990, a massive pro-Life rally was held in Washington D. C. In spite of CNN’s reporting that a “disappointing crowd of only a few hundred thousand turned up”, the reality was that well over a million attended. Among them were Hollywood stars Charlton Heston and Lisa Welchel. There had been the hope that many other Hollywood people would show up. Instead Heston and Welchel came with the anonymous support of other actors who told them, “We agree with your position, but we cannot risk our careers over it.” Indeed vocalist Barbara Streisand had been leading a boycott against any Hollywood star who participated. Heston and Welchel were accomplished enough stars and were committed enough to thumb their noses at Streisand. Others were not.

In 1994 I was listening to the radio while driving when I heard someone say that 85% of all women who see their sonograms prior to having an abortion decline to have the procedure done. The problem was that abortion clinics had learned to position the monitor in such a way that it could not be seen by the woman. All of a sudden, a thought occurred to me. Instead of pushing for bills that would outlaw abortion, why not push for what I initially decided to call an “Informed Consent Bill.” Why not require clinics to give women the option of viewing their sonogram? If 85% would then decline the abortion, then we would not only have saved lives, but this would put to the test the claims of the clinic workers that they were performing abortions only as a public service. I reasoned, if 85% of the customers at McDonalds, Burger King or Wal-Mart suddenly left, the profits would dry up and the company would close. If the abortion clinic did indeed stay open when the money was not there, then we would have to acknowledge that these people did indeed perform this act as a public service. Otherwise it would be obvious that they were just in it for the money.

I began by calling State Senator Nancy Jacobs. Nancy is a very sweet person, a committed Christian and a solid pro-life advocate. She was excited about the prospect and suggested that I call Maryland-Right-to-Life. I did so and initially received the same response from them. I was invited down to Annapolis to speak at a pro-Life rally and to introduce the “Informed Choice” strategy. It never happened. Shortly afterward, the invitation was withdrawn. I was told both over the phone and in person that MRTL had decided to put all of their energy into a bill to ban partial-birth abortion in Maryland.

President Clinton had vetoed such a bill nationally and received mush adverse publicity for allowing the grotesque procedure to go on. Even many pro-choice advocates opposed this procedure which entails the inducement of a breach birth so that the baby comes out feet first. Roe v Wade appeals had by now concluded that a baby was not legally a human being until its head had passed through the birth canal (which means that none of my own children are legally human since each was born cesarean). So if the head was still inside, it was legal for the doctor to stab it in the neck, place a catheter in the wound, and suck out the baby’s brain.

Okay I was all in favor of a bill to ban that but . . . “What about the Informed Choice bill?” A representative from MRTL came to my office at Church and pleaded with me saying “Cool it. If you persist on pushing for women to see their sonograms, the press will rip you to shreds.” I told him that it didn’t matter to me, but he refused to continue the conversation.

Then a lady from MRTL that I spoke to on the phone told me “Seventy- seven percent of the population is in our corner on this one (the partial birth ban). We stand a good chance of winning if you don’t get in the way.” So I decided to back off. However the ban on partial birth abortion died on the floor of the Maryland State Senate and was never put to a vote.

In 1998 Christianity Today published a cover story entitled “Wanted: a New Pro-Life Strategy.” The article expressed disappointment that the pro-life movement was not making much head way with the average American. The other side had successfully labeled pro-life advocates as fanatics with a maniacal agenda. They were seeking a more effective approach. So I wrote to the magazine and explained the “Informed Choice” plan which had been derailed in Maryland. CT published my letter and in time, my phone was ringing.

Since that time the name “Informed Choice” has been renamed “Informed Consent” and the bill has been passed in 22 states. Over the past 20 years 81 % of abortion clinics in those states have closed down. The large state of Texas is now down to it’s last clinic and Kentucky now has none. Apparently I was correct in that pro-choice advocates are so for the most part because of the profit it brings. Now that women are realizing the horrible act that these people are performing, they are opting to have their babies in great mass. So with the profit now gone these people no longer see it as such a humane act.
But again the bill has only passed in 22 states and Oklahoma has a court challenge which threatens to make it again an abortion-on-demand state. What is needed here is a Supreme Court decision that would require Informed Consent to be the law in all 50 states.

Roe v Wade would remain intact but its effect of making the killing of the unborn a lucrative business would be nullified.

Now there is no reason whatsoever as to why IC should not be a constitutional right for every woman. This is particularly true when we consider the incredibly high suicide rate among women who have had abortions (six times higher than for those who have given birth). Recently the United States Senate approved the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Gorsuch is a highly qualified legal expert with a record of making rules based solely on what the Constitution dictates (which is the sole purpose of a judge).

One more such nomination would likely make Informed Consent the law of the land. But gaining another such appointment may be a bit of a problem. Those on the Democratic side will almost certainly vote against such a nominee as doing so could jeopardize their future nominations (a strong point in favor of term limits). But currently the Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate.
That leaves the 52 members on the Republican side (plus Vice President Mike Pence if a tie is recorded) to push forward the IC legislation. That should not be a problem except for Senate members such as Susan Collins of Maine who has a tendency to side with the Democrats (she is often referred to as a RINO – Republican in name only) and the egotistical John McCain from Arizona. A former Presidential candidate, McCain is a proven war hero but that seems to have gone to his head as he frequently likes to be the rare exception to even the most logical sort of vote. If McCain can be seen as riding in on his white horse to cast a crucial vote then he is likely to do so. If on the other hand he is placed in the position of just going along with the crowd, McCain is apt to find some bizarre reason to oppose such a bill in order to make himself look more important.

However if these two are the only Republican no-votes then a Pence tie-breaker could still put another Gorsuch-like candidate over the top. And again such an appointment would almost certainly make IC’s approval the law of the land. And that is the best thing for woman all over the land. Why burden them down with a non-informed decision based solely on what the abortion clinic chooses to tell them?


25 Oct

For the entire blog, click on


At the close of the 2013 Christian/Muslim Dialogue in Baltimore that I reference elsewhere, the question was put before myself and the Muslim leader as to what God’s expectations are of us. Here is how I responded:

Let me begin here by asking the audience to please not boo me before you have heard me out. Give me my 8 minutes and then, if you still feel like doing so, you can boo me off the platform. But, please hear me out, first. Now to begin with, as an Evangelical Christian, I do not believe that anyone ever enters Heaven except through Jesus Christ.


That’s not me talking; He said it Himself. Now, does this mean that everyone here who does not believe exactly as I do, then automatically goes to Hell? No, I don’t think so. No two individuals agree on everything and, of course, only God has all the answers. So, I’d be the only one up there and I’d get lonely.
Instead, if you will read Jesus’ two famous parables about salvation, the parable of the Prodigal Son and the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, I think you will find two common links that are vital to being accepted into the Kingdom of God – humility on the part of the believer and grace (underserved forgiveness) on the part of God.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, a young man takes his share of the family inheritance and goes out into the world, living a very vile existence. He has plenty of money and plenty of friends. But, when the money runs out, his friends disappear. Anybody ever have friends like that? The boy takes a job feeding pigs and realizes that they are eating better than he is. He realizes that he has made a shambles of his life and doesn’t deserve anyone’s help.

However, he decided to humble himself and go back to his father, asking to be taken on as a slave. But the father, who in this parable represents God, sees him coming and won’t even think of making him a slave. He is welcomed back with love because of the grace, or underserved forgiveness of the father. That is how God responds to each of us.

All of us have sinned and gone our separate ways. But, if we humble ourselves and ask forgiveness, God responds with grace. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, a haughty religious leader and a lowly publican, who likely hadn’t lived a very honest life, both enter the temple to pray. The religious leader prays a very boastful prayer exalting his own righteousness. The publican, instead, humbles himself and prays a very humble, but sincere, prayer: “Oh God, forgive me a sinner.” Jesus says that the publican, who humbled himself, went away forgiven, while the religious leader’s prayer only got as far as the ceiling. So here again, humility on the part of the believer

– we must acknowledge ourselves as having fallen short of God’s love, followed by underserved forgiveness or grace on the part of God.

As to the actual penalty for the sin itself, we believe that Jesus Himself bore the penalty on the cross and in effect became our sacrificial lamb. This is what we call the atonement. As I have said, with all the Psalms and the Quran have to say about the mercy of God, I think there is room for mutual agreement here.

* * * * * * *

The following is an article I wrote in 2015. My condolences to a grieving atheistic community that refuses any sort of comfort that might imply setting aside their hatred for the Christian community.

I just finished reading an article by a grieving mother who lost her three year old daughter. What was even more sad is that the mother is an atheist and seems to take great exception to Christians telling her that her child is in heaven.
Other than twitter posts (which I am not on) there didn’t seem to be any way of contacting the woman but I was left with the impression that she wasn’t looking for comfort anyway.

Rather it seemed to me that she viewed her writing the article as therapeutic in that she could take out her vengeance upon Christians who (1) had been through similar experiences and yet found comfort in their belief that their child was in fact in heaven (or as she worded it “transformed into an angel”) and (2) in the fact that practically every support group out there who might offer her any comfort met in a Church and that she had some inward objection to even entering such a building.

Up until about ten years ago the atheistic community seemed to find great comfort in citing Sigmund Freud’s hypothesis that religious tendencies stem from some sort of mental insanity and that only non-believers were sane. I remember for example sitting at a traffic light and reading the bumper sticker on the car ahead of me. It read “If you will promise not to pray in my schools, I will promise not to think in your churches.” Likely the driver ahead of me found some satisfaction in publically declaring his or herself on a superior intellectual level than someone who actually believes in a supposedly mythical God or gods.

But more recently the cherished psychological community has turned the tables on atheism with the discovery of the so-called “God Lobe” in the right temporal frontal region of the brain. One prominent psychologist even commented that “it appears that we are actually pre-programmed to believe in God” and concluded that religious tendencies are actually normal and that those who do not experience them (atheists in general ran flat in this area) are in themselves mentally deficient.

My own conclusion is that, since the vast majority of atheists have been shown to have grown up in families where there was no sufficient father figure (either their father was absent or dead) and no one else bothered to fill the gap, then such “mental deficiency” (if I can call it that) of a non-functional God Lobe leaves the individual in a situation similar to someone who has never heard music trying to imagine a great symphony or concert.

Dr. James Dobson once stated that “Generally speaking, we develop our image of God from our paternal father” and this in itself serves to strengthen my conclusion.

Now the atheist community has not taken well to this discovery and its implications. Some time back I got onto two atheist sites and asked their views on having the tables turned on them. No longer does the psychiatric community view them as intellectually superior but rather now sees them as mentally deficient. The responses I got were predictable. I got called every name in the book. But the one response I never got was along the lines of “Hey what are you talking about? I had a great relationship with my father. He was my hero and I grew up wanting to be just like him.” That would have been my response but not one atheist could even muster up the willingness to say that their own father was at least “an okay sort of a guy.”

But getting back to the atheist mother who lost a child, I am sure that none of this offers her any comfort. I mean, how comforting could it be to be told “Look your baby is reaping the joys of heaven but the problem is that you’re just nuts”???

So it is perhaps better that I couldn’t contact this lady and maybe her writing the article was in one way a bit therapeutic. But herein lies a deeper problem.
Why is it that certain grieving people seem to think that, if they can wound the deeply held beliefs of others, they will somehow gain healing themselves?

All of this reminds me of two individuals; one fictional, the other historic.
First there is the Grinch who stole Christmas. Remember how miserable he was and how he felt that stealing all of the Whos toys would make them miserable and somehow make him less so? The Grinch got his life together upon learning that the Whos were still rejoicing even without toys. But that outcome is usually confined to fiction.

Rather the outcome is usually more along the lines of the Biblical Babylonian prince Belshazzar. The latter’s father was a man by the name of Nabonidus who was a confirmed lunatic suffering from mental derangements known as Monomania and Boanthropy. Meanwhile Belshazzar’s grandfather was the ruthless king Nebuchadnezzar who, although Daniel chapter 4 indicates got his act together in his last days, was certainly no joy to be around while growing up in the palace. And on his last day, Belshazzar decided that the remedy for his own misery was to mock the believing Jews by getting drunk drinking out of the goblets confiscated from the temple of their God. God Himself is not mocked and Belshazzar learned that the hard way – being killed by the invading Persian armies that very night.

Others I suspect are more prone to further more violent outbursts. Often this is the sort of thing that results in race riots, terrorist attacks and other outbursts. I am sure that the Church is called to minister in this area but as of right now I am not sure just what the most effective response might be.

So for those of you who have had the advantage of a good godly father or a mother, a step-parent or even an outsider who aptly filled the gap, please be thankful. For those who have not, all I can say is that trying to find satisfaction by robbing someone else of theirs, never produces the desired results. May Jesus Christ, the God you refuse to acknowledge, nonetheless grant you the peace that you so desperately seek. .

CHAPTER 13: MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION GREAT AGAIN (and why the solution is already in the making)

25 Oct

For the entire blog, click on

(and why the solution is already in the making)

Believe it or not, after he had invited me to post on his Facebook Group page, an atheist from Great Britain threatened to have me killed for posting this article:


By the mid 1960s the secular liberal faction in this country had gotten control of both the media and the educational system. Now they are losing it. And I think that best explains why they are feeling so threatened by a woman who refuses to bake a wedding cake with the words “Congratulations George & Ralph” or a Marine who posts a scripture verse on his arsenal.

Thirty years ago such things would have been passed over as the harmless sentiments of foolish religious folks. But no more. Now people like George Soros and Richard Dawkins view them as dangerous actions and use devices to manipulate Twitter into making it appear that the entire country is in an uproar about such things. Indeed Soros can himself compose 6 or 7 anti-Christian tweets and have them multiplied at the rate of 83,000 per hour thus giving the impression that the entire country is outraged about some supposed Christian bias.

But why go to such efforts? I think because secularists realize that they are losing the media and are now in danger of losing the educational system as well. Previously Walter Cronkite could go on the air and convince the American public that we had lost the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when in fact not a single American soldier had been killed. Additionally liberals were able to blame the Watergate break-in on Nixon when in fact he did not even learn about it until afterwards. Nor was there any mention that Democrats were using the motel to conceal a prostitution ring. And all of this went unchallenged in the press.

HOWEVER beginning with Ronald Reagan’s veto of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” (which was no more than a carefully disguised method of restricting free speech) the conservative (and more pro-God) people in society began finding more effective methods of getting their message across. Outlets such as the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh’s EIB Network (which many believe saved FM radio from extinction), the 700 Club, Moral Majority, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Hannity, Levin, Megan Kelly and others have become common place.
And now, Heavens to Mergatroid, those religious folks are beginning to be taken seriously by those in the field of education !!!
How so? Well lets first imagine two fictional college (or perhaps High School) freshmen. We will call them John & Mary (J & M). Lets assume that both have come from basically secular families; not necessarily anti-religious but just non-religious. J & M come on campus greatly awed by their surroundings. Fancy buildings and sports arenas, professors with high degrees, and a basically liberal atmosphere on campus, etc. Now both J & M are very impressionable and, upon being told that there is no God, simply take it as matter-of-fact. I mean who are they to argue with such highly trained professors?

But now lets assume that these professors, while secular in themselves, are none-the-less honest in their presentations. That is where the danger begins. For you see J & M are beginning to advance beyond what psychologists call “the cognitive stage of development.” That is to say that they are beginning to think for themselves.

J & M first enter English class and learn that many of the more scholarly works are those of Christians. Well that is to be expected as those folks lived in an age of mythology and religious fantasy. No big deal.

But next J & M go into Math class. You would think mathematics would be neutral at best. But there the professor presents the “flatlands theory of the universe” and begins by telling them that, from a natural perspective there should be nothing here as nothing is incapable of producing something. And yet

J & M look around and see that there is actually something here. According to the flatlands perspective such would dictate the existence of an unseen fifth dimension beyond the natural (for example an imaginary being limited to just a single plane cannot envision the existence of something on two or more dimensions). Now again J & M are beginning to think for themselves and the great concern is that they will begin to carry the professor’s words to their logical conclusion: that a “Super-natural world” must in fact exist.

Okay so now J & M go into science class. Surely science will debunk all of this nonsense. But there they become acquainted with Einstein’s discovery of an expanding universe and how it blew Kant’s steady-state-theory out of the water. Additionally they become aware of Einstein’s’ conclusion that “creation requires a Creator.” J & M are beginning to wonder. “That seems to square nicely with what the math teacher said.”
Next the professor makes them aware of the existence of both the recently discovered dark matter and anti-matter. The professor, lets say he/she is a Stephen Hocking clone, will emphatically state that ‘Even though we can demonstrate the existence of this world, we have no reason to conclude that it might in fact possess qualities of intelligent life as depicted in religious nonsense.” Okay that’s true but J & M are also saying to themselves “But we have no reason to conclude that the opposite is true either.”
Next they become acquainted with the theory of Intelligent design and are shown that it is indeed not just a plausible explanation but perhaps the only explanation for the complexity of the DNA makeup of human beings.

J & M come out of science class stunned. Rather than debunking religious thought as they presumed it would, the class has opened up a new scenario of ideological thought that they had never even considered possible. But then they get to History class and the secularist’s greatest nightmare is beginning to take shape.
Here again the professor is also a secularist but none-the-less an honest historian. Lets assume that the class is taught by a clone of Bart Ehrmann (considered perhaps the greatest authority on ancient history anywhere and while a self-proclaimed agnostic, he is still an honest historian).

This professor makes J & M aware that Jesus Christ was in fact a historical individual; not just the compilation of mythological figures as the atheist community has been claiming.

Okay, now like any competent historian the professor is willing to acknowledge certain things about Jesus. First off he was indeed a radical teacher associated with what the professor would probably label as “magical acts” (note that the presumption here is that these were slight of hand deceptions such as those of Uri Geller and Heidenreich – since proven to be phony psychics).
Still further the professor acknowledges the crucifixion and death of this individual known as Jesus and the subsequent empty tomb (as evidenced not only by the Gospel authors but by both Tertullian & Justin Martyr’s quotes from the memoirs of Pilate as well as the decree of Caesar artifact proclaiming that Nazarenes should refrain from grave robbery) .
Now again J & M are beginning to think for themselves. They may initially do some independent research (such as reading C. S. Lewis or Frank Morrison) or just reach the logical conclusion that the swoon, theft and wrong-tomb theories do not hold water when confronted with logic.
Now the honest professor will be forced to admit (as Ehrmann does) that at least some of the Pauline epistles are authentic so far as authorship and that I Corinthians and Galatians in particular are to be dated quite early. And J & M are again stunned to realize that it is thus possible to conclude that Jesus was not only a historical figure (as He is now known to have had both a brother and disciples) but that Paul and a massive number of others knew not only of the empty tomb but of in excess of 500 individuals who at least claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead no more than two months after the crucifixion.

Now the professor will tell the class that these eyewitnesses were undoubtedly religious fruitcakes with a vivid imagination. But what if J & M just cannot resist the temptation to raise their hands and ask “How do we know that?.” And the professor will be forced to admit that such is only his or her own conjecture. That could be tragic in the eyes of the secularist because J & M themselves might one day be sitting in the professor’s chair .

And still further J & M venture into psychology class. It is here that the secularist hopes to convince them that Freud was correct and that religious notions are the result of either insanity or simply a desire to cope with the inevitability of death and extinction. So J & M are taken back a step. “Maybe the problem is us. Maybe we have bought into this insanity. Maybe we need to reconsider.”

But then J & M begin to realize that Freud was likely insane himself. Further reading will demonstrate that Freud admits to purposely distorting his own findings in order to protect pedophiles who reacted violently to his exposing them. They will also see that in fact most if not all of Freud’s notions have been discredited by modern psychology.

Additionally the recently discovered right frontal temporal lobe of the brain, which is only active during times of prayer and worship, seems to indicate that religious conviction is a natural state and that the rejection of such rather implies some sort of psychological malfunction. Indeed J & M may draw a link between Dr. Dobson’s assertion that our image of God generally comes from some sort of father figure and that every well known atheist (not some, not even most but from what I can tell ALMOST ALL) have been the product of a home in which the father was either absent, dead or some sort of unimaginable tyrant.

So the secularist feels endangered. “What if this next generation of scholars concludes that logic itself dictates the existence of a Deity? What if they conclude that a spiritual world does in fact exist? Even worse, what if they conclude that there is indeed factual evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Or what if J & M conclude that atheism itself results from the individual being psychologically impaired? “Heaven’s to Mergatroid we can’t have that !!!”
So what is the approach being taken by the secular community? I think they elect for the following option:

“If you can’t discredit the message than the only other option is to silence the messenger. And since killing Christians is only acceptable outside the United States, we must find another way to silence them.”

Thus we see people like atheist Richard Dawkins telling their followers not to debate with Christians (indeed he himself has refused to debate William Lane Craig) but rather to insult and humiliate them into becoming silent. Additionally we have Soros and various Hollywood celebrities putting forth huge sums of money and boycotts to incite race riots, political riots and those to promote pro-Gay, Bye, Trans-sexual, etc. “RIGHTS” such as a man’s right to go in the Ladies Room.

And so we see Christians such as the woman who refused to bake the gay wedding cake vilified and the indication given that the entire country is in an uproar against her.

Again if you can’t discredit the message then the only option is to silence the messenger.