The Constructive Curmudgeon

I hope and pray that millions of Christians will fast and pray for the upcoming election. My experience has been that many contemporary American Christians do not know much about fasting in conjunction with prayer. Here are a few insights, but it is neither exhaustive nor definitive.

1. Adding fasting to prayer is meant to intensify the prayer. Fasting is not a magical way to win God's favor. Rather, our emptiness and hunger for God is felt more deeply and focused in prayer.

2. We gain a sense of spiritual desperation and deep yearning by not eating. When we feel physical hunger, we should hunger and thirst for righteousness, as Jesus said. We should cry out to God with great earnestness and passion, as did David so often in the Psalms. Jesus himself called out to God, his Father, with great passion. See Hebrews 5:7-8.

3. We must be careful not to hurt ourselves physically through fasting. Some people cannot fast without endangering their health. Moreover, fasting may diminish energy, so you need to adjust your activities accordingly. Make sure to drink enough fluids. Dehydration is a serious problem. This is especially true in very dry areas, such as Colorado, where I live. You may also want to drink some fiber for digestive reasons. Going very long on just water can be physically hazardous. I rarely go more than half a day on just water. Consider getting some nourishment through fruit juice, vegetable juice, milk, etc. Know your physical limits. The body first starts living off of fat, then goes to muscle (which is not good). I can last a long time on fat; others cannot.

4. Try to spend extra time reading, meditating on, and praying through the Bible, especially those passages pertinent to your prayer/fasting focus. Isaiah 58 is apt for our present crisis, I believe. Of course, there are many other Scriptures to consume. Feed on the Word of God. We do not live by physical bread alone, but Jesus is the bread of life. Storm heaven through Scripture.

5. Jesus instructed us not to make a show of our fasting, as did the hypocrites. Secrecy is part of the discipline. However, that doesn't mean that no one can know. Those affected by the fast can be told without breaking the principle Jesus gave us in Matthew 6.

6. One can find encouragement by fasting along with friends. You can encourage one another in this endeavor of seeking God and perhaps meet for prayer during this time.

7. Posture matters in prayer. Pascal wrote that if we think posture alone is spiritually significant, we are mere externalists and thus deceived. But, if we think that posture means nothing, we are not taking our physical body seriously enough. Find the position that indicates reverence, submission, and desire for God's work in God's way, come what may! Getting on your knees or lying prostrate is advised.

8. Praying aloud may help your mind not to wonder and keep you from falling asleep.

Be countercultural for Christ: deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Christ--through prayer and fasting. Press into the abundant life he promised (John 10:10).

Here is a helpful voter's guide for Colorado voters put out by the Colorado Family Institute.

Obama's African aunt lives in a rundown section of Boston. He probably thinks his economic plans will lift her out of poverty, so he doesn't have to spread his own wealth around (in the millions, given his best-selling memoirs) to help her.

Count on this: early in the election results on November 2, the major media networks will announce that Obama is winning in a landslide. This can--if heeded--have the effect of suppressing voter turnout. Why will they do this? First, they expect it on the basis of polls (which are often skewed). Second, they have favored Obama the entire campaign and cannot imagine him losing. Third, by announcing an Obama victory early on, they hope to stop those who have not voted for McCain to from doing so, since their vote would be meaningless.

In light of this, please do not believe them; do not let them rob you of your vote. This may be a very close election and much is at stake.

Here is a story about Obama's love fest for a PLO, anti-Jewish sympathizer. The LA Times refuses to release the video of this event.

If you haven't seen the pattern, here it is: O has terrible judgment about friends and associates; his political views (indicated by this associations and affiliations) are extreme and extremely wrong; he always tries to cover up these associations when found out; if he cannot ignore it, he reluctantly admits some half truths (Bill Ayers was at first "just a guy I knew in the hood") and then continues to try to impress ignorant Americans with his pseudo-gravitas.

America, wake up. This man is a danger to everything good America stands for.

A very short interview with me on abortion and the election is available here. It is less than ten minutes.

If Obama gets in, civil liberties will be in danger, says David Limbaugh. I agree. We have already seen his squelching of criticisms.

Tonight on TV Obama tells us to "Chose Hope Over Fear." It is a slogan without meaning. One should fear the outcomes of an Obama presidency:

1. Fear Obama's abortion policies: signing The Freedom of Choice Act, overturning the Hyde Amendment (banning tax dollars to support abortion), supporting partial birth abortions, etc. Hope for good in these areas is irrational.

There is reason to hope that John McCain will be as pro-life as his record shows and his words proclaim.

2. Fear Obama's economic policies: higher taxes that inhibits economic recovery; huge increases in governmental spending; "spreading the wealth around" through confiscatory taxation and social engineering. Hope for this economic shell game is irrational.

There is reason to hope that John McCain will control spending and keep taxes low, thus leaving more money in our hands and generating more tax revenue (as did Reagan).

3. Fear Obama's foreign policy: defunding an already overstretched military; losing Iraq to terrorist rule; bargaining with rogue leaders of Iran, etc., with no sense of their dangers and evils. Hope here is irrational and dangerous.

There is reason to hope that a long time Senator and military hero--who was right about the surge in Iraq--will do the right thing and be strong in the face of international evils. John McCain is that man.

4. Fear Obama's lack of executive experience and moral character: he has written two memiors, but no significant legislation; he is a first term senator with a very shady background (close associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, etc.). Hoping in this man in irrational and dangerous.

There is reason to hope that John McCain's proven character will continue while in The White House.

Slogans do not make for coherent political philosophies. Evil outcomes should be feared and thus avoided. Hope should rest in rational projections, not in irrational and romantic wishes.

For these reasons, do not vote for Obama and be sure to vote for John McCain. No, he is not as charismatic, but that does not matter. We need a proven leader with strong character and wise policies, not an "historic" celebrity who lacks the needed credentials for the most influential office on the planet.

Obama's Kenyan cousin is a violent revolutionary who supports violence against his opposition. Many have been killed. Obama has supported this man, Raila Odinga (who is either a Muslim or who has strong Muslim sympathies), when he visited Kenya. They are of the same Luo clan.

This is from The Washtington Times story:

In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork.

Note: Sharia courts. That means Islamic law.

M E D I A A D V I S O R Y

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) allied attorney Barry Arrington and Colorado citizen Mark Hotaling will hold a news conference on Wednesday, October 29th at 2:15 P.M. in the Senate Press Room of the State Capitol announcing their 18ドル million lawsuit against Governor Bill Ritter, Planned Parenthood, Boulder Valley Women's Health Center (BVWHC) and the Colorado Department of Health and Environment for illegal taxpayer funding of abortion.

The lawsuit comes less than a week after plaintiffs learned of the illegal taxpayer funding made by Governor Ritter and the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to Colorado's leading abortionists. The funding directly violates Article 5, Section 50 of the Colorado Constitution which states that no public funds can be used "directly or indirectly" for the performance of an abortion.

In 2001, then Governor Owens finally implemented Article 5, Section 50 to strip Planned Parenthood and BVWHC of more than 1ドル million in illegal tax subsidies after an independent audit found and Planned Parenthood recently admitted that it's impossible to separate their abortion activities from their taxpayer subsidies.

In 2006 during Governor Ritter's campaign, he publically pledged to restore the funding to Colorado's abortionists despite the voter approved and affirmed Article 5, Section 50. Then in June of this year, Governor Ritter awarded these abortionists 9ドル million a year for two years.

"Their actions are an outrageous and arrogant disregard for the people's will and common decency," stated Hotaling. "Abortionists like Planned Parenthood are so eager to get our tax dollars that they are willing to ignore the will of the people and the Colorado Constitution," he added.

"Fundamentally, this case is about the rule of law itself. Bill Ritter thinks he knows better than the voters who amended the constitution to prohibit tax dollar subsidies to abortion providers. We are asking the court to tell the Governor the people are his boss, not the other way around. It's that simple," concluded Arrington.

Additionally, representatives from the Yes on 48 and Yes on 54 campaigns have been invited to attend and be available for interviews to give their perspectives on this lawsuit.

Contact Mark Hotaling with questions at (970) 556-0097

Thomas Sowell, columnist and formerly a professor of economics, explains why Obama's tax plan would hurt everyone. It will not "spread the wealth around" but decapitalize Americans in general, especially as corporations put their money in other countries as a result of higher tax rates here. Moreover, higher taxes on corporations hurts those with pensions dependent on corporate profits.

Sadly, many Americans are emotionally manipulated ignoramuses when it comes to taxation and the philosophy of the state. They are sentimentally moved by inflated rhetoric about "taxing the rich to help the poor." Then those who do not support this confiscation are attacked as insensitive or even unChristian. The truth is this: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

If I have disabled posts on a particular post of mine, I will not publish responses to the disabled post under another post. I delete these. For example, I disabled posts to this post. So, I will not allow anyone to complain about it under another post.

Why do I do this? I cannot keep up with the responses--good, bad, and ugly--to every controversial post I make; and some take me to have lost an argument when I simply fail to give one.

Believe it or not, Elaine Rafferty, a former editor of Ms. Magazine and a pro-choice Democrat, has written a positive piece on Sarah Palin, crediting her with real intelligence and castigating Rafferty's liberal feminist friends for dismissing Palin.

Dear Friends,

We are so grateful for your support over the last few months and year as we've worked to protect every human being, no matter how small. Let's pray even harder these last few days, and commit this work to the Lord. We can plow the fields, but He must bring the rain.

Please pray that God would touch the hearts of the voters...even at the last minute as they enter the voting booth. Please pray that they would know and vote according to the truth, and that the truth would set them free.

We are specifically creating a "3 Day Prayer Team." We're asking people to commit to prayer and fasting (if they are able) for 3 days, just like Queen Esther and her people did. So this means Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday (Election Day). Prayer and fasting do change things!

Ask everyone you know to keep praying for Amendment 48 to pass and for lives to be saved, both physically and spiritually.

Thank you again for standing with us in the battle for life.

Blessings,

The YES on 48 Campaign

--
Kristi Burton
Initiative Sponsor
Colorado Personhood Amendment
www.personhoodcolorado.com
(719) 661-8827

Vote "YES!" on 48…Every Person Counts!

Melanie Phillips, UK author of Londonistan, has written an important piece on the US presidential election and how the mainstream media is hiding the real Obama from us. Things have become "Orwellian," in her words. Indeed. (Now, have enough people read Orwell to know what this adjective means?)

Learn about the McCain/Palin health plan. Don't believe the Obama class warfare spin machine.

Low life in West Hollywood have hung Sarah Palin in effigy. How can they possibly get away with this legally? Why is there no cry of outrage about this kind of unbridled hate (and perhaps tacit death threat)? What if someone hung Obama in effigy? They would be rightly arrested. But what of Sarah Palin? I guess it is open season if you are a Republican female. God help us.

Be inspired by a few minutes from a great man, Ronald Reagan.

And there is no national politician alive more antithetical to this spirit than Barack Obama.

James Dobson interviews Dr. Robert George on Obama's abortion extremism. If you are still on the fence, please, please listen to this interview. Dr. George is very articulate and passionate.

Most of the media have already elected Obama. Sadly, some conservatives have already given up the ship of state. This is unwise for many reasons.

1. The polls are often unfair, sampling more democrats than republicans.
2. Several polls show a very close race.
3. Giving up your vote is neither patriotic nor wise.
4. Do not let the media control you by taking away your vote.
5. If you are a Christian, and you have strong convictions on this, you should continue to pray and fast for a McCain victory for reasons I've given repeatedly here.

Now, for your Obama voters:

Don't bother to vote, your Anointed One is destined to win.

“If big government spenders control the House and the Senate and, heaven forbid, the White House, they will have a monopoly of power in Washington,” Ms. Palin said, “and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda — it would put America on a path that erodes the strong work ethic that made America great.”

It is true. Vote accordingly, America.

To think you can make a man richer by putting on a tax is like a man thinking that he can stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle. --Winston Churchill

Yesterday I preached a message called, "Stealing Knowledge" at Southern Gables Church in Littleton. The audio is available here. Go to the upper right part of the web page. If you'd like a full sermon outline, email me at: DougGroothuis@gmail.com.

These close associations and affiliations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, et al, were not accidental, but essential to the man's character and political philosophy. They all share a very similar outlook. And, yes, it is unAmerican.

The Obama campaign claims that what he said has no relation to his present plans. This is exceedingly unlikely. Obama's slip to Joe the Plumber was revealing indeed: "spread the wealth around"--through reinterpreting The Constitution, confiscatory taxation, class warfare, and an anti-business (translated: anti-jobs, anti-wealth-creation) orientation based on resentment and envy.


John McCain and Sarah Palin do not. Vote for them on November 2, 2008...as if your future depends on it, because it does.

This is from Jihad Watch. Scroll down to Oct. 25. Please watch this heart-wrenching five-minute excerpt from an evangelistic TV program reaching out to Muslims. A woman calls in who is afraid to convert from Islam to Christianity because her husband will divorce her and take their children. That is how it typically works.

The hosts lead her in prayer to come to Christ and pray for her safety. If you don't weep and pray after watching this, well...I don't know what to say.

Finally, a TV reporter throws some hardballs at Joe Biden. He is stunned and insults her instead of giving good answers.

When Biden is challenged about his comments that Obama will be tested with an international crisis while in office (as was young John Kennedy), he changes his tune to say that whoever is elected will be so challenged. That is emphatically not what he originally said. You can bet that forces hostile to the United States will take more liberties with Obama than with McCain. Obama has zero military experience, while McCain is a military hero and a seasoned senator on these matters. Obama does not believe in a strong military; McCain does.

Biden accidentally let out the truth earlier and is now lying to cover it up. Hurray for the brave reporter that nailed him on this.

Sarah gets to speak her mind on economics, clothes (you haven't heard these details), and more. Note the polar bear pin! Go Sarah! Never give up.

I sadly realize that much of the political arguing going on at The Constructive Curmudgeon is distracting me from more important Kingdom endeavors (Matthew 6:33). My wife asked recently, "Do you ever convince anyone of anything?" I wonder, at least about politics. Life is too short and the gospel too important to waste time carping back and forth in ways that do not persuade or increase knowledge.

I am passionately pro-life, anti-Obama, anti-Statist, and much more related to politics. But this forum doesn't seem to be doing much good in these areas. Therefore, I am cutting back and cutting out. This doesn't mean less work in these areas, but a change of focus...unless you can persuade me otherwise.

Witness a sterling, stunning example of glibness, flippancy: an interview with Christopher Buckley, defector son of William F. Buckley. Of course, The New York Times loves it. I felt ill.

[The following essay is by a graduate philosophy student, whose name I have withheld, given the possible detriment to his or her career this essay might bring if he or she is identified. No, the academy is not a bastion of political fairness. The author was willing to identity his or her name, but I counseled the person against it. In any event, the logic is flawless and furthers the case against Obama.]

-----------------

Obama on Partial Birth Abortion: Some Reflections on the October 15 Debate

Finally! Obama’s stance on abortion finally came up, but, true to form, McCain missed the opportunity to land punch. That’s not to say that McCain did not try. For all his swinging in the air, McCain just could not touch the ducking-and-diving Obama. McCain brought up Obama’s voting record in the Illinois state senate and rightly pointed out that Obama is no friend to the pro-life movement. More to the point at hand, McCain also pointed out Obama’s resistance to a ban on partial birth abortion. Obama was able to dodge these blows by citing legislation that already protected infants born alive and his favorable attitude toward a ban on partial birth abortion that made an exception for the health of the mother. McCain did his darndest to rebut the “health of the mother” clause, but again to no avail.

Perhaps the following reflections will hit a little harder that McCain’s comments made last night. First, picking up where McCain left off, let’s think about late-term partial birth abortion and a case where the mother’s life is in danger. Picture the following scenario:

A woman goes to visit her Ob/Gyn; she’s eight-months pregnant. The doctor gives the woman a thorough evaluation and decides that there is a [sufficiently] high probability that the woman will die if she either (1) continues the pregnancy or (2) gives birth. The doctor goes on to recommend an abortion because the life of the mother is at risk.

In the third trimester, the only option the doctor has for performing an abortion is a partial birth abortion. We have a case, then, where to prevent (1) the doctor must bring about (2). Either way, the woman will die. Perhaps one can formulate an example where it is merely the “health” of the mother at risk. This does not drastically change the situation. Fetuses in the third trimester of gestation are viable. If, all things being equal, the mother would keep the baby if it were not for the health risk, then why not merely induce labor and keep the baby? Or, if vaginal delivery is the problem, why not do a C-section and keep the baby? In the sever case where the life of the mother is at risk, I see no way of saving that life through partial birth abortion.

Therefore, an exception clause for the life of the mother is unjustified. In a less severe case where the mother’s health is at risk, the fact that there is no significant difference between giving birth to keep the baby and giving birth to abort the baby mitigates against the need for an exception for the health of the mother. In either case, partial birth abortion is an unnecessary practice. Therefore, Obama should not have any qualms about supporting a total ban on partial birth abortion.

Second, McCain failed to mention Obama’s position toward the Freedom of Choice Act. If this were to become law, all restrictions on abortions, including partial birth abortions, would be repealed. Further, the act would provide tax-payer dollars to fund abortions on demand. Obama has said that one of the first things he would do as President would be sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. Two things Obama said in last night’s debate are relevant. First, he claimed that he would like to see less abortions take place. Second, he claimed that he supported a ban on partial birth abortion (again, as long as the exclusion for the health of the mother was included in the bill). I think the best way to highlight the problem is to give a couple of deductive arguments.

1. Obama supports a ban on partial birth abortion (given the appropriate exclusions).
2. Obama will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.
3. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, then a ban on partial birth abortions would be impossible.
4. A ban on partial birth abortions will be impossible with Obama as President (from (2) and (3)).
5. Obama supports a ban on partial birth abortion (given the appropriate exclusions) and he will make such a ban impossible as President (from (1) and (4)).
Statement (5) is a contradiction. One cannot at the same time support a ban and support legislation that would prevent such a ban from taking place. Therefore, either (1), (2), or (3) is false. (3) is true. That makes the culprit either (1) or (2). Obama said both (1) and (2), albeit on different occasions, and I leave it to the reader to decide which one he’s really going to support.

Now, onto the second argument…

6. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, then any pregnant woman in the country would be able to get an abortion without that procedure being cost prohibitive [the act provides federal subsidies for those who cannot afford an abortion].
7. If abortion is no longer cost prohibitive, then there will be more abortions.
8. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, there will be more abortions (from (6) and (7)).
9. Obama stated that he wants fewer abortions.
10. There will be more abortions (from (2) and (8)).
11. Therefore, Obama wants fewer abortions and will sign into law an act that will increase abortions.

Now, (11) is a contradiction. (6) is true, (7) is reasonable, (8) follows deductively from (6) and (7), and so the problem is again the fact that Obama says one thing (10) and plans to do something (2) that contradict one another.

It’s certainly fair to ask whether Obama is really for less abortions or for more abortions and whether he is really for a ban on partial birth abortion or for zero restrictions on abortion. As far as I can tell, there is nothing coherent in Obama’s stated positions, and that is troubling. It seems that the contradictions either stem from incompetence or deception. In either event, the guy shouldn’t be President. Hopefully, that’s a smack right in the kisser.

The Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of CU Boulder is pleased to announce a "Think!" lecture on the teaching of intelligent design.

* What: "Think!" Lecture on "An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" by
Professor Bradley Monton (CU Boulder)

* When: Tuesday, October 28th, 7:30 - 9:00 pm

* Where: Old Main Chapel, CU Boulder

"The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. After trying to figure out what the doctrine of intelligent design actually is, I'll argue that it's legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes."

Bradley Monton is a professor of philosophy at CU Boulder specializing in philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, probabilistic/formal epistemology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of time. One of his main research areas involves science-based arguments for the existence of God.

All "Think!" events are free and intended for the public. For more information, please visit:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml

For further information on the series, please contact Dr. Alastair Norcross
at Alastair.Norcross@Colorado.edu or (303) 492-7527. For announcements of upcoming "Think!" events, e-mail Diana.Hsieh@colorado.edu with that request.

Since the abominable and abysmal Roe v. Wade (1973), pro-life legislation has made a difference in support of the unborn. All of these gains would be obliterated out by election of the Abortionary (abortion revolutionary), Barack Obama, given his endorsement of The Freedom of Choice Act.

Robert McFarlane, National Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan: "In 2006, when conditions on the ground (in Iraq) were trending downward and a decision was required either to continue the struggle or to cut our losses, Barack Obama stated that the proposed deployment of more forces, the 'surge,' was doomed to failure and instead called for a phased withdrawal of all forces within a defined period. In short, Senator Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis -- something without lasting consequence."

Obama: "I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."

More...

The Acton Institute is advertising their soon-to-be-released film, "The Birth of Freedom." From the several trailers I saw and the experts consulted (Rodney Stark, George Weigel, Robert George), it looks to be excellent. The thesis is that genuine political freedom is the product of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

It has been revealed that the Republicans spent a lot of money on Sarah Palin's wardrobe for the campaign. The ever-fair and impartial New York Times avers that this will hurt her anti-elitist, hockey mom image with Republicans. They classify these sartorial expenditures with John Edward's two 400ドル hair cuts. Really, now?

The article says that Gov. Palin did not request the digs, nor did she pick them out. I'm sure something like the following happened: She did not have the kind of clothes the party bosses thought would be apt for a national campaign. So, they bought them for her. They realized that she was attractive and wanted to make the most of that. I am no fashion critic, but I do not take her outfits to be elegant, vain, or immodest. They are classy.

None of this fits the category of John Edwards's draconian hair cuts. John Edwards is a prissy, vane elitist by nature; the haircuts confirm it. Gov. Palin is a popular and populist politician. Some high-end clothes will not change that. She hasn't started sounding like John Kerry or John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, has she--either in tone or in policy? You betcha, she hasn't!

Moreover, had she not worn these kinds of clothes, The New York Times and their ilk would have accused her of being a cultural barbarian out of step with national, political culture.

I will be preaching at Southern Gables Church on October 26, 2008 (Reformation Sunday, for those who did not know), on "Stealing Knowledge" (John 10:10).

I will address the things that steal the knowledge of God in our day, and what to do about it.

4001 S Wadsworth Blvd
Lakewood, CO
80123(303) 986-1527
Get directions

Hear a minute of William Ayers, close associate of Barack Obama, from 2002:

1. He is an anarchist/Marxist.
2. He against drug laws.
3. He does not regret his violence against US targets.
4. He fears Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Fundamentalism equally.

James Dobson talks to Sarah Palin, who has forgotten more about Caribou than Joe Biden ever knew--and who, more importantly, knows the the value and sanctity of human life, unlike Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Whatever you say about her, she has a fresh, positive, can-do attitude--something rare in American politics.

Here are articles by Lee Grady (white) and Kimberly Daniels (African-American) on Obama, politics, religion, and race.

He says:

One of the campaign themes this election cycle is "affordable" health care. Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care?

Or: Beware of statism. See the chapter, "Idols of the State," in Herbert Schlossberg's modern classic, Idols for Destruction (first published, 1983).

Malkin argues that Joe Biden is more gaff-prone, erratic, and absurd than Sarah Palin, yet most of the press gives him a pass. Imagining this man as president is far more frightening than "Caribou Barbie" in that role.

This article shows that Obama (O) endorsed one of Bill Ayers books and gives other facts about their associations.

The O campaign is issuing red herrings on this close association of O with an unrepentant American terrorist, a member of the Weather Underground.

1. O was eight years old when Ayers was blowing up buildings. So what?! The issue is O's associations with Ayers after that fact--and they are many and deep. How could O not know who Ayers was and what he stood for?

2. Ayers does not advise O's campaign today and would not advise O if O is president. So what (assuming it is true) ?! Given what has come out about Ayers, Ayers is out of O's life now (as is Jeremiah Wright). But the issue is O's working with Ayers on many projects, endorsing his book, and so on, in the past. See Psalm 1 on the moral significance of one's close associations.

3. O has recently denounced Ayer's terrorism. So what?! He did not do that until the fact of Ayers's violent anti-American hatred came to be publicly known. O did not do so on the blurb for the 1997 book by Ayers; he did not do so when he worked with Ayers on the Annenberg challenge, etc.

4. The Annegberg challenge was sponsored by a Reagan supporter. Again, I say unto thee: So what?! Conservatives get duped all the time; liberals run off with their money. The fact that conservative money backed the project in no way entails that the project was conservative in political nature. In fact, it was not.

5. Ayers is now a tenured professor of education. This is irrelevant. Ward Churchhill (who said that those Americans killed in 9/11 deserved it) was a tenured professor at the University of Colorado--until he got a well derved boot a few years ago. Being a tenured professor at a state university says nothing about one's credibility or one's orientation to America. Many former radicals have gone the way of Gramsci: the revolution continues through "the long march through the institutions." See the book of that title by Roger Kimball.

The O campaign has given us a good lesson in the logical fallacy of the red herring. But how many Americans--and American Christians--even know enough logic to discern this?

I'm scheduled to open Saturday Night Live next week, doing a rap on how the soundness and validity of the ontological argument entails that every rational being should voe for McCain/Palin.

Joe Biden made some revealing remarks yesterday, In fact, they are true, and highly significant.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

This is a key and crucial reason I have never supported Obama (even apart from Obama's transcendently evil pro-abortion mindset). He will invite more terrorist attacks. Further, he will not know what to do with them, just as Bill Clinton did not know what to do with them. You may not like George Bush, but the United States has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001. Obama, however, would weaken homeland security (as nearly all liberals do--except Joe Leiberman); he will defund the military; he will "work with the international community" more than he will put our national interests first. But the international community, by and large, does not share out moral, cultural, and political principles (to put it mildly).

I am not saying "My country right or wrong" (which is idolatry); I am saying that American ideals are the greatest in the world, and we have great potential to do good in the world. Yet many hate us, our form of government, our primary religion, and our power. When they perceive weakness, they will strike.

Obama invites this. Obama would fail the test. John McCain does not invite this; and if tested, he would chose far better than a first-term Senator who has spent the lion's share of that term absent from the Senate and on the road hawking his own postmodern, hyperreal brand: himself. The terrorists are not impressed. Count on it. Vote on it.

John McCain, on the contrary, will not be viewed by the international community as an inexperienced, left-wing, anti-military, blame-America-first, neophyte. He will be viewed (rightly so) as a man of military experience and of strength. Count on it. Vote on it.

Can anyone get me a link to the video of the real Sarah Palin on SNL? I cannot find it. The NY Times said she did well. Given our culture, this may help in the polls!

Iran is moving toward requiring the death penalty for male converts from Islam to other religions. Females would get life in jail. This, of course, is consistent with Islamic (sharia) law, and converts from Islam are commonly killed in Islamic countries, either officially or through "honor killings." When Mark Gabriel told his own father of his conversion to Christianity, his father pulled out a gun and tried to shoot him. Read this in Jesus and Muhammad by Gabriel.

In the Sunday New York Times, Cynthia Gorney, in an article about Sarah Palin's views on abortion, writes this:

If you take the Bush/McCain position — abortion should be illegal but with exceptions for rape and incest pregnancies — then you’re saying the fetus is not a child if the woman was forced into sex, but is a child if she participated voluntarily. That doesn’t actually make any sense, which is why for 35 years now this country’s most dedicated abortion opponents have been essentially holding their noses as they accept as allies the rape-and-incest-exception people, the restrict-but-don’t-prohibit people, the overturn-Roe-and-let-the-states-decide people.

Those who allow for exceptions for rape and incest need not be saying "the fetus is not a child if the woman was forced into sex." The fetus is a child because it is a human being, with a full genetic code from conception; it is member of the human species. What else could it be? Moreover, stipulating some magical moment when it becomes "a child" is pointless. We already know the fetus is a developing human being. Why should we deny this being the right not to be killed (or the right to life) simply because it is dependent and helpless? We should, rather, grant this child special concern on that basis.

Because of the above, there is no reason to make the fetus's value dependent on the manner of conception. If a woman is pregnant, she is "with child" (as the King James puts it), however fathered. But you should not put a child to death because of the sin or his or her father. That is not right. Nevertheless, given our present legal and moral climate, the passing laws that ban abortions for rape and incest is not at all likely. Since politics is the art of the possible, it is better to have laws that ban most abortions than having laws that ban none (our present situation). Therefore, I would support laws that allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest (if proper evidential standards are enforced; it not, any woman could claim she was raped or the victim of incest--usually a form of rape). This is not because I take the child of a woman who was raped not to be a person, but because I want laws that will prohibit many women from seeking abortions and which this save many innocent, dependent human lives. And beyond the law, Christians and others committed to protecting unborn human beings can exercise persuasion and compassion to convince victims of rape and incest to keep their children.

To put it boldly: an imperfect law that allows for some abortions that should not happen is better than laws that allow for abortion at any time for any reason. (For the record, I believe that abortion is permissible when the pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger. This judgment recognizes the personhood of the fetus as well, but I cannot go into that here.)

Roman Catholic Archbishop, Charles Chaput, speaks the truth about Obama:

"To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."

Thomas Sowell compares Sarah Palin and Barack Obama and explains why the media hate for former (for no good reason). He also points out that Biden has repeatedly been on the wrong side of foreign policy issues:

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Please hear my silent voice.
I am one of many, a vast number,
forgotten by many.

Red and yellow,
black and white.

Please see my unseen frame,
I am one of many, a vast number,
forgotten by many.

Red and yellow,
black and white.

Please protect me,
respect me,
allow me to live.

I came into being,
a new life,
with promise, potential,
a member of humanity.

But I was small, dependent,
unprotected, neglected
by law, culture, and even religion.

My tiny body was cut to shreds or
burned to death or
half delivered before my head was crushed.

Sometimes, I managed to come out alive!
--despite it all.

I just lay there, doctors and nurses looking down at me,
puzzled, confused.
I wasn't supposed to live this long.
But I did--for a few more gasping moments.

But since I was a mistake,
I was never really born.
Or so they said.
Then, I, too, died--alone.

To save me would have denied my mother's
right to end my life.
Or so they said.

Or so they said.

Now I look out at the land,
blood crying out and up to heaven.
Blood is on their hands, in their votes, upon their candidates.

Please, hear my silent voice.
See my unseen frame.
Remember what God can never forget.

Red and yellow,
Black and white.

Johnstown, PA (LifeNews.com)

-- The following is the text of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's remarks on Saturday, October 11 at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Barack Obama and abortion:

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America.

There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

What the Bible declares:

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:21)

"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." (Deuteronomy 19:10)

"Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)


What Barack Obama said on July 17, 2007 at a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

"We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

I have a four-page lecture outline for a talk I gave this week on "The Spirituality of the Intellect: Or Out thinking the World for Christ." Send me an email at Doug.Groothuis@gmail.com if you'd like a copy. There is also an bibliography and many Scriptural references.

National Right to Life exposes Obama's lies (made in the last debate) about his record on abortion.

Justin Taylor has an excellent post on the implications of The Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama has pledged to support. This act would sweep away all restrictions placed on abortions by all the states. It anti-human in the extreme.

Taylor summarizes his piece:

So to summarize this act--which again, Barack Obama has promised to sign as his first order of business in the White House--abortion on demand will become codified, all regulations and restrictions will be stripped away, Christian hospitals and physicians will not have a choice regarding the performance of abortion (since their accrediting agencies are approved by the federal government), teenagers will not have to tell their parents about an abortion, and prolife taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions at any stage of the pregnancy for any reason.

This fact in itself is a sufficient reason to vote against Obama and to vote for McCain--and to pray and fast along these lines as well. Wake up, America!

[While this blog is entirely separate from Denver Seminary and does not represent it any official fashion, I do teach philosophy at that institution. The following letter was recently sent out to many Christian college about our program. Please contact me via Denver Seminary if you are interested in what we have to offer.]

Dear Colleague:

I am happy to tell you of Denver Seminary’s Philosophy of Religion Masters Degree. I hope you will read it and pass it along to the appropriate professors or other staff members at your institution.

In the past few decades there has been a resurgence of evangelical Christians in the discipline of philosophy. I was told as an undergraduate studying philosophy in the 1970s that natural theology had been slain by Kant and Hume long ago and there was no point in trying to revive the corpse. Today, that philosophical program is flourishing, given the work of Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and many others. A host of top-notch philosophers are contributing to contemporary philosophy in ways that commend Christianity as true and rational. The Evangelical Philosophical Society is thriving and produces a stellar journal called Philosophia Christi. It is an exciting time to be a Christian philosopher.

Denver Seminary has a rich legacy of Christian philosophy. Our second president and current Chancellor, Dr. Vernon Grounds, received a doctorate in philosophy when many Evangelicals would have never considered it. Dr. Gordon Lewis, now a senior professor, did likewise a few years later and has left a deep mark on the discipline as a teacher and writer. Denver Seminary began the Philosophy of Religion program in 1981. I joined the faculty in 1993. In the fall of 2008, we gladly welcomed Dr. Troy Nunley as Assistant Professor of Philosophy. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Missouri, as well as a M.Div. from Nazarene Theological Seminary. He has published in Philosophia Christi and augments the department with his strengths to logic, philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and the history of philosophy. For the first time, Denver Seminary now has two full-time philosophy professors, a development that deepens our resources considerably.

The Philosophy of Religion program at Denver Seminary is fully accredited. It is known for the personal interaction it offers between students and faculty, as well as its academic rigor and its emphasis on approaching philosophy from a Christian worldview. We take special care to get to know our students and to work with them closely to develop their thinking, writing, and philosophical prowess.

Our program offers a full year’s worth of philosophy classes in addition to the required core classes for all seminary students (biblical studies, theology, and church history). We require a rigorous six-hour comprehensive examination, which covers major philosophical figures and significant philosophical problems. Our required curriculum includes a year on the history of philosophy, as well as courses on religious pluralism, Christian apologetics, and Christian ethics. Students also take two of the following three seminars: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Philosophical Ethics. Our electives include Philosophy of Religion, Logic, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, and other topics. A unique emphasis of Denver Seminary’s Philosophy Program is a professional seminar I teach called Writing for Publication, in which students develop a Christian philosophy of scholarship and produce both a book review (which is published in Denver Journal) and a publishable philosophical paper.

Denver Seminary’s Philosophy of Religion Masters program has graduated dozens of students who have gone on to pursue doctorates in philosophy or other avenues of service suited to the skills they developed with us. We have placed students in graduate programs such as the University of Colorado-Boulder, the University of Nebraska, the University of South Carolina, Cornell, Hebrew University, Oxford, and Marquette. Many of our graduates are teaching in colleges in the United States and around the world.

If you would like more information about our professors and our program, please go to our web page at http://www.denverseminary.edu/ or contact me personally by phone, email, or letter. We hope you will refer your students to us.

Sincerely,

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Denver Seminary

Obama's socialist agenda.

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.--Robert George.

The distinguished Princeton Professor, Dr. Robert George, has written a revealing article called, "Obama's Abortion Extremism." Faithful followers of this blog may not learn anything new, but you will hear it from a very respected political philosopher. Anyone who calls themselves pro-life in any sense must read and ponder this--for God's sake and for the sake of the unborn.

Obama tells a plumber--hardly a high roller--that he wants to tax him more to "spread the wealth around." This is pure, punitive socialism. Redistributing wealth is not the answer. Creating wealth in the answer, and socialism does not know how to do it. On this, see George Gilder, Weath and Poverty.

Gov. Palin told the truth about Obama's extreme pro-abortion views recently. May she continue, and Sen. McCain as well.

God speaking through Jeremiah:

"My people have committed two sins:
They have forsaken me,
the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns,
broken cisterns that cannot hold water." --Jeremiah 2:13.


Jesus said:

On the last and greatest day of the Festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."--John 7:37-39.

More poor judgment in the Obama campaign: ties to unsavory Muslim groups, as reported in The Wall Street Journal.

The Cross is not a recliner. If you are comfortable in your Christian life, something is desperately wrong. If you are not desperate for righteousness--your own first and foremost--you are comfortable with complacency and compromise. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness," said Jesus--righteousness in yourself, in others, and in your society.

Over thirty years ago, in How Should We Then Live?, Francis Schaeffer warned of the new ethic of "peace and personal affluence." Many in the West were asleep morally and spiritually, simply because they were comfortable. We need to hear this warning again.

Jeremiah was not comfortable with the apostasy of his own people. He had "fire in his bones" and had to cry out as an oracle of God against them. This won him no popularity contests.

John the Baptist was not comfortable with the religion of his day; instead he commanded all to repent and to bear fruit worthy of it. John was not comfortable with the morality of Herod and called him to repent. He was thrown in jail and lost his head over it.

Paul was not comfortable with the unbelief of his Jewish brothers and sisters. He wished that he himself could be damned for their salvation (Romans 9:1-3). Nor was he impressed with the cultural and philosophical acumen of Athens. When he saw the idolatry there, he was "greatly distressed in his spirit," and so preached a brilliant sermon to these benighted culture shapers (Acts 17:16-34). Paul was outraged that the Galatians were following another Gospel, which was no Gospel at all. He could not tolerate it (Galatians 1:6-11)! Neither was Paul comfortable with himself! He said he beat his body to make it his slave, lest he be disqualified.

The Preacher was not comfortable with the enigmas and distresses of life "under the sun." Instead he pondered them, puzzled over them, and left us with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes.

Jesus was not comfortable with the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees. It incensed him to the point of condemnation, "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." he intoned over and over in Matthew 23. Jesus left the infinite pleasure of fellowship with the Father and Spirit to take on human flesh and die the worst death possible, for us. His Cross was not a recliner. This Christ calls us to take up our crosses, not our recliners.

If you are comfortable with 1.1 million legal abortions in the US each year, get uncomfortable enough to think clearly and see straight. Then vote accordingly and act accordingly and pray accordingly, calling out to God for justice.

If you are comfortable with the rise of human trafficking around the world--and even here in America--then get uncomfortable and attend The Human Trafficking Awareness Conference locally.

If you are comfortable with the status of the 250,000,000 untouchables (Dalits) in India, then get educated and involved by contactingThe Dalit Freedom Network.

Of course, one could go on. You should go on; get uncomfortable; take up the Cross and follow Christ. Leave behind the fleshpots of Egypt and the shallow comforts of the world, the flesh, and the devil (1 John 2:15-17). But you can only take up this Cross if you have reckoned Christ's Cross to be your own. It cannot be done in the power of the fallen and finite self.

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. --2 Corinthians 4:7-11.

Read Robert Velarde on this, he is one of the six or seven people who have read The Soul in Cyberspace.

For Obama's views on abortion, see David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, chapter 10.

Uncivil comments are not posted.

Joshua Goldberg confirms Ann Coulter's account of Sen. Biden's numerous errors in his debate with Gov. Palin. Can you (Tom and others) dismiss both Coulter and Goldberg as mere ideologues?

Most of what Biden intoned was stentorian bluffing. When Palin didn't know the answer, she changed the subject. When Biden didn't know the answer, he made things up...or erred egregiously without knowing it. I'll take changing the subject if that is the binary situation.

The ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree: Bad Judgment, Blind Ambition (video).

Charles Krauthammer explains the deep significance of Obama's associations with Ayers, Rezko, and Wright. If you are inclined to write this off as "guilt by association," then read Krauthammer's compelling case. He is one of the best columnists in America.

Ann Coulter chronicles the many and huge errors of Biden in the recent debate. Yes, Ann is very caustic, but she seems to have nailed Biden on this--and the mainstream media has not. Morever, I have criticized her for this in the past.

The Hill reports that Sarah Palin gave considerably more money to charity than Joe Biden. It says:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin's tax records released Friday afternoon. . . .

I am not surprised. This is generally true of conservatives.

Please read this hard-hitting, truth-telling editorial on "The politics of contrast" by Marjorie Dannenfelser. The author outlines how McCain should challenge Obama on the abortion issue. After all, speaking on this issue is "above his pay grade," but it should not be above McCain's. If John McCain misses the chance to give some "straight talk" on this, the greatest moral issue of our day, he will have forfeited far too much.

Sarah Geis at In Pursuit of That Which is True has written a timely and astute essay on "single issue politics," called "Enough is Enough." She cuts through many confusions and gives a much needed dose of truth concerning the upcoming election.

Steve Hays and James Anderson have edited an on-line document called, Love The Lord With Heart and Mind. They give the results of interviews with many Christian thinkers regarding their understanding of Christianity and the life of the mind. I am one of those interviewed, along with Darrell Bock, Gary Habermas, John Frame, Paul Copan, and others.

Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were signing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.--William Ayers, Fugitive Days (2001).


The McCain campaign must hit Obama hard with the truths about his deficient experience, damning associations (William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, etc.), and policies (pro-abortion to the highest degree, etc.). Sarah Palin recently brought up his close associations with William Ayers, which The Wall Street Journal recently exposed as significant, not minor. "The lipstick is on and the gloves are off," she said. I love it.

Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, a violent Marxist group in the 1960s. He brags of bombing US buildings. You know someone by the company they keep (Psalm 1). Ayers has never renounced his actions or philosophies. The New York Times and other sources say that Ayers carried out his attacks on America when Obama was just a boy. This is red herring. The issue is not whether Obama was a part of Ayers actions (he could not have been), but whether Obama has sound judgment and prudence about his political cobelligerents. He does not. And it matters.

For more on Obama and Ayers, read David Fredosso, The Case Against Barack Obama, pages 121-127.

Michael Medved explores the appalling financial realities of Joe Biden's life. He gives next to nothing to charity, has saved nearly nothing, and expects the civil government to help the poor (and himself).

Do you want this kind of man as the Vice-President?

Please read Fred Thompson on Sarah Palin's qualifications.

I cannot resist. Pop quiz. Who believes the following?

1. TV was a popular medium in 1929.
2. Franklin Roosevelt was President in 1929.
3. The Alaskan Pipeline was a bad idea.

Answer: Senator Joseph Biden.

He said 1 and 2 when interviewed recently by Katie "softballs to liberals" Couric. She said nothing to challenge him. Biden voted against the Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973, one of only five senators to do so. Perhaps he was worried about staining the tundra.

I was happy to hear the NPR quiz show, "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" lampoon Biden last weekend. It was, as the Brits say, a "howler."

OK, back to silence.