ISRAEL IS ANOTHER INSANE POCKET

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

The world gets crazier and crazier. One of the most wrenching crazy pockets is Israel present-tense.

US President George W. Bush should keep to his Roadmap of Peace mandate. It spells out in that document that nothing can work for traveling the "road" in the Middle East if the Palestinian Authority does not first quell all violence. That has not happened.

Therefore, since that has not occurred, it is totally unfair for America to continue to push Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and cabinet to force Jews out of their homes in Gaza in order to implant Arabs there. Yet that is exactly what is taking place as I type.

Not only that, but the Sunday Times reports: "Israeli special forces are prepared to shoot to kill Jewish settlers if they come under fire during next month’s controversial evacuation of 22 settlements in the Gaza Strip."

Now that is Hitler all over again. It is.

That’s stark language but there is no other language available to describe how truly cruel that agenda is. Jews versus Jews.

Jews trained as "special forces" to kill their own? The term "special forces" then has lost its legitimate meaning and taken on a Hitleresque meanness. Those Jews taught to shoot other Jews are not "special." And for the "forces" bit, they are forces from The Pit.

Further, the Bush administration personnel are there on site this weekend to inform the agenda to continue. Of course, the Bush representatives state that the Palestinian Authority must behave and its leadership must mature to the level of teaching Muslims how to put down their guns and suicide straps.

But all the while America continues to push for a Palestinian state by yanking Jews out of their living rooms or shooting them to the ground.

Again, the world gets crazier and crazier.

We not only then have the Muslims killing their own in the name of the Koran’s Allah because the latter states that if Muslims get in the way of the ultimate cause, then too bad. We have now Jews whom the Muslims refer to as "Jew-pigs and descendants of monkeys" ready to lay low other Jews.

In other words, peaceful Jews in the Middle East don’t stand a chance. I could have stated "hardly stand a chance" but I think the extreme is so looming that I will stick to leaving "hardly" out of it. If I were a Jew over there right now I would take out a nearby plane ticket to fly out of the country.

The press release continues: "Members of Israel’s feared Duvdevan (Cherry) commando unit, who have concentrated on hunting Palestinian militants on the West Bank, are training for the evacuation at a dummy ‘settlement’ in a remote desert location."

Next they move from the "dummy" to the real Jew body. Next they move to pulling the trigger so that a bullet lands in the real Jew head or heart or stomach. And that Jew might end up not only being a male but a female or child. And then what? The rest of the community just picks up baggage and leaves town? I don’t think so. Then civil war breaks out and all the while America has geared up for it.

This is just too much, way too much.

I had thought more of my government than that, particularly since I am an arch-Bush enthusiast. But when it comes to Mr. Bush’s crafting the Roadmap to Peace, I just don’t know why he doesn’t stick to his own write-up so as to go no further with Gaza yank-outs until the Muslims pledge themselves in real life and real time to peace peace peace.

WILL MUSLIM RULERS CRY OUT VS MUSLIM MURDERERS? EGYPT

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

"Offered accommodation at a hotel overnight, she yelled: ‘What if something happens to us on the way? I want to go home. If it's in Naama Bay, I am not going.’"

That’s according to the Associated Press. It’s in regard to the mayhem set loose in Egypt.

Well, all I can say about the mayhem set loose in Egypt is this: Will this shock some, maybe even two or three or even four Muslim leaders so-called to explode with anger against their own "brethren" who are slaughtering Muslims and non-Muslims because the Koran’s Allah says so?

I wonder.

It’s about time that Muslim turf deals with the Muslims murderers global. It’s far too past time that the Muslim sands soak in the blood from their own bowing to Mecca disciples who conclude they get playboy bunnies for eternal orgies once they snuff out their own existences on this Earth.

I visited Cairo. I loved it there. I could not wait to get into the bartering. What a hoot. I could have stayed there for several weeks, but time did not permit.

We were in the Nile Hilton. I woke up in the middle of the night to peer out the large window, taking in the night sights, particularly the traffic never-ending, bicycles interweaving in between vehicles, people sauntering about in what looked like 24 / 7 pajamas. It was delightful.

Of course when I turned on the room’s radio, expecting to get Rosemary Clooney, I got the highs and lows of Egyptian musical scales. Naturally I was young then and did not quickly catch on.

But I grew up quite speedily that trip, especially when learning not to drink the water. I said to my wife upon returning from a hot hot trip into the desert, "Surely Hilton has cleansed the water in this plush place. I’m thirsty. I’m going to drink this ice water." There were huge goblets filled with fresh water and ice cubes — all placed in royal style at our evening tables.

So I did drink — much. For the next several days I had dysentery, thus missing the group’s jaunt to Petra. Live and learn.

However, in the end it was worth meeting the cordial Egyptian doctor who came to our room, prescribed the meds and then smilingly shook hands upon leaving. I hardly understood a word he said. But it did not take long for him to figure out what the two thirsty Americans were up to which confined us to our room with toilet.

My memories then are so fondly wrapped around Cairo and the pyramids, the Sphinx and the museum with King Tut’s imprint. What a multi-dimensional stay we had in Egypt. Never to be forgotten.

But with this World War III that the Muslims have thrown every country on the globe into, I wonder about the Muslim leadership far and wide, and that includes Egypt — a supposedly Western liking leadership there. And now the rulership is dealing with their own kind. There is not much good that can come from that carnage except the possible benefit of yanking those Muslim despots off their posteriors long enough to blast their own Islamic insane.

We nice civilized peoples of the globe have been waging the war against Islam-the-killing-cult with no aid to speak of from the Muslims. The clerics tight lip up. The laity do the same. The teachers in killer schools only open their mouths long and wide enough to instruct the next generation in how to kill of the whole world except for Islamic fanatics. All the while the rich and famous Muslim politicians continue on their cruises, banqueting about, perusing European spas and reading the daily rag.

I pray to the Judeo-Christian God that this Egyptian massacre will push the Muslim kings and palace princes off their ornate seats. And if it doesn’t work in Egypt, maybe we could move to the another nearby Muslim national hangout and see if it might work there.

Whatever. . .

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA FOSTERS HOMO RULE

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Canada has now gone pro-practicing homosexual.

One of the prime reasons that has taken place is because the largest Protestant denomination, United Church of Canada, has gone apostate.

I have a home in Nova Scotia. I attend the United Church of Canada when there. I also attend worships at other denominations while there; but I keep in touch with the United Church also.

It is abhorrent what has taken place in that particular denomination over decades. Liberals have taken over. Biblical Christians are leaving that denomination for biblical gatherings elsewhere.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we were chatting in our Nova Scotian home. A woman living near Halifax stated that she told her United Church of Canada pastor that she would no longer be giving her offerings to her life long church.

She said, "I told him that I could no longer support a congregation that supported gay issues. Many others are telling him the same thing. In fact, many have already left the church to attend a nearby Baptist Church. We don’t understand what has happened to our church. We can’t believe it."

A relative of mine told me the same thing. She lives in Moncton. She asked her pastor what was going on regarding the homosexual allowance. She told him that it troubled her greatly.

"Why are we doing this? The church should stand for the Bible," she told her minister. "The Catholic Church sets the morals for its church and doesn’t budge. Why does the United Church of Canada have to yield to that which is sinful?"

Her pastor looked at her and said, "You know, at times I wonder the same."

But has he taken a public stand? No. Has he left the church for another position with a biblical congregation? No.

It is hard to do that. It means his salary and housing. It means taking to account his age and age discrimination. It means a lot of things but what his hesitancy means most is his standing before God when he dies. He will stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ to give an account of his earthly decisions.

So will the United Church of Canada. For years, it has been found wanting in soul. For years, it has courted the devil. For years, it has thrown out the Scriptures for the laws and moral conniving of spiritual wayward men and women.

Now the nation has gone to hell via the law passed to accommodated practicing homosexuals. And the politicians can say they have the largest Protestant denomination in the country to back them up.

NEVER GIVE UP: NEW IRAQ CONSTITUTION

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Were all Early Americans united on all issues? Hardly. Were there disputes among the early settlers? Certainly. Does all that go to make up a new venture? Of course.

Same in New Iraq. Why should it be any different?

Obstacles to overcome in the original colonies? Sure thing. Enemies to overcome? Yes, for certain.

Same in New Iraq. Why should it be any different?

So it is in New Iraq that those who are working on the new constitution state to world media that they will keep to schedule. They have lost family members by suicide attacks. They have squabbled and argued. They have considered some friends lost to the cause.

Yet the constitution in place will happen. Only that which is worthwhile is worth fighting for. So be it in New Iraq and anywhere advancements go forward for democracy plantings.

America’s liberties were not put in place in a day or month or year or century. It took a long, long time and still is taking time and sacrifice to live out a republic.

The struggle never ends. It is all worth it; at least that’s what we Americans proclaim year upon year, particularly from our Congressional halls and July 4th celebrations — fireworks, hot dogs, parades and all.

Females. Where do they stand in the New Iraq? Females in old Muslim tradition are the scum of the earth. They don’t count. They are conceived with ten curses upon their very existences.

But there are those in New Iraq who stated forthrightly that the old Muslim tradition is not fair, not good, not for New Iraq. Therefore, they are championing equality between the genders.

"Women should be full citizens with full rights, not semi-human beings," states Yanar Mohammed, head of Women’s Freedom in Iraq Movement.

So there you have it: struggle, pronouncements, declarations, disputes and the push for freedoms border to border and person to person. It’s all new to the people who cowered beneath the human shredding machines of Saddam Hussein.

But it will happen. The new liberties will come to pass. The nation will mature and blossom. The human spirit will continue to spring up with hope and determination.

Of course, nothing that the US Democratic Party has done will make it possible. Nothing that the nay-saying journalists will aid. Nothing that the Muslim mosque clerics and Islamic despots of various countries will do will assist.

All these clutches maintain the negative, the defeatist attitude. And so they have nothing to gain from the New Iraq achievements. And they have no rewards to come upon in the New Iraq decades ahead.

Of course, in a spiritually damaged world, the realists expect the difficulties, the obstacles and those who seek to thwart any progress. It’s so in our own families and clans. It’s so in our own communities, let along the nation.

Therefore, it will be likewise in New Iraq. But the positive and persistent don’t let the problems get them down. They work around the wounds, lift up the fallen and encourage the optimistic.

Islam is not so much a religion among world religions as it is a killing cult. Its Koran spells out the deity’s pronouncements to slay all non-Muslims; those Muslims not willing to do so are to be slaughtered.

Now that is one large barrier to New Iraq freedoms. However, there are those in New Iraq who are determined to even denounce the cult and carry on with new-found liberties. They have seen the light of democracy and want it badly enough to sacrifice and change.

It is hard for Americans to imagine building an infrastructure from nothing. That’s New Iraq.

It’s difficult for those in the United States to understand what it means to overcome the Saddam decades of hell on earth. Yet that’s what’s ahead of the New Iraq construction. It can be done.

There are those seeing that it is done, midst blood dripping from the bodies slain. Yet there are those who still cling to hope for the future.

These are the genuine heroes of the New Iraq, both within the new government and outside the new government. They are the heroes.

"The chairman of the committee drafting the new constitution told reporters that subcommittees dealing with specific articles would finish their work within the next two days and submit their reports for review," according to AP News.

"Humam Hammoudi, a Shiite cleric, said he was confident the committee would finish the final draft by the end of the month so that parliament could meet an Aug. 15 deadline for approving it. The document then goes to a referendum by mid-October."

I believe Humam Hammoudi is on target. Good for Humam Hammoudi. May his number increase and increase and increase for years and years to come.

ENIGMA ROBERTS NOT GOOD CHOICE

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

I like US President George W. Bush. I would not want anyone else in the Oval Office. But this choice of Judge John Roberts just doesn’t add up.

If he’s 50 years old and has not left a "paper trail" to reveal who he really is, then what’s up? What kind of judge is he anyhow?

I’m not asking for a maverick nor a wise guy. That of course would not float for the Supremes. But this mild, mysterious persona just twists me into pretzel design and I don’t like that kind of pain.

So he’s handsome and courteous, well educated and well salaried. So he’s got the posh connections to right and left. What of it? So he’s a family man with pretty wife and two little cute children. What’s that got to do for conservatives jumping up and down for joy?

Frankly, I’m quaking right about now, the day after the super announcement from the White House.

I’m quaking because I just don’t trust the establishment and I think a lot of other Republicans don’t always trust it either. And by "establishment," I mean our own — the Republican Party.

It’s always a matter of testing the trust factor for we know that anything can change, anything can happen. Nothing’s guaranteed.

We’ve been over the delight followed by dismay and then disappointment roller coaster ride before — with all sorts of personages in public life. To go through all that one more time — especially when we have waited so long for one-of-our-own to sit on the highest court — does not a happy summer make.

By 50 years old, I had already dented a few thematic fenders by the convictions I held and also laid low some friends who decided I was their enemy. I had spoken up enough on certain issues to be in a definite category, particularly regarding matters of significance.

With Roberts, he has woven himself a fine fabric, so fine that it’s hard to get hold of, let alone blanket under. And that’s frightening on a cold night in January.

So all I can think as a conservative is that we right-wingers may be in for one super surprise coming up — and it may not be the surprise we had prayed for.

I think Mr. Bush would have served his Red States far more mightily if he had chosen a person who was really real. We needed a high-class judge with credentials shining up the night skies — who was a conservative for certain. For certain.

Sure it would have meant a fight to the close when the nominee came before the slicers and dicers on committee; but that’s going to happen regardless of who Mr. Bush put up there. So why not go for the top of the line with a conservative who has shown himself to be reliably a conservative over time.

This Roberts eventually could very well smile his cute face into one liberal slot for years and years and more years to come. So once again we conservative, morally based citizens of America would have to look back with angst at the summer of 2005.

Mr. Bush just could have done better. I think time and committee sessions haggling will prove that premise to be fact, sadly.

JUDGE ROBERTS A CONTRADICTION IN MORALITY?

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

It could be so.

According to the Associated Press, Roberts can swing both ways.

That causes the nerves to freeze up in every pro-lifer. It gives pause for rejoicing on the part of every pro-choicer.

Therefore, who is Roberts?

Will the real Roberts please stand up and so be seated on the Supreme Court? After all, who is this rather young judge who has not left much of a “paper trail” by which to judge his decision-making. This is particularly so in regard to pro-life versus pro-choice issues.

The AP reported on the day that US President George W. Bush publicly nominated Roberts to the highest court in the land: “Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, ‘We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.’"

Then the AP reported the following: “Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ‘Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.’"

So here we are, betwixt and between.

Those close to him refuse to divulge personal conversations with him about moral and political issues. He himself is a quiet fellow who goes about his business without fanfare.

Have we then got an enigma on our hands? And will that turn out to be for the conservatives or for the liberals? A lot hangs in the balance on this personality alone.

Sandra Day O’Connor proved an enigma at first, then she revealed herself to be liberal, much to the disgust and disappointment of conservatives. The same with David Souter.

Conservatives don’t want another disgust-disappoint ordeal.

Does Mr. Bush know whether Roberts is truly anti-killing womb babies? Does Mr. Bush consider that issue paramount in appointing Roberts? Time will tell.

In the meantime, we are left with a quandary. Who is Roberts present-tense?

JOHN ROBERTS, PRO-LIFER??, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NEXT

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

We don’t want to be fooled.

We were with Sandra Day O’Connor. She fooled particularly former President Ronald Reagan.

In his interview with her, she stated to the press that Reagan did not once mention anything about her political positions on anything. Obviously, he assumed her to be basic conservative. Fundamentally she was not. She was especially favorable to killing womb babies, which made her the darling to feminists.

The same could be said of David Souter. Many considered him a friend to conservatives at the time of his appointment. He has proven anything but.

With Judge John Roberts, what have we here?

We have an intelligent, likeable, quiet judge who has many friends giving forth all sorts of complimentary comments to the media today. But where does he stand regarding killing womb babies?

According to Emily Bazelon of “State”: “John Roberts (now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) co-wrote the administration's brief in Rust v. Sullivan.

“Roberts' position, which was adopted by the Supreme Court, barred doctors and clinics receiving federal funds from discussing the possibility of abortion with their patients or referring them to family-planning clinics that do the procedure. The brief said on behalf of the administration, ‘We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.’

Others have added to that quote the following: “The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

There is much time to investigate the judge more closely. But for those who consider murdering babies something horrific for any nation, particularly America, the investigation will run deeply.

EDITH CLEMENT PRO-KILLING WOMB BABIES, NOT GOOD FOR SUPREME POSITION

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Edith Clement is being touted as proper and clean for Supreme Court appointment. Not if the pro-lifers have anything to say and do about it.

She has stated that the United States Constitution permits the right to have an abortion and that "the law is settled in that regard."

"The thought of Clement on the bench also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court, 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard.'" — Fox News, July 19, 2005

Nix on Clement.

Does further commentary need to be added for those knowing full well that abortion is outright murder? I don’t think so.

America does not support murdering human beings, except for the theologically and politically liberal womb baby killers who have made that their litmus test for admitting judges.

However, genuine Americans who are into a moral base do not agree with the liberals and so will work night and day to see to it that every pro-baby killing judge is dismounted. That of course accents those on the US Supreme Court.

God is watching America. God will weigh into America’s present-tense and future-tense.

For those aware of the wrath as well as the love of God, they will always align with the biblically revealed truth. God considers killing womb babies abhorrent according to the divine revelation. Therefore, to transgress against that baseline is to beg for the anger of the divine to settle upon one’s soul as well as one’s nation.

To stave off divine wrath against America, one must make America aware of every nomination to the Supreme Court especially. That includes providing the truth texts regarding Edith Clement.

FOOTNOTE:

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION

It is alarming to realize the nonchalance on the part of many concerning abortion. But it is not new. A popular newsmagazine quoted one medical opinion: "Abortion is finding its place as a perfectly acceptable and valid health measure. We no longer think of it as a crime."

There are those who say that every woman has a right to control her own body. That is true. Then, having control over her own body, she should not become pregnant if she does not want children. That is control! When she becomes pregnant, then she has lost her control over that situation.

But more importantly, only God has final rights to any person's body. He brought that body into life and someday will take that body out of life. In the meantime He provides the very sustaining power for the body's life to continue.

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person. "In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then 'God breathes a soul into it.' They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself' (Joseph Breig, "Life Forms Matter," The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).

"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him" (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit... As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother's womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

"But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Also, read Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Note I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer..."

"For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause" (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

___________________________________________________________________

EVANGELICALS + DEVOUT CATHOLICS = AMERICA’S HOPE

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

What do Protestant evangelicals and devout Roman Catholics have in common?

It is Christ. Christ as God is the foundation upon with both base their entire lives.

I as an evangelical Protestant minister often attend morning Mass at a Catholic sanctuary several minutes from my home. While there I hear Scripture, enter into prayer, heed prayer requests from parishioners and listen to a homily that provides daily devotions for my soul.

There are some Protestants who simply will not enter into a Catholic worship context. There are usually theological differences that block those Protestants from entering a Catholic Church.

It is the same with some Catholics. There are traditional Catholics who have been taught not to worship with Protestants and so they don’t.

However, knowing the theological differences between the two groups, I still know what it is that draws me to a Catholic worship. It is primarily the high regard for Christ as God. With that as my base line for Christian doctrine, I worship and so am spiritually fed.

(On the other hand, if I were to know that the nearby Catholic Church was delinquent concerning allegiance to the Bible as God’s Word or compromising morally with Christian ethics, I would never attend it. The same goes for worshiping in a theologically liberal and morally compromising Protestant sanctuary.)

I often think that many more Protestants and Roman Catholics would benefit in soul if they put aside what they know to be legitimate doctrinal disagreements. They do not need to compromise one of those disagreements. All they need to do is be true to the differences while at the same time being true to worshiping Christ as God.

The facts are that there are numerous doctrinal disagreements within Protestantism. For instance, there are those who believe in eternal security, that is, that one cannot lose his salvation. There are those vehemently in disagreement with those espousing eternal security. The same can be said for predestination and speaking in tongues. And so one could add to the list.

However, when evangelist Dr. Billy Graham begins a weeklong crusade, one can count on all stripes of Protestants to be there. Those same Protestants represent all the differences in doctrine that can be found within Protestantism.

In fact, one can count on Roman Catholics to be there, including some of their clergy. That means that those Catholics along with the Protestants worship Christ as God under one roof, in one splendid worshiping event.

Therefore, I have come to the encouraging conclusion that these evangelical Protestants and devout Roman Catholics are the backbone for spiritual support in America.

Both groups hold not only to Christ the Savior as God, but also regard the Bible as divine revelation, believe that salvation is through the sacrificial death of Christ upon Calvary, hold to a heaven and hell, a devil, sin, and the need for sincere repentance of sin in order to discover divine mercy.

That is quite a common Christian doctrinal baseline by which the Holy Spirit then honors those who cling to such a stalwart faith. After all, it is this Holy Spirit who will or will not bless a nation, all according to the inhabitants’ obedience or lack of regarding the Lord’s commandments inscribed in Holy Scriptures.

Both evangelical Protestants and devout Roman Catholics seek daily to live out their witness. They are not fly-by-nights. They are real life, real time believers who take their surrender to Christ seriously. They would live or die for the cause of Christ.

They are not hesitant to commit themselves therefore to the social-moral issues that are endorsed by Scriptures; therefore, these believers are pro-life, pro-biblical definition of marriage and family life as well as sexuality.

They are for uplifting the fallen, caring for the sick, taking in the lonely, befriending the forsaken, and testifying to the saving grace of Christ as God.

The United States will continue to be as strong as these two groups of believers. It will grow weak as these two groups diminish or whittle away at their beliefs and convictions in everyday living.

NANCY PELOSI THICK INTO ETHICS EXAMPLING?

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi an ethical example for America? I don’t think so.

Again: those in glass houses should not throw stones. Yet Pelosi, considered by some to be a particularly airheaded politico who gives forth with phrases that should have been filtered before hitting the media fan, pokes at US President George W. Bush.

Naturally, this is a given when in her position. But she brings off poking with a particular catch-me-if-you-can flair that is usually relegated only to the dumb.

Nevertheless, Pelosi says that if she were chief executive, she would not tolerate any criminals such as Karl Rove. So there you have it: clean handed and clean hearted Pelosi seated in the Oval Office.

Now when I read that, I wondered: When has Pelosi funneled such disgust and energy channeled against the mushrooming enemy to national security — the Muslim murderers? When has she given to media her plan for undoing those who would cut us off at the knees — Islamic slaughter-bound?

Pelosi, representing the Dems 24-7, has come through once again with carping maximum while completely void of any practical agenda for national advancement, including national safe boundaries implanted.

Tsch. Tsch.

So the Dems continue to march through the summer months — hot and wilted, drooping and groping for the water bucket.

Mr. Bush has informed media that he will have his say when all investigations regarding Rove are completed. Good thinking, Mr. President. Prudent as well. Thank you very much.

As for Pelosi, the sterling example sample for American moral up-climbs, CNSNews.com Senior Editor Susan Jones reports that she "belatedly filed reports for three trips she has accepted from outside sponsors."

Belatedly. Trips. Outside sponsors.

Sniffing around all that, I’d say that Pelosi is not that close to the Oval Office ethical exampling.

So carry on, America.

MUSLIM SCHOOLS FEED MURDERERS GLOBAL

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

They’re feeders for killers. They’re composed of children. They lean over a book as if studying world history.

Instead, they are studying the Koran. They are reading the words of the Koran’s Allah. They are being indoctrinated in how to wipe out non-Muslims. This starts when they are very young.

In Pakistan, for example, this kind of daily instruction goes on. It is believed that London bombing recently was brought about by such brainwashing against non-Islamics. Therefore, investigators are going full force to uncover the growing killing academia within the Muslim cult. They are pressing the Pakistan government to crack down on this kind of so-called schooling.

However, that makes it particularly difficult for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf who has been threatened by his own killing Muslims. Why has his life been in danger? Because he consorts with Westerners especially in seeking to curtail Muslim murderers global. This cannot be tolerated by Muslims. Musharraf shows himself, in other words, as a Muslim coward; therefore his life must be snuffed out.

The Koran’s Allah states that Muslims who turn away from slaughtering all non-Muslims must themselves be slain. Therefore, the Pakistan head and any governmental leaders in his cadre are daily under fear of being cut up due to their negotiations with non-Muslims.

So the wheel turns for the cause of the devil. So the indoctrination continues. The young are taught from the start that their own cowardly kind must be cut out if they don’t join in the fight against the infidels.

Jews in particular are singled out as "Jew-pigs" who are "descendants of monkeys." Therefore, with such disdain leveled against them, Jews must be slid off the planet, starting with all those in Israel.

That’s why Palestinian Authority television gives forth constant programming against Jews and how to kill the Jews. Children sit in front of the tube hour upon hour to see that kind of satanic mayhem. Palestinian Authority leaders have told media that they are trying to curtail that kind of television programming; but one can guess how far they have got with the Hamas hammering away with the same litany.

Further, in Muslim countries, the young far outnumber the middle aged and older. The young make up the vast population and so are the amazing army set out to cripple all non-Muslims. This is what the non-Muslim world community is facing. It’s a large enemy with recruits starting with the boys and girls "taught" by murderer wannabes in teachers’ garb.

In addition to the schools, there are the training camps. That’s the hands-on instruction of how to slice up the infidels, how to undo governments and how to present one’s body in suicidal sacrifice to the Koran’s Allah. The latter will insure an eternity for males cavorting with playboy bunnies in endless orgies. Nothing is promised a female suicide comrade for females in Islam are considered the scum of the planet.

As to the propaganda Islamic schools give to Westerners, consider that it is like unto the public relations lying that goes on daily via the Council on American-Islamic Council (CAIR) web site. Whatever one reads there can be inverted; there will be the truth. If CAIR says Islam is a peace religion, the reader can conclude that Islam is a killing cult, not even a religion among world religions. It is a killing cult, not having the theological status of a "religion."

As to the propaganda, consider the Associated Press’ release detailing a monologue from one of the Islamic instructors. He teaches from a huge two-story building circling a mosque with tall minarets. Inside the building, children as students hunch down in half-circles on taupe carpets. The instructor is seated at a low desk.

The instructor said to the press: "’Enemies of Islam and hypocrites have been trying for a long time to eliminate the status of madrassas and change their syllabus,’ he said.

"’Our schools are open for everyone. ... Islam strongly opposes terrorism. We give only moral and religious education based on the Quran. Islam means peace.’"

CATHOLIC BAPTISM FOR SAME-SEX OFFSPRING?

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

It’s getting quite confusing, quite sinful as well.

In the Roman Catholic Church, infants are baptized. In evangelical Protestantism, infants are dedicated to the Lord, not baptized. Baptism is reserved for those who know their commitment to Christ is real, that is, it is reserved for children and adults who can reason through the salvation acceptance.

Why do evangelical Protestants vary from the Roman Catholics on this matter? It all comes down to the biblical information.

Evangelicals point out that in the New Testament there is no instance of a baby being baptized. Everything there regarding baptism relates to an individual realizing he has come to Christ as Savior, experiencing the One who has forgiven the person’s sins. A baby does not have that awareness.

Understanding then the Roman Catholic position on baptism in contrast to the evangelical Protestant position, note that the Quebec archbishop Cardinal Marc Quellet has stated that same-sex offspring cannot be baptized as Catholic when two fathers or two mothers sign the baptismal certificate.

Quellet states that canon law simply does not permit those kinds of signatures on a child’s baptismal papers. However, if one signature appears from a twosome of the same sex, then that is all right. It’s just a matter of two signatures versus one signature.

Now that in itself is not logical nor moral. If it all comes down to one or two names on a piece of paper, what are we dealing with here? It’s more than one versus two signees. It’s a matter of Christian morals versus worldly, sinful doings — plain and simple.

I would think that those who drew up the canon law on this matter were not writing it up to deal with one versus two signings. It was because of a New Testament understanding of sin versus Christian morality.

Therefore, let’s return to the original intent on this matter. Simply to dilute the issue to one versus two is to grant certain legitimacy to the same-sex twosome. And that can never happen in the context of New Testament morality; therefore, that should never happen in the context of any part of the worldwide Christian community.

No evangelical worshiping community would consider baptizing same-sex twosomes or anything related to same-sex twosomes. It would not be up for discussion let alone splitting signature hairs.

Instead, the evangelical witness would attempt to present to the homosexuals an alternative lifestyle, that is, coming into a Christ experience by which practicing homosexuals would cease their activity for the celibate commitment.

Starting at that point the evangelical church would then welcome the celibate homosexual one or two or three or four or whatever, working with them to a real life surrender to Christ as Lord of life. That would yield a New Testament morality lived out daily.

DA VINCI CODE AUTHOR GOES AT IT AGAIN: JESUS MARRIED?

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Jenifer Johnston of the Sunday Herald writes: "Author Dan Brown is set to reignite controversy over his besteller The Da Vinci Code today, by defending claims he makes in the book that Jesus Christ married and had a child.

"In a rare television interview to be broadcast tonight on the National Geographic Channel, Brown reaffirms his ‘belief’ in book’s key theory – that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and their French-born child started a blood line stretching to the present day. Critics have denounced the new claims as ‘bonkers’."

Author Dan Brown offers Mary Magdalene as Jesus’ wife. The two have a child. And so it goes.

I got the book the other day from the public library. After all, there’s much fuss about it these days. This too shall pass; but for the time being, it’s one of those subjects talked about.

I find the novel an exceptional read. Now I want to read his other book, ANGELS & DEMONS.

However, what I want to get to in this piece is that the Bible does not present Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus nor Jesus as mere mortal husband to her. The Bible has few references to Mary Magdalene. Of course, regarding Jesus, the Bible presents Him as divine as well as mortal.

The divinity of Jesus is quite another topic for another write-up, especially in light of Brown’s presenting through his characters that Jesus is other than deity. But that’s what novelists can do; they can write their own imaginative whatevers and get by with it. After all, Brown’s not penning as a theologian, even though there are too many liberal theologians who agree with his base, that is, that Jesus was mere mortal, not divine. But, as I state, that’s for another article.

This emphasis has to do with the woman — Mary Magdalene. She is offered by Brown, and of course other writers, as a prostitute. The Bible states nowhere that she was a prostitute.

She, as already offered, is pictured by Brown’s characters as the spouse to Jesus. Naturally, the Bible concludes no such fantasy. Brown insists that a Jew of Jesus’ age would never have entertained remaining a bachelor; therefore it is only logical to conclude that he married, hence Mary Magdalene being his wife.

So go the weavings of a novelist’s meandering through the netherlands of the brain. Again, a novelist can get by with anything, not being an historian nor theologian.

But what I want to underline is what the Bible says about Mary Magdalene. I do this because I know Christians themselves are confused as to what Scripture states in comparison to what they’ve seen in movies and read in novels and heard in discussions. The other day I was speaking with a fellow believer who was quite surprised to realize that there is scant material in the Bible concerning the woman.

That’s the nub of it. There is little detail. Therefore, down through centuries, persons have added to her character in order to come up with one legend after another.

The same has happened with other sections of the Bible, for instance, there being three wise men, one of them black. There is no detail in the Bible stating the number of wise men. They could have been two or two hundred. And there is nothing in Scripture concerning one of them being black. Yet the nativity scenes beneath our trees record for us more than what we have taken the time to research in the Bible.

Let me state for you the Bible references concerning Mary Magdalene so that perchance you will do your own study on the subject. I would strongly recommend that you don’t take any prime material but what you yourself read from the Book: Matthew 27:56; Mark 16:9; 15:40; Luke 8:2-3; 23:49, John 19:25. These are few references. It would be helpful to read them.

In the Bible, there’s nothing about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute nor marrying Jesus nor having a child to Jesus. There’s nothing even stating that it was she who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears! And that’s one shocker to many, even believers.

We have been told in film and book that it was this female who was so thankful for Jesus’ forgiveness of her prostituting ways that she washed His feet with her tears. Yes, there was a woman who did wash His feet with tears. In fact, there could have been two women who did that for such is mentioned in two separate passages. But Mary Magdalene is not mentioned by name in those sections.

(Traditionally, Roman Catholics have tended to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman washing Jesus’ feet. Protestants have tended to separate Mary Magdalene from the woman who washed Jesus’ feet.)

Therefore, back to the pure biblical detail residue: Mary Magdalene was one of the women who accompanied Jesus in His ministry. She was there at the base of the cross and witnessed Him laid in a borrowed tomb. She was honored to be the first seen by Jesus after His resurrection. And Jesus cast seven devils out of her. That’s it.

What was the nature of the seven devils? We don’t know. What was Mary Magdalene’s previous history? We don’t know. Where did she come from? Magdala. What did she do in years after the resurrection? We don’t know. Did she wash Jesus’ feet with her tears? We are not told in the Bible that she washed Jesus’ feet.

Who then washed Jesus’ feet with her tears?

Mary of Bethany, sister to Martha and Lazarus, washed His feet on one occasion. Then an anonymous female, mentioned simply as "a sinner," washed His feet.

Could the two references have been to the same woman? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Nevertheless, Mary Magdalene is not mentioned in either reference. Not at all. It’s been conjectured that she was in those scenes. However, the Bible does not locate her in those scenes.

I think, after hearing some people talk about reading Brown’s book, that these individuals know very little about the Bible detail regarding both Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I hear them give forth with their opinions of Brown’s novel as if he had penned an historical account — that is, historically accurate on all levels. I know that the author does state that references to "artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals" as well as certain organizations stated in his book actually exist; but as to Jesus and Mary Magdalene, for instance, Brown through his characters weaves his own notions.

Sometimes he is just plain incorrect. For instance, when he states through one of the characters that nowhere in the Bible does it confirm Jesus’ divinity, he (the novel’s character) is all wrong. A ream of passages — chapters and verses — could be provided pointing to Jesus’ divinity.

However, to further his plot, Brown goes on his way with warping through characters’ statements the biblical detail, negating it, suppressing it, or whatever he finds convenient to do with it in order to further his thesis that Jesus was mere mortal husband married to Mary Magdalene.

And so it goes when writing a novel, using characters to convey religious this and that.

In conclusion: read the novels about Jesus. But do so having researched the Bible to know truly the specifics set forth in that Book. One does not have to believe the Bible to be inspired truth. But at least an intelligent person reading books referencing the Bible should themselves know the Bible from cover to cover if concluding anything about it and its subjects.

JOEL OLSTEEN’S LAKEWOOD CHURCH, HOUSTON = BIBLE HURRAH

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

As I type, Christians are gathering at the largest Christian church in America. Last evening the place was packed—16,000. Every seat taken.

It’s expected the same will occur this Lord’s Day morning. Packed. Every seat taken.

Joel Olsteen is the pastor. Lakewood Church, Houston is the congregation.

So what is preached there? Biblical truths.

This is a slap in the face against the liberal theology taking hold in various mainline denominations, including the apostasy underpinned by baptizing practicing homosexuality as a divinely-smiled-upon lifestyle.

Conservative. Evangelical. Biblical.

That’s what Lakewood Church is all about. It has no tinge of liberalism. It has no trucking with the apostasy prone. It has nothing in common with those who deny the divine revelation accepted as Holy Scripture.

Thousands are reaching out to the Word of God without compromise. There is no reason to slice up the Bible in order to make it "relevant." The Bible is eternal truth and so when preached and taught as that at the Lakewood Church, people flock, listen, and change their lives by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The liberal seminaries continue to turn out those preachers who espouse the demythologizing of the New Testament, as I was taught at Harvard Divinity School. But the biblically moored seminaries turn out those pastors who align their ministries with the eternal verities.

Lakewood Church is another example of the evangelical inroad in America. No wonder the truly wise politicians are giving heed to this growing group. It is meant to be heard. It is meant to change the nation for the good.

BLAIR SEES THE LIGHT RE ISLAM

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Finally.

We are slowly moving from deception planted to enlightenment. It was not too many months ago that political leaders, including US President George W. Bush, were speaking of the Muslim clot as a "religion of peace."

Now Mr. Bush speaks of Islam as an "ideology of hate."

Just in the past few hours, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has referred to the same disease an "evil ideology." Finally the facts are coming to the fore. Truth is having its twilight. Islam = "hate" and "evil." Yes!

When these two men come to the light regarding the killing cult, then surely others will. The question is if those within the Muslim conclave of power clutch will own up to the reality that they are a part of the murdering cult. Hardly. If they confess such to the media, they are due to being slain by their own.

Islam facts: the Koran Allah states that all Muslims must kill non-Muslims. Those Muslims who don’t must themselves be killed. In the end, only Muslims inhabit the planet. That’s it — plain and horrific.

Now Blair has come to the press microphones to state that he no longer regards the Islamics are devotees of a nice hold on deity. They have blown up parts of London and sliced through innocent lives. They sent their own bones into the air for gaining a playboy orgy in Allahland, such promised in the unholy treatise known as "The Koran."

I presume that Mr. Bush will no longer refer to that publication as a "holy book." I presume none of his cabinet members likewise will refer to that book as a "holy book." Heretofore, they have done just that as we who know the facts about Islam have winced and grimaced.

As the world community for peace gets deeper into the Islamic hell canyons, the peace lovers will shout that Muslims must go. Islam must be shut down, just as any killing cult is shut down. At least this must occur in the freedom nations. If the Muslims continue to provide for "honor killing" and such atrocities in the name of Allah, then there is little freedom peoples can do about it.

But at least within the liberty countries, we must snuff out the sleeper cells where mosque clerics teach hate and slaughter. We must broadcast worldwide that such Islamic web sites as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are fostering slicing through every non-Muslim alive.

There must be an exceptionally concerted effort on the part of every non-Muslim to wipe this scourge from the Earth.

Right now we are twiddling. We are playing the fiddles. This cannot continue. An all out attack must be made by all peace peoples against the enemy that would level everyone non-Islamic into the dust.