Will U.S. Miss the Islamic Threat Again?

It was thirty years ago today that the Ayatollah Khomeini declared Iran to be the world’s first “Islamic Republic,” that is, the first country in human history that would be governed by Sharia law, the laws of the Qur’an. Yet as I document in my new book, Inside The Revolution, the Carter administration at the time completely missed the explosion of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the fall of the Shah, the rise of Khomeini, and later the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran that led to 52 Americans being held hostage for 444 humiliating days.

Admiral Stansfield Turner, the director of the CIA under President Carter, would later admit in his memoirs, “We in the CIA served the president badly with respect to our coverage of the Iranian scene….We had not appreciated how shaky the Shah’s political foundation was; did not know the Shah was terminally ill; did not understand who Khomeini was and the support his movement had; did not have a clue as to who the hostage-takers were or what their objective was….We were just plain asleep.”

Thirty years later, the question is: Does the Obama administration understand who the leaders of Iran are today? Do they understand the eschatology — or End Times theology — held by the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and how such deeply-held religious beliefs are driving Iranian foreign policy and military doctrine? Do they understand that Iran’s current leaders believe they have been chosen by God to bring about the end of the world, that this is why they are hell-bent on acquiring or building nuclear weapons?

Last week, I met on Capitol Hill with a bipartisan group of nine current and former Members of Congress. They told me neither they nor their colleagues have been well briefed on such issues, nor has senior administration officials. Yet the President is embarking on a policy of direct contact and direct negotiations with a nation whose leaders he may not truly understand.

One leader who does understand the apocalyptic, cultish nature of Iran’s leadership is new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was sworn in last night. “The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told The Atlantic magazine. The Iranian drive for a nuclear weapon was a “hinge of history,” he said, emphasizing that all of “Western civilization” was responsible for preventing an Iranian bomb.

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Netanyahu said of the Iranian regime. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

It is not just Iran’s leaders that should concern us. Al Qaeda’s leaders say publicly they want to annihilate us. Top CIA officials tell me they believe bin Laden’s forces are actively seeking nuclear weapons to annihilate entire American cities. And just this morning, the London Times quotes a Pakistani Taliban leader warning: “Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world … The maximum they can do is martyr me. But we will exact our revenge on them from inside America.”

Please pray the Lord protects our country and gives our President wisdom. Pray, too, that the Lord gives Prime Minister Netanyahu wisdom to protect the Jewish people at this critical hour, and that the Lord would use him to explain to world leaders — including those in Washington — who the leaders of Iran really are, what they really want, and how far they are willing to go to accomplish their objectives.

Washington, I fear, is “just plain asleep” again. It is time to wake them up.

Stem Cell Decision Worse Than Roe v. Wade

Today, the shoddiest piece of journalism I have seen in a long time landed on my front step. The L.A. Times article “Obama Moves to Strengthen Role of Science in Policy” was printed in my Colorado Springs Gazette. It is the most blatant form of secularist “if you don’t agree with our science, you are religious and should be dismissed” ideology since John Kerry’s presidential campaign. The “journalists” Jim Tankersley and Noam Levey write:

President Obama made his most forceful break yet from his predecessor’s controversial scientific agenda Monday, opening the door to a major expansion of government-funded research on embryonic stem cells and ordering federal agencies to strengthen the role of science in their decision-making.

The twin announcements marked a clear departure from former President George W. Bush’s approach to science, which had caused a rift between that administration and a large segment of the nation’s research community. Many complained that scientific data had been ignored or skewed as the Bush administration set policy on climate change, oil and gas drilling, and other aspects of environmental and health policy.

In particular, Bush’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell experiments had become a touchstone for many scientists angry at the administration, as well as for advocates for patients who have hoped the research would lead to cures for a wide range of diseases.

The problem here is that few presidents have been as thoroughly vindicated on a particular policy decision as George W. Bush was on his decision to restrict federal funding for embryonic destructive research. For a clear history of this, see the November 2008 article by Joseph Bottum and Ryan Anderson “Stem Cells: A Political History.”

Where Bottum and Anderson are correct is that with the astounding success of adult stem cells (stem cells acquired from sources that do not require the destruction of the embryo), and the exciting developments in regard to induced pluripotent cells (non-embryonic cells “reprogrammed” to behave like embryonic stem cells) there remains few scientific reasons, if any, to pursue the ethically questionable research that destroys the most innocent among us. We certainly do not think we should fund every scientific venture with tax dollars. Why this one?

Where Bottum and Anderson are wrong is in their suggestion that since this issue was a minor one during the election, it is therefore no longer a political issue. Clearly, after yesterday’s dismal decision by President Obama, it still is.

This is a decision worse than Roe V. Wade. In cases of abortion, one can at least wrongfully argue that immediate hardship will be alleviated. In this case, there is no reason to believe any hardship will be alleviated, and certainly not immediately. Not to mention, where on earth are we going to get any federal funds at this time? Has our President forgotten the real crisis now is not that scientists cannot find money (Note: embryonic stem cell research was never banned, contrary to Kerry’s claims. President Bush restricted federal funding. States – and many did – and private investors – and very few did since it was such a bad investment – were still allowed to provide funding), it’s that our country cannot find money?

Without all of the ethical questions surrounding this, it is a poor economic decision! It’s bad enough that President Obama thinks that all problems need to have government solutions. Now, he is fabricating problems so that the government can solve them! There is no problem anymore! In fact, there never was!

So, why is this ignored in the “report” by the LA Times? Why are any arguments against embryonic destructive research considered merely religious and political? Why are all arguments for embryonic destructive research scientific when there remains next to no scientific reasons to pursue it any more?

(Note also how later in the article, the authors imply that those who oppose global warming do so only for political reasons. Are they unaware how increasingly ridiculous the accusation of human cause global warming is becoming? Are they at least aware that the scientific community has not come to a consensus about this issue?)

So, today I, and many Americans, are forced to fund murder and contribute our tax dollars to something which will – in the name of “science” – further our culture of death. Only, it is not science. It is politics. And, it is completely unjustifiable.

2009 Forecast: Increasing Thunderstorms — Seek Shelter

Podcast: Download (14.0MB)

LISTEN NOW:

[Note: Program originally aired January 3rd, 2009.]  Lots of people are just glad the year 2008 is over. Whether it was the precipitous real estate market drop, the Wall Street meltdown, job layoffs, taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, the trend towards big-government intervention into private industry, or just election fatigue after a two-year presidential campaign, there’s a belief that things can only get better in 2009.   Outside our borders, the world seems more turbulent than ever: the Israelis and Palestinians are Read more

Obama Case: Story of the Century or Story Not Worth a Cent? (video)

Whether destined to be an upcoming Constitutional crisis or an ongoing conspiracy theory I do not know, but the allegations and court filings about President-Elect Barack Obama not being a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified to be President of the United States will not go away.

Apparently, it’s all coming to a head this Friday, December 5th when the U.S. Supreme court decides if it will review the case.  Here’s guessing they won’t.  Meanwhile, the mainstream media won’t touch the story with a ten-foot pole and even leading conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have steered clear.

It would seem fairly easy for Obama to dispel the charges by simply releasing his official birth certificate – something he still refuses to do – but maybe that’s just the point – why let the story go away when he’s on his way to the White House and can make his accusers look like desperate, fringe types?

I’m not quite sure what to make of this story but I wouldn’t be surprised Read more

NAE Leader Richard Cizik: Exhibit A of Evangelicalism Moving Left

From SliceOfLaodicea.com

When an evangelical leader [Richard Cizik, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals] claiming to represent millions of supposedly Bible-believing Christians in this country, goes on National Public Radio saying he voted for the most virulent defender of child murder in American history when he voted in the Virginia primary, we’re looking at smoking ruins, folks. 

Click here to listen to Cizik’s interview on NPR.

Click here to listen to Crosstalk’s December 2nd radio program covering this issue.

Crosstalk Press Release: December 3, 2008 

Headline:  Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Says Christians Can Vote for Pro-Child Killing Politicians

Richard Cizik, VP for Governmental Affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, appeared on the Fresh Air program on National Public Radio on Tuesday. When asked who he voted for in the election, Cizik announced he had voted for Barack Obama in the Virginia primary, and said that the vote should give some indication of how he voted in the general election. He went further and said that evangelicals could vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage politician even though they disagreed on those issues.  Read more

Christian, Do Not Fear an Obama Administration

There’s no question in my mind that there are heavily overcast skies ahead for Christians in America.  I believe we are about to experience a governing administration with the most humanistic, unbiblical worldview in our nation’s history.  I expect that there will be very little in the next four – or even eight – years for Christians to cheer about from a legislative standpoint.  Look for an expansion of the killing of the unborn and born, judicial appointments with liberal worldviews to the Supreme Court, lessened support for Israel, restrictions on Christian speech (especially against the gay agenda and for the exclusivity of the gospel), homeschooling, and other rights and privileges Christians have previously enjoyed in America. 

Suffice it to say that with an almost diametrically opposed worldview to that of true followers of Christ, nothing but disappointment and conflict and suppression and perhaps even persecution will result from this administration…unless you put your head in the sand, keep quiet, and go with the flow.

Yet, the Christian life is not one of despair no matter who the governing powers are.  The hope that Christians have extends far beyond Read more

Hoax Alert: Human-Caused Global Warming

The hysteria over human-caused global warming can only be described as apocalyptic humanism.  It has every bit the religious fervor and devotion (“Save the planet!” “The science is beyond dispute.”) that any Christian has for the end times.  Why should we be surprised?  When man refuses to worship God, he will worship himself and the earth (Romans 1:18-31) and also work to proselytize others to his religion. 

Humanistic environmentalists – like Al Gore, so-called “scientific experts”, and Barack Obama in this video promising to fund with your tax-dollars one of the biggest hoaxes ever foisted upon mankind - view man as being Read more

Post-Election Conservative De-Brief

If you want to read a clear-thinking, right-on-the-mark, true conservative’s view of the election win by Barack Obama, please read Mark Alexander’s column below. He is the editor of the PatriotPost.us – subscribe to his free newsletter while you’re there.

I always say the reason I’m conservative politically is that the politically conservative worldview most closely approximates the Christian worldview for government with principles like limited government (which promotes freedom), free-market economics (which promotes work), and biblical moral values (which promotes a stable and good society). And just to be clear, I never call myself a “Republican” and don’t consider myself a member of the “Religious Right.” I’m a citizen of heaven first and foremost, and then a citizen of America second.

With this in mind, my ultimate purpose in life is to know Christ and make Him known. A certain type of government with certain leaders with certain policies is NOT the final objective for me as it is with secular and religious humanists. Yet as a citizen in a representative democracy (i.e. constitutional republic) who has the same privilege as anyone else to have my worldview heard and as a Christian who is responsible for proclaiming Biblical truth, I do petition my fellow citizens and civic leaders to “conserve” the original values and policies of the Founders of this great country that are in large part based on the Christian worldview.

And now for the post-election article by Mark Alexander. Read more

Need to Reads for Election Eve

The following are some good articles for your Christian worldview sharpening on this Election Eve. We will link additional columns to this post if/when we come across them throughout the day. Be praying that God would move the hearts of our people to elect those candidates with stronger Christian worldviews.

The Candidate of Fear (Olavo de Carvalho)

Ego and Mouth (Thomas Sowell)

Obama Plan to Bankrupt Coal Power Plants (OneNewsNow.com)

Tomorrow We Vote (Chuck Colson)

The Audacity of Deception (PatriotPost.us)

Obama a Socialist…or “Interventionist”?

Guest Blogger Bio: Chuck Edwards is the Director of Bible Study Curriculum for Summit Ministries and is the co-author of “Worldviews in Focus.” His email is chuck@summit.org.

I recently came across an extended interview with Barack Obama by David Leonhardt (Obamanomics, The New York Times, August 24, 2008) reporting in more detail than I’ve seen anywhere else about Obama’s mindset regarding economics. According to this article, Obama believes in the free market, hence he is not technically a socialist, which is defined as the government ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, he said in the interview he’ll just tax the productive workers in order to redistribute it!

Here are Obama’s actual words: “If you talk to Warren [Buffett], he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.”

That’s called interventionism, or, as the late postmodern professor of literature at Stanford, Richard Rorty, put it, “welfare-state capitalism.” This is where the government uses regulatory policies and the tax codes to control economic outcomes (without taking ownership of the private sector) and redistribute wealth according to their purposes, or, as Obama told Joe the plumber, “spread the wealth around.” Read more

Next Page »