As we pass the two-year mark since Hurricane Katrina, it's appropriate to discuss the Biblical model of compassion and generosity...

The Scriptures are often invoked, and rightly so, to spur us to help the poor.  Yet contrary to the usual calls for Christian compassion, the Biblical model is to provide opportunities for the poor to help themselves, rather than spoon-feed them gifts from the public largesse.  Obvious exceptions for those who truly can't help themselves apply, but the general Biblical mandate is for a hand up not a handout (e.g. Exodus 23:11).

On the flip side, Scripture bluntly commands: "He who does not work, does not eat," (2 Thess. 3:10).  Contrast that with the American welfare system. 

As one who grew up on food stamps, I can attest that the "system" rewards those content to be fed rather than feed themselves.  Case in point, every time my mother received a college grant, the state of New Mexico cut our welfare check.  How difficult it is to swim to the other side when you're just treading water. 

Though I must say that the welfare to work reforms of the past several years, helped along by Bill Clinton (one of the only good things he did as President) and 1990s GOP-led Congress, have brought the welfare rolls down a bit.  Still, the problem of lazy beneficiaries and a blindly "caring" Uncle Sam remains.

Scripture balances compassion and accountability, just as God gave the payment for our sins in His Son Jesus Christ and God demands that all who come to Him, come through Jesus Christ.  The penalty has been paid, but you must accept His terms if you are to see and know God. 

Care for the poor and the widow, for that, as James said, is true religion.  But also call the poor to care for themselves.  That's the Biblical model.

Thoughts?

Check out the trailer for the new Expelled documentary exposing the Darwinian thought police in all their glory!  The movie operates on the principle of, pardon the phrase, "give em hell!" 

Their website is fully loaded with other trailers, a look inside the Big Science Academy, and much more.  Run for the hills, Darwinian thought police.  Run for the hills!

Just a quick update on the intelligent design film coming soon...

The website for the Expelled documentary featuring Ben Stein of Comedy Central fame is up and fully running.  Click the movie title above or visit www.expelledthemovie.com.

If you're looking for info on the intelligent design controversy, check out Dr. Jonathan Wells' Politically Incorrect Guide to Evolution and Intelligent Design and Dr. Tom Woodward's Darwin Strikes Back.

I thought you might enjoy a brief survey of the wise words offered by Senators and Reps on boths sides of the aisle in regard to the initially successful surge of U.S. troops in Iraq.  At this point, I distinctly detect egg on the face of all these otherwise brilliant foreign policy gurus. 

Of course, they may turn out to be right.  But for now...definitely egg.

On the night of President Bush's address outlining the troop surge plan:
"I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there.

What is possible, I think, is limiting the violence and allowing an Iraqi government to function, that has some set of secure borders. I think that's going to be a tough task. I don't think we advance that task -- in fact, I'm certain we don't advance it -- by putting more American troops at risk." Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), January 10, 2007

"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything." Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), April 19, 2007

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results…The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), June 13, 2007

Bush's strategy of increasing troops in Iraq is "a failed policy wrapped in illusion." Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), April 24, 2007

On Pollack and O'Hanlon's New York Times editorial asserting the initial success of the Iraq troop surge:
"I dismiss it at as rhetoric. I dismiss it as -- you know, in my estimation, the things that I measure are not -- oil production, electricity production, water. Only two hours of electricity. I don't know where they were staying. I don't know what they saw. But I know this, that it's not getting better. It's rhetorical is what is getting better. It's over-optimist. It's an illusion." Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), July 31, 2007

On the troop surge strategy:
"This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. It is wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq's civil war.

We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq…More American troops, treasure and casualties will not change this reality." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), January 10, 2007

On the troop surge strategy:
"a categorical, catastrophic...[and] abject failure." Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), June 29, 2007

"The prospects that the current 'surge' strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited…Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), June 25, 2007

"According to polls, the vast majority of Americans disagree with President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq to quell sectarian violence. I, too, disagree with the troop surge. The question now before the U.S. Senate is how best to send a strong, clear, bipartisan message to the President to express our disagreement and urge him to instead consider all options and alternatives." Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), January 29, 2007

"Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), January 10, 2007

"I continue to believe that it is a mistake to send more U.S. troops to Baghdad, which is engulfed by sectarian strife…I have repeatedly expressed directly to the president my opposition to his plan to increase the overall number of American troops in Iraq." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), April 26, 2007

Machiavelli said it's better to be perceived to be virtuous than to actually be virtuous.  On that note, I thought you might get a kick out this article about the funny truth behind the Prius and its arch-rival, the Hummer.

Here are some highlights:

"Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it."

Photo credit: www.autobytel.com

Scientific thought police beware!  A new documentary highlighting the smear of scientists who dare to question Darwinian dogma is coming soon to a theater near you.

Go ahead.  Get it all out. 

Ohhhhhhhhh!  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  Noooooooooo!

Now check out Denyse O'Leary's post on the new Expelled documentary featuring Ben Stein of Comedy Central fame.

Take a handful of Tums and then read this post...

Unless you're just now awaking from winter hibernation, you've heard the call by many celebs (George Clooney, Matt Damon, Barrack Obama) for action on Darfur--specifically for the U.S. and the U.N. to somehow remedy the mass genocide being carried out in this volatile region of the Sudan. 

One question: where were these celebs when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering hundreds of thousands with nerve gasses and hit squads, while Uday and Quasay ran their nifty rape rooms? 

Clooney was a huge star by the late 90s.  So too Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, and others.  But they didn't use their star power to bring relief to innocent Iraqis.  Why not?

The big answer: if you're suffering in the Middle East, you're screwed! 

Better to toil under a brutal regime and mass genocide in Africa or Europe.  Celebs love to travel to, and especially to be seen traveling to the Sudan or Kosovo, but Iraq or Afghanistan just won't do.

(For all you haters out there, I'm attacking the celebs selectivity in their compassion, not their laudable call for solutions to the Sudan crisis.)

As opposed to the double-standards of misguided celebs, I suggest we take a more controversial and heretical approach...follow the standard of Jesus Christ himself. 

Noooooooo!  Arghhhhhh!  Feel better?  Good.

Jesus Christ--God in the flesh who died to reconcile us to the Creator of all men--had more than one good idea.  An example: "love your neighbor as yourself." 

This neighbor talk (as demonstrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan), included everyone, regardless of their nationality or location.  Therefore, and please make this big leap with me, we should love all of our neighbors--Sudanese, Iraqi, Afghani, etc. 

I know it's not p.c., but let's cut the horsecrap of selectivity in opposing mass genocide and follow the call of Jesus Christ--the only hope for mankind himself, and love all our neighbors as ourselves.

Send me a bill for the Tums! 

Photo: allposters.com

One common theme running through the anti-Iraq War/anti-War on Terror camp: Al Queda poses no threat to us because they're not big enough.

While you're at it, don't dare compare the War on Terror (a neo-con exaggeration of what should be a simple police action) to past wars because again, Germany was huge and had expansionist dreams and the Soviet Union was a war machine, unlike our supposed foes in Iran and Islamic extremists.

Of course, what folks who hold this view (and there are many) miss is that the nature of the enemy, not the size, matters.  Forget WWII and the Cold War, just glimpse our failed Iraq strategy under Donald Rumsfeld for confirmation of as much. 

Did we not clean the clocks of the Baathist regime and then get our clocks cleaned by a small but determined band of thugs adept at blowing up our big, bad hummers and tanks with IEDs and RPGs?!?  The size of the foe is irrelevant. True might lies lies in a fighting force's determination and ability to improvise. 

Contrary to one liberal poster I encountered this week, Iran is not not a threat because our economy dwarfs theirs.  Iran is a threat because they're led by a president who could have nuclear weapons by 2009 and who is looking to usher in the arrival of the 13th Imam by way of making the world as close to hell on earth as possible.   Likewise, Al Queda is not not a threat because they can't muster an army in the hundreds of thousands and armaments to match.  Al Queda is a threat because they're crafty, they want all Westerners and Jews dead, and they're actively seeking to make 9/11 look like a backyard fireworks show.

In our brave new world, size doesn't matter.  Determination, strategy, and flexibility are king.  Hence the initial success of the new troop surge in Iraq under brilliant counterinsurgency expert General David Petreaus.  Heck, even The New York Times ran a recent editorial entitled "A War We Just Might Win."

Bigger helps, but it's no longer the end of the matter. We must evaluate and quash threats based on their drive and damage-potential.

Now for some coffee in the blessed land of the free...

Good ole Bobby Novak graced us this week with a glowing column on exiled Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. 

Unfortunately for Novak and Bhutto's backers in the State Department, Bhutto isn't exactly the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.  Check out Wikipedia's entry on Bhutto for a lovely backgrounder on her many and varied schemes to profit from Pakistani government contracts.  FYI, this info is not just courtesy of the Musharraf hit police;  evidence from Poland, France, Switzerland, and elsewhere attest to Benazir's shenanigans. 

The real question is how will Bhutto have any more success than Musharraf in beating back Pakistani Islamic extremists when our prominent role in her expected return to power is obvious?  Pakistani Islamic radicals already accuse Musharraf of being an American mouthpiece.  How much more so a corrupt, female Prime Minister pushed back into power by the White House?

Perhaps the State Department gurus should sit this one out...

Don't you just love when science becomes political?  Oh wait, science is always political.

And just like they do with scientists and other know-nothings who express doubts about Darwinian macroevolution, now many reporters and bourgeois scientists are shouting down and comparing to Holocaust deniers, those who dare to question, on scientific grounds no less, man's involvement in global warming.  Pesky scientific truth be damned!

Of course, truth marches on, much to chagrin of human-driven global warming mindslaves.  Case in point, recent discoveries in fossil science which point not to man, but "to the sun and stars as the dominant driver" of climate change.  I'm sure Al & Tipper will be relieved.

Unfortunately all this psychosis detracts from the real need to manage our natural resources and the environment, for the sake of future generations.  But why care about the future when global warming hysteria can win elections now?!?

On the heels of Richard Littlejohn's excellent documentary exposing liberal and Muslim anti-semitism spreading across the UK, comes this article from a Candian reporter.  Apparently many Canadian leftists and Islamists are finding common cause in their bashing of Jews.

And I thought Christians such as myself were the intolerant ones?!?

No, I can't claim it as my own. But check out Michael Craven's fascinating column on the connection between a culture's energy for expansion and sexual ethics.  Interesting stuff, indeed.

Also check out Michael's excellent website: www.battlefortruth.org.

As a follow-up to my last post on the plight of Iraqi Christians, check out this site on the violent impact of Islam across the globe.

As you consider all of this, one question may come to mind: how are the calls for Islamic jihad any different than the calls for bloodshed by God in the Old Testament? 

Here's the key difference between God's judgment of nations in the Old Testament and the wicked slaughter of non-Muslims advocated by most modern imams and by the Quran: God plainly declared that the Jews' were every bit as susceptible to His righteous judgment as the nations around them, should the Israelites stray from His perfect commands. And when the Jews wondered from God, they too experienced Almighty God's well-deserved wrath.  Meanwhile, Muslim imams, back to Mohammed himself, claim for themselves de facto jihad.  Thus, by virtue of their very position as imams, they claim to rightly call forth the jihad outlined in the Quran and cannot be questioned when they do so.

Conversely, God laid out very clearly the potential blessings and potential judgment that would fall on His chosen people, should they live according to or reject God's righteous laws, (Leviticus 26).  God further promises to "devour the nations who are His adversaries," (Numbers 24:8).  Thus both His chosen people and their Gentile neighbors were measured and dealt with according to the same, well-laid out standard which the Sovereign God of the universe declared.  And, lo and behold, the judgment and destruction of Israel and other nations is exactly what is recorded in the Old Testament.

Initially, God judged the wicked nations surrounding Israel by driving those nations out from before the Israelites and giving their land to His chosen people.  Later, when His chosen people likewise rebelled against God's commands, Almighty God shattered and scattered His chosen people among the nations.  (In fact, the Israelites' sins were more grievous than the misdeeds of the Gentiles, because the Jews had been specially entrusted with the commands of God and had access to the living God Himself.)

On the Christian side, Jesus Christ, who was fully God and who took on flesh to fulfill His role as the promised Jewish Messiah, or Christ, who proved as much by rising from the dead and was seen by over 500 witnesses, plainly declared that His kingdom was not of this world, otherwise His servants would have fought for Him, (see John 18:36).  Although He further promises that He will return to establish His kingdom here on earth (see Matthew 26:63, Revelation 20:4), warring in the name of Christ in order to advance His kingdom, is clearly denounced by the risen Savior of all men.

This, however, does not rule out righteously waging a war based on Christian principles such as freeing millions of Jews being exterminated by Hitler or throwing off the unbiblical tyranny of King George III. 

What the true Scripture of God does prohibit is a "righteous" war based upon divine principles and commands not readily accessible and plainly spelled out to all.  Thus, the Israelites and the nations around them, were destroyed by God for rejecting His clear and perfect will, often by means of other nations.  Thus, a war cannot be waged in the name of Christ, without actual, easily checked, bases in biblical teaching.

Now contrast the true, biblical standard of God's righteous destruction of wicked nations and the true Christian basis for just war with the sadistic calls for Quranically-mandated jihad, by imams who demand allegiance by virtue of their privileged position as Allah's spokespeople.  Do you see the difference?

Another day, another brutal event in the life of an Iraqi Christian.

In the Kurdish region, a fifteen year-old girl was given the "light" sentence of three years in prison for killing her uncle in self-defense as he beat her for becoming a Christian and for working outside the home.  FYI, the uncle had previously tried to kill the girl's uncle five times for his conversion to Christianity. 

More good news for this young girl: her grandmother has dropped her demand for the death of the girl's father and instead simply wants $56,000 and the death of the young girl.  Read the whole shocking story here. 

As you read this article, consider why this young girl and her family would go through so much for the cause of Christ?  Was Jesus a simple Jewish peasant or is he this young girl's comforter and the only one who can save us from the judgment of God which we all so richly deserve?