Saturday, July 23, 2011

Can a Confessional Lutheran Become a US President?

The answer according to Michele Bachmann is apparently “No” given the fact that she left her Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) parish and joined a more generic Christian parish.

Just so you know, this article is not about Michelle Bachman. It is about the question of the acceptance and viability of Confessional Lutheranism in the world. When it is phrased that way, it is clear that this is not a question that we should lose too much sleep over. The world does not and cannot embrace Confessional Christianity/Lutheranism. Once we are found out by the culture to be who we are, believers in the common sense truth of Scripture and its radical assertions about man, sin and the exclusivity of salvation in Christ, the world will reject our views as so much hog wash. This is one of the lessons to be learned from the Bachmann candidacy.

As further proof that this is not about Michele Bachmann, personally I could vote for her. I think she and Sarah Palin demonstrate more courage to move this country to a genuinely conservative agenda than the male candidates with the possible exception of Herman Cain. (I wasn’t able to follow the entire string of comments on our previous post on women presidents so I am not sure if I am kosher or not. I am sure you will let me know.)

The Atlantic Monthly article focussed on the issue of the confessional claim that the pope fills the office of the antichrist. Bachman is accused of being a Catholic hater for being in a church for so many years that holds such a prejudice view.

As you will see in the article, the communications person for the WELS did a fine job in clarifying and confessing the Lutheran position on this matter.

One of my favorite Catholics, Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League and frequent defender of all good conservative Christian principles, is really steamed at Bachmann, as the story points out. Like I say, I respect Donahue but on this point he is off base. Is he not, as a conservative Catholic who upholds the Decrees of the Council of Trent which anathematize Lutherans (i.e. condemn us to hell), likewise not a prejudice Lutheran-hater?

I hope and pray that our culture can get back to a point where it might actually elect a confessional Lutheran to the presidency but I will not hold my breath. We should continue to do what we can in the political arena to uphold Christian morals (notice I did not use the secular humanist term “values”) but not be surprised when we are outed as bitter clingers to our unenlightened views, our exclusivity, and of course, our guns.

From: on July 21st, 2011 by Pastor Tim Rossow

America - Robbed not Bankrupted

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Hanoi Jane Fonda

The following is from: posted Sat, Jan 27, 2001

Oldie but goodie, why I will never forgive Jane Fonda
Forever Stupid.............

Some people are just born to be forever stupid.

Ok folks, it is the old Sarge’s turn to rant. For over 30 years a generation of soldiers have resented, even hated one person, Hanoi Jane Fonda.

On Saturday January 27, 2006 the same traitor took steps to create another generation of soldiers that hate and despise her.

As the American POWs returned home in 1973, they spoke out about the inhumane treatment and torture they had suffered as prisoners of war. Their stories directly contradicted Jane Fonda's earlier statements of 1972. Some of the American POWs such as Senator John McCain, a former Presidential candidate, stated that he was tortured by his guards for refusing to meet with groups such as Jane Fonda's. Jane Fonda, in her response to these new allegations, referred to the returning POWs as being "hypocrites and liars."

Jane Fonda A.K.A. HANOI JANE

Jane Fonda looking admiringly at an NVA gun crew

Jane Fonda with a VC flag in Washing DC

Jane Fonda laughing with an NVA gun crew

Actress Jane Fonda speaks at an anti-Iraq war protest on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Yes folks, forever stupid, that is my opinion of the traitor that walks freely among us on the blood of soldiers that died for her right to do what she does.

Bart and Islam

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Obama is Blinded by Big Government

WOLF: ‘German Miracle’ Barack Obama doesn’t see
Blinded by big government, the Obama Depression is no accident

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf, The Washington Times
“The eye does not see what the mind does not know.” The difference between your patient’s life and death, my professors would warn, is what you see, and you cannot see what you do not know. Barack Obama cannot see a way out of America’s current economic malaise. He should ask the Germans what they know.

Obamanomics has produced the weakest, most anemic recovery since the 1930s, when another generation’s big-government planners turned their great recession into the Great Depression. To be fair, President George W. Bush certainly did not give the best economic handoff - he too was addicted to spending - but to be clear, President Obama has unarguably fumbled the ball. He has, to borrow his own phrase, put his “boot on the neck” of American businesses with his increased taxes and regulatory burden; he has grown government with his wildly increased spending and outright take-overs; and he has weakened the dollar with his “quantitative easing” printing press.

The devastation caused by Obamanomics is now undeniable. According to Investors Business Daily, 2 million net private-sector jobs have been lost; unemployment has increased by 1.5 percentage points; long-term unemployment is the worst ever on record; the dollar is 12 percent weaker; the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 37 percent; the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) has increased by 62 percent; and the national debt has exploded by an alarming 40 percent. Mr. Obama is on pace to saddle America with more job-killing debt than all the first 43 presidents - combined.

It didn’t have to be this way but Mr. Obama is trapped in the mistaken belief that America’s problems can only be solved by growing our government ever larger. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

In early 2009, before his unsuccessful attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, Mr. Obama failed at a far more consequential international lobbying effort: The president could not convince German Chancellor Angela Merkel to unleash yet another in the long stream of Keynesian “stimulus” spending schemes - and for good reason.

Admittedly, no two nations’ recessions are the same. Germany’s gross domestic product fell even more steeply than America’s but then again, the Germans didn’t have to contend with the likes of Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and then-Sen. Chris Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, sabotaging their housing market with government-imposed suicide mortgage loans. Today, however, while America’s economy is worsening, Germany has returned to pre-recession employment levels and their only “unexpected” economic news is the kind that beats expectations.

The real lessons from the Germans, however, comes not from the 21st century, but from the 20th. In the aftermath of World War II, a defeated and devastated Germany was under American occupation, controlled by Keynesian economists including the American price-control czar himself, John Kenneth Galbraith. The American overseers, as well as Germany’s new Social Democratic Party, favored maintaining the Nazi’s top-down, government-directed economy with its price and wage controls and restrictive regulations, which, unsurprisingly, created economic stagnation and crippling shortages of basic goods.

One bold German economist who understood the power of freedom dared to disagree. In a swift and masterful move on June 20, 1948 - a Sunday - economic director Ludwig Erhard freed the German market (and the people) by abolishing most of the restrictive price controls and other burdensome governmental regulations while he simultaneously solidified monetary policy with the introduction of the deutsche mark. The American Keynesians and German socialists were aghast but Erhard was quickly proven right.

Germany’s economy responded with a roar heard round the world. Within weeks, businesses sparked back to life and crippling shortages were eliminated. Within a year, the war-torn western zones united to become West Germany which quickly and overwhelmingly outpaced the Soviet-controlled East Germany. Within a decade, West Germany’s economy doubled, leaving behind Allied “winners” of the war, France and England, despite the Marshall Plan largesse these nations enjoyed. Within a half-century, the Berlin Wall crumbled and with it, the Soviet’s Evil Empire. This is the story of the “Wirtschaftswunder,” the German economic miracle.

Erhard courageously and almost single-handedly unshackled German citizens from the Nazi-inspired, socialist-endorsed and American Keynesian-imposed economic controls. He later confessed that he launched his plan on a Sunday, when the American occupation authorities’ offices were closed, because he was certain they would otherwise have countermanded his orders. Germans later made Erhard their chancellor but his lasting legacy is the German Miracle: a lesson of how free people in a free market, rather than an oversized and overbearing government, can rescue an economy - even one as devastated as post-war Germany‘s.

The lesson is right there for anyone who can see it.

Almost a century ago, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt converted a great recession into the Great Depression with their big-government schemes. Similarly today, Mr. Obama has turned our Great Recession into the Obama Depression with his own - now old, tired and discredited - big-government schemes. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama cannot see the obvious lessons of the German Miracle: Unleash the free market, unshackle entrepreneurs and workers from big-government controls and we, the free people of the United States, can rescue our economy and create our own 21st century American Miracle.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama. He blogs at

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Israel Re-Opens the Place of Jesus' Baptism

Israel Opens Up Christian Religious Site Denied Them By Muslims

Today, Israel re-opened the traditional site to Christians where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist along the Jordan river, a place called Qasr-el-Yahud.

Opening the site to Christian worship involved Israel spending $2.3 million to renovate the site and to remove mines laid down by Jordan along the Jordan/Israel border, a little factoid most of the stories about this omit so you'll get the impression Israel mined a Christian religious site.

A small ceremony was held to mark the occasion, attended by Interior Minister Silvan Shalom and Christian dignitaries.

Of course, the 'Palestinians' were solidly against this, since legally Islam is going to be the official religion of 'Palestine' if it ever becomes a state according to what passes for law here.

"This is a site in the occupied territories, and whatever Israeli authorities are doing on Palestinian sites we consider illegal and part of seizures related to the occupation and Israel's monopoly over our historic and touristic resources," said Khouloud Daibes, the Palestinian tourism minister.

I guess that's why neither Jordan or the 'Palestinian Authority' saw fit to open it to Christians in all this time.

Oh, by the way, Khouloud...the name of the place, Qasr-el-Yahud means 'castle' or 'fortified place of the Jews.'

Who's occupying whom, Tzaddik?

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Businesses Flee California

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.

"There is a feeling that the state is not stable," Vranich said. "Sacramento can't get its act together...and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild."

The state has been ranked by Chief Executive magazine as the worst place to do business for seven years.

"California, once a business friendly state, continues to conduct a war on its own economy," the magazine wrote.

That is about to change, at least if Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom has anything to say about it. Newsom is developing a plan to address the state's economic Achilles heels, and build on its strengths. It will be unveiled at the end of July.

"California has got to get its act together when it comes to economic development and job creation," he said.

While not all companies investing elsewhere are doing so for economic reasons, some are shopping around for lower costs, lighter regulations, stable leadership and government assistance and incentives.

The most popular places to go? Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and North Carolina, said Vranich. All rank in the Top 13 places to do business, according to Chief Executive.

After 15 years in Monterey Country, Calif., Feel Golf relocated its headquarters to Florida earlier this year after it acquired Pro Line Sports, which was based in the Sunshine State.

"The whole state is a bureaucratic Santa Claus," said Lee Miller, chief executive of the golf equipment company, of his former home. "There's a very high cost of doing business."

In Florida, he found a better work pool, lower operating costs and no personal income taxes.

"Overall, it's just a better environment," he said.

PayPal opened a new customer services and operations center in Chandler, Ariz., in February, bringing 2,000 jobs to the area. The San Jose, Calif.-based tech firm, along with its parent eBay, also added 1,000 jobs in Austin, Texas, and expanded operations in Utah.

"They have business-friendly environments," said Kathy Chui, a spokeswoman for eBay.

Other states, which are revving up their job creation efforts in the weak economy, are making sure California firms know the advantages to doing businesses with them.
Utah, for instance, touts its stable government, balanced budget and AAA debt rating, said Todd Brightwell, vice president at the state's Economic Development Corp.

"We promote predictability," said Brightwell, whose agency features an online comparison between the states in terms of taxes, real estate costs, utility expenses, cost of living and other metrics.

Over the past 18 months, the state become much more proactive in courting California firms. It now visits there regularly to reach out to target companies. The strategy has been successful. Adobe has expanded operations in Utah, as has Electronic Arts.

California companies are also reaching out to other states. Sandra Watson, chief operating officer of the Arizona Commerce Authority, said she's seeing a growing number of California firms looking to expand outside the state.

The economic downturn has forced companies to find ways to reduce their costs, she said. Arizona is trying to capitalize on that by promoting its lower workers compensation and unemployment insurance taxes, as well as its aggressive incentive packages.

"There's a lot of competition out there and companies are re-evaluating their strategies," she said.

California, however, isn't sitting idly by. Not only is Newsom meeting with executives to hear their complaints, he's studying the best practices of other states. Earlier this year, he visited Texas, ranked #1 by Chief Executive, to learn more about its job creation efforts.

Newsom's plan will focus on California's premier industries, including biotechnology, agriculture and digital media. It will highlight the state's strengths in innovation and research and cultivate more manufacturing and exports. It also will examine how to address executives' concerns about regulation, taxes and layers of bureaucracy.

Later this year, California will set up a new agency that will serve as a focal point for economic development and job creation, he said. Among its goals will be to reverse the perception that California is business-unfriendly.

"We're going to start pounding away at this and begin to slowly turn this around," he said.

First Published: July 12, 2011: 9:39 AM ET

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Christian Girls Under Attack in Egypt (STILL)

Egypt: Harassment of Christian girls sparks use of alliterative euphemisms in mainstream media

"Sectarian strife," once again, which has quickly become a stock media phrase.

The assault on Lara Logan in Tahrir Square was a rude awakening for much of the West to the nature of the problem faced by native and foreign women in Egypt on any given day. Sexual harassment is so severe and pervasive in Egypt that one could all but call it a sick national pastime.

The women are always blamed for somehow falling short of Islamic expectations on "modesty" or the segregation of the sexes, which is taken as an excuse to target them: they have forfeited or shown themselves unworthy of protection (as this propaganda poster makes clear), and thus become targets.

The issue is thus thoroughly suffused with Islamic supremacism, and so Christian girls are all the more a target in Egypt not only for harassment, but abduction, forced marriage, and conversion. "Egypt: 'Harassment of Christian girls' sparks sectarian strife," from AdnKronos International, July 1:
Samalout, 1 July (AKI) - Security forces on Friday quelled sectarian clashes that broke out late Thursday in central Egypt after local Muslims allegedly harassed some Christian girls, Al Masry Al Youm daily reported.
Eyewitnesses said fighting began in the village of Qolosna in Upper Egypt's Minya Governorate after several Muslim taxi drivers reportedly bothered a group of Christian girls.

Everything we have seen out of Egypt suggests "bothered" is the understatement of the week.
Shots were fired in the air and the injured - four Christians and three Muslims, according to security sources - were taken to hospital in the nearby town of Samalout.
Security sources said 10 people were arrested over the clashes and are being investigated.
Eyewitnesses said the military had imposed a local curfew starting after Friday afternoon prayers.
Coptic Christians account for about 10 percent of Egypt's population and have been repeatedly targeted by Muslim extremists


Friday, July 1, 2011

WELS and the NIV 2011

Patterson, Mohler endorse resolution critical of NIV ’11
Posted on Jun 29, 2011 | by Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Two prominent Southern Baptist leaders have endorsed a resolution passed by convention messengers that calls the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible an “inaccurate translation” the SBC cannot recommend.

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say messengers were right to pass the resolution and take a stand against what the language calls “gender neutral methods of translation.” Mohler, though, did say he regrets the resolution addresses LifeWay stores so directly.

The controversy over a newer version of the NIV dates back to 2002 when messengers passed a resolution criticizing the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) Bible, which also employed a gender-neutral philosophy of translation for pronouns. After receiving criticism from James Dobson, Southern Baptist leaders and other evangelical leaders, the TNIV never gained widespread usage and finally was discontinued.

At issue in both cases are pronouns for humanity, not pronouns for God.

The NIV 2011 is an updated translation to both the TNIV and the NIV 1984. It maintains 75 percent of the gender-neutral changes found in the TNIV, according to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a Louisville, Ky.-based group that supports a complementarian position on manhood and womanhood. CBMW did acknowledge that the NIV 2011 had “numerous commendable improvements” from the NIV 1984 but that the newest translation still had problems from CBMW’s perspective. The NIV 2011, CBMW contends, changes the meaning of the text in numerous verses, and by changing singular pronouns to plural pronouns, “removes the emphasis on an individual, personal relationship with God and on specific individual responsibility for one’s choices and actions.”

The NIV’s popularity — it’s the bestselling Bible translation — is a driving force behind the controversy. Zondervan, the North American publisher, is discontinuing the NIV 1984 and replacing it with the NIV 2011.

The fact that the resolution on the NIV 2011 was debated at all at the SBC annual meeting was somewhat of a surprise, because the Resolutions Committee, the body charged to recommend resolutions to the convention, had declined it. Instead, messenger Tim Overton asked from the floor that his resolution — previously submitted to the committee as required — be brought forward, and messengers voted to consider it by the required margin of at least 2-to-1. After a brief debate, it passed overwhelmingly by a show of ballots, receiving opposition from only a few dozen messengers out of the 4,800 who were registered.

CBMW’s lengthy NIV 2011 evaluation, released in May, helped give the resolution momentum.

“The adoption of a resolution on the NIV offered from the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention has three major points of significance,” Patterson told Baptist Press in a statement. “First, it demonstrates anew that a grass-roots response on the part of Southern Baptists is still a unique feature of the DNA of the Convention, something that we must never loose. Second, the adoption of this resolution demonstrates the continuing concern that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists have for gender-neutral translations of the Scripture and the questionable advertising techniques of the NIV marketing program. In fact, Southern Baptists will continue to reject all agenda-driven translations of Holy Scripture.

“Third,” Patterson continued, “this action from the floor of the Convention should send a message to all Southern Baptist Convention institutions and agencies that we are expected to pursue our ministries out of conviction rather than out of concern for profitability.”

Focus on the Family also has quietly taken a stance on the NIV 2011. Its website lists a series of Bibles it recommends, specifically stating the “New International Version 1984 Edition” as an acceptable translation. An asterisk guides readers to the bottom of the list, where it says, “For a preliminary analysis of the NIV 2011 Edition, see the CBMW’s review.” The link takes readers to a November article where CBMW said it “cannot commend” the updated translation.

Mohler said he thought the Resolutions Committee and messengers were both right.

“The Committee on Resolutions had good reason for deciding that this was not the most timely opportunity to bring a resolution on the NIV,” Mohler told Baptist Press. “I would not second guess the Resolutions Committee, and I certainly know their conviction on these issues. But once that resolution was brought to the floor, Southern Baptists simply had to support it, and support it overwhelmingly, on the basis of the fact that what it said was patently true and did reflect the established concerns of Southern Baptists.”

The resolution, Mohler said, reflected his concerns “related to the gender issue and specifically related to the linkage between a verbal plenary understanding of inspiration and the importance of an accurate and formal translation.”

The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration holds that all the words of Scripture are God’s words and that all Scripture is authoritative.

Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation — which translated the NIV 2011 — previously told Baptist Press there was no agenda in the translation process other than to render a Bible into more contemporary language. The committee did, he said, make significant changes following the controversy over the TNIV.

“Our gender decisions were made on the basis of very careful and significant research … and the decisions we’ve made about gender have no motivation of not offending people,” he told Baptist Press, explaining that the committee used the Collins Bank of English, a database of 4.4 billion words showing how people are speaking and writing. “The motivation, rather, is to communicate clearly to people what we think arguably is contemporary English,” Moo said.

He added, “Where, in our view, the original text is intending to be inclusive then we feel our job as translators is to figure out what is the best way to make that inclusive point in modern English.

“Where the original text is exclusive, on the other hand, then our task as translators is to choose the appropriate contemporary exclusive English construction that conveys the meaning of the original. That is not to say that all of the decisions are easy ones. There are a lot of texts which are very tough to make that decision about. Of course, we struggle with those, and good scholars can come to different opinions on some of them.”

An example of the NIV 2011′s gender-neutral language is John 14:23, which reads, “Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” The NIV 1984 read, “Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Changing “him” to “them,” CBMW says, removes the emphasis on an individual, personal relationship with Christ. Another example is 1 Samuel 18:2, which the 2011 NIV rendered, “From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family.” The 1984 NIV translated it ” … let him return home to his father’s house” — a translation CBMW said emphasizes the role of fathers in Israelite society.

Still another verse of concern for CBMW is 1 Timothy 2:12, a passage dealing with church roles. The controversy actually does not pertain to pronouns. The NIV 2011 rendered it, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” The NIV 1984 translated it “have authority.” No other major modern English translation translates it as “assume.” The verse, CBMW said, takes sides in the debate over female pastors. “As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV,” CBMW said, “the debate over women’s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, ‘I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders,’”

Said Mohler, “It’s very healthy that the convention sends a very clear signal that we take the issue of faithfulness in Bible translation and accuracy in Bible translation to be of utmost, nonnegotiable importance.”

Overton, pastor of Halteman Village Baptist Church in Muncie, Ind., said “Southern Baptists have a long and proud history of speaking biblical truth to important issues.” Overton used the 2002 resolution as the basis for writing the 2011 resolution.

“Biblica [the worldwide publisher] and Zondervan made serious errors when they chose to insert a gender-neutral philosophy of translation into the 2011 New International Version,” Overton told BP. “This flawed translation undermines verbal plenary inspiration, which is a core belief of Southern Baptists. Every single word in Scripture, including pronouns, is inspired by God. When the bestselling NIV Bible disregards the smallest ‘jot or tittle’ of Scripture, Southern Baptists have an obligation to make a firm stand upon God’s inerrant Holy Bible.”

Among the resolution’s highlights, it says the NIV 2011 erases “gender-specific details which appear in the original language” and “has gone beyond acceptable translation standards.” It cites CBMW’s 75 percent statistic and says messengers “cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.”

It also says messengers “respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores.”

“It has been a part of established SBC tradition not to address the convention’s entities by means of resolution, and this is a good policy,” Mohler said. “I do regret that this resolution addresses LifeWay so directly. This puts LifeWay in an almost impossible position. The very significant complications now handed to LifeWay include the fact that the NIV is not the only English Bible to involve many of the same translation issues. The resolution rightly addresses many translation concerns, but the NIV is hardly alone with respect to those issues. Furthermore, removing a specific Bible translation is no simple matter.”

As an example, Mohler cited B&H’s popular New American Commentary series, which is based on the NIV translation.

“This is true across the board for many evangelical commentary series, and for a host of devotional works as well,” Mohler said.

LifeWay released a statement after the resolution passed, stating, “LifeWay Christian Resources has received the resolution. Our first step is to involve our board of trustees since they are the representative body Southern Baptists have elected to oversee our work.”

Other gender-neutral translations are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. To read Baptist Press’ overview story of the NIV controversy, which includes quotes from Douglas Moo, who chaired the committee that translated it, visit

Read CBMW’s evaluation of the NIV 2011:

Read the Committee on Bible Translators’ statement on the translation philosophy: