Why Jereniah Wright is Wrong

Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama’s pastor) spoke in response to a theological question related to Islam. Mr. Wright used a Scripture passage so poorly that Dr. Randall Price felt the need to give a response. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Why Wright is Wrong

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright yesterday addressed the National Press Club seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. That fifteen minutes, of course, lasted more than an hour and will continue for several days as his banter is broadcast and debated on the network news and various talk shows.

Revising history, skewing theology, and demythologizing Christianity as he spoke, his most egregious moments followed his speech in his responses to prepared Press Club questions. While most of his comments have been reviewed and rebutted by figures in the national media, one of his scintillating statements has received no further mention. The question and answer that has been so ostracized went as follows:

Question: Reverend Wright, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father, but through me. In light of that statement, what do you think of the religion of Islam?

Reverend Wright: Jesus also said, other sheep have I that are not of this fold.

Now, it is understandable why the secular media would not want to comment on such a question and response. There is no politically correct way to handle the commentary, since it would expose the usually carefully guarded or censored belief system of those in the public eye, except the carefully-crafted-to-be-palatable faith of political figures released at election time. Whether one addresses the question or the answer, criticizes or upholds it, this exposé is certain.

From an interpretation that is literal, that takes the meaning of words at their face value, these words of Jesus taken from John chapter 14 can be understood by everyone. In the context of this verse (verses 1-5) Jesus and His disciples are having a discussion about His return to heaven and Jesus promise to come again and take them there (to the Fathers house). When asked by one disciple how this would be possible, Jesus explains (verse 6) that He is the way (to God) because He is the truth (of God), and the life (God gives eternally) is found in Him. Therefore, the only means of access to heaven (the Fathers house) is through a relationship with Him. Whether or not they personally believed it, whoever posed this question at the Press Club understood this literal meaning.

Now, we come to the Reverend Wright’s interpretation. His bravado, bolstered by his fan base in the audience, he felt he could say no wrong. Assuming the mantle of Christ in His replies to the Pharisees, he answered them with Scripture, smiled the smile of the over-confident, and thought he had won the day. But the Reverend Wright could not have been more wrong.

Jesus’ statement about other sheep not of this fold in the context of John 10 from which the verse is taken, is made in view of His having come as the promised Shepherd of the sheep (Ezekiel 34:11-23). In this Old Testament context, the Jewish people are addressed as My flock. Jesus Himself explained to non-Jews that in His initial mission, He had been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

When He speaks of other sheep in John 10, His reference, therefore, must be to non-Jews, that is, to Gentiles, for the Bible recognizes no other distinction (compare Romans 1:16). Jesus mission ultimately included the good news of salvation through Him as Savior to those formerly outside of the Nation of Israel, as Paul says in Romans 1:5: we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His names sake

So, how did the Reverend Wright make this text include Islam, and in particular the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan whom he has honored? In his inclusivistic theology, which admits all but white racists and U.S. terrorists (government and military), he has room for any in all religions that are oppressed. Most white Christians (and probably black ones as well) do not understand his brand of Black Liberation Theology through whose lens the Bible is seen as a manual of wresting deserved freedoms from the despots of the world, but especially the white world. In his religion God is to be defined by the experience of the individual, and therefore the god of the oppressed is not the same as that of the oppressor.

In reality, however, when native Africans were being transported in slave ships, the God recognized by the slavers was most-likely understood in terms of the Bible while the god of the slaves was most-likely understood in terms of their tribal folk religion, what the Bible calls and condemns as idolatry. John Newton, once Captain of a slave ship, confessed that his actions in the slave trade was an offense to the God of the Bible and turned to Him for forgiveness, what he later called in his popular hymn, Amazing Grace. As a result, he was influential with William Wilberforce for having the slave trade abolished in England.

No doubt some vestige of Christianity still remained in Northern Africa at this time, even though the religion of Islam had invaded this once Christian part of the continent and all-but eradicated the God of the Bible from it. It is more likely; therefore, that Islam would have influenced the religion of the slaves. At any rate, the Reverend Wright would see salvation for all who are oppressed, regardless of their own oppression of other religions.

Reverend Wright has claimed to represent the black church in his present experience of being oppressed by the national, white-controlled, media. To be sure he does not represent their collective theology, which had its origin in the Bible, whose pages are black and white, not just black, and in the traditional values that resulted from the Biblical worldview that once informed our American culture.

Although Reverend Wright uses words like saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, these are now only symbolic expressions from those better days before Black Liberation Theology when they had real purpose and power, as they still do for most of the black church in America. The problem for Reverend Wright is that misunderstanding the plain promise of Jesus as the only way to God, he has missed the message that truly sets his and all other people free. And that is why Wright is wrong.

Dr. Price can be found at http://www.worldofthebible.com/

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?

Here is a little test that should help you decide.

The answer may be found by posing the following question:

You’re walking down a deserted street with your spouse and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do??

Think Carefully And Then Scroll Down:

Democrat’s Answer:

Well, that’s just not enough information to answer the question.

Does the man look poor or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my spouse think?

What do the kids think?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the gun have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he’d be content with killing just me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a Paint & Weed day, and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican’s Answer:

BANG!

Southerner’s Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click (Sound of reloading)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?”

Son: “Can I shoot the next one!”

Wife: “You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!

Condensed Version of History

For those who slept through World History 101…… here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:

1. The invention of beer, and

2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today’s lesson in world history…….

It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above, just ignore their ranting.

Have a Nice Day

Isn’t Self-Defense Common Sense?

One of my favorite magazines is Reason. Their articles are well researched and well written. Below is one I enjoyed recently.

Barack Obama’s Second Amendment is all about hunting and target shooting.

Under the Second Amendment, Barack Obama says, “There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.” The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination thus seems to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in a decision last March said “the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

But there is a crucial difference between these superficially similar formulations: The appeals court meant what it said, and Obama doesn’t. Although the Illinois senator has learned to pay lip service to the Second Amendment, the details of his past and present positions on gun control suggest he neither understands nor respects the right to keep and bear arms.

In last year’s ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a “common-sense regulation,” since he recently cited Washington’s law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution,” he said.

The D.C. gun law, passed in 1975, isn’t really about gangbangers, which it has not exactly disarmed, or random shootings on the street, which it has not noticeably curbed. In effect if not intent, it is about disarming law-abiding residents who might want to protect themselves from gangbangers and other violent criminals.

It’s not surprising that Obama sees nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. “As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms,” his website claims. “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting” (emphasis added).

This is the only substantive discussion of the Second Amendment on Obama’s website. It’s part of a document that lists “Protecting Gun Rights” as a subcategory of “Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen,” which is like listing “Protecting Freedom of Speech” as a subcategory of “Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Auctioneers.”

It’s true that hunting-at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans-was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms. But as the D.C. Circuit emphasized when it found Washington’s gun law unconstitutional, “the people’s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation,” which was “understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.

Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that “Obama has been consistent.” If so, consistent civil libertarians-the ones who do not mentally skip from the First Amendment to the Fourth-should be worried.

I strongly suggest that you check out Reason Magazine at http://reason.com/. Their articles are just superb!

Suffering From ED?

Barack Obama’s Slippery Oratory

I just read this article by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association. I thought is was right on target.

To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.

That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois who, on December 28, 2003 woke to find that during the night his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.

The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun Times:

“For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying … The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences …”

Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun-legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal.

DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar who then fled the home.

Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don’t suggest that some village trustee knows better …”

If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.”

The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar’s stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record.

Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun-a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar-by possessing a legally purchased handgun-”is endangering innocent civilians.”

Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false.

The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol. As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans. The House accepted the DeMar self-defense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.

And here lies the seminal moment for State Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment-the right of defense of self and family-the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.

When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense. Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.

Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator-now morphed by the media into a spellbinding U.S. Senator seeking to be President of the United States.

Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.”

Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home-now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama, who as President would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the D.C. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”-meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.

Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry. Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.”

Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.

Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the right to keep and bear arms; he’s out to destroy it.

http://www.nrapublications.org/SG/index.html

Fraudulent Polygamy Cult Tipster is a Barack Obama Delegate

Rozita Swinton, the woman implicated as the hoaxter who placed a fraudulent phone call which led to the roundup of hundreds of children from the Texas polygamy cult ranch, is a Barack Obama delegate to the Colorado State Democratic convention.

From the local party’s website:

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette:

After the El Paso County Democratic caucuses and convention, she was named one of the 360 delegates to the state convention at the World Arena on May 17, chosen to support Barack Obama.

She’s also reported as being politically active, but relatively unknown. Earlier reports said that when Texas Rangers and Colorado State Police searched her home, they found tons of information on the FLDS cult. Apparently, she made the whole story of poor “Sarah” the abused child-bride of a 50 year old man out of sensationalist reports that she had read from anti-cult groups.

Most of those in the comments still defending the raid seem to focus on the allegation that “girls as young as 13 are married and pregnant”. One of the FLDS lawyers I keep seeing on TV says that this is patently false, and the claim made by the State is not that there are “13 year olds” but a single allegation that one 13 year old was pregnant 10 years ago.

If that is true would it change your perception that there is some justification for tearing hundreds of kids away from their families based on a search warrant executed on false grounds?

Live Free or Die

Not Shooting Straight on Gun Rights

I would like to share with y’all a letter from Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms).

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race, not to see which one earns their party’s nomination for president, but evidently to see which one is the bigger liar and how fast they can run from the tales they spin.

Nowhere is this more obvious and transparent than in the candidates’ positions on gun control and the Second Amendment. On this subject, both Obama and Clinton would do well to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln who cautioned, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

But, of course, Lincoln was a Republican.

Clinton recently had trouble getting her story straight on a trek to Bosnia that occurred when she was first lady. She has since admitted that she “misspoke” about having to dodge sniper fire at the airfield. Obama claimed that he never saw a 1996 questionnaire revealing his extremist positions on gun control, insisting that it was filled out by an aide, but then it was revealed that his own handwriting was on that questionnaire.

Both have contended on the campaign trail that they “support the Second Amendment” and believe it protects an individual civil right, yet both suggest that this fundamental right ought to be regulated, perhaps to death.

Clinton has voted for every gun-control measure introduced in Congress since she took office and against legislation to prevent warrantless and arbitrary gun confiscations like those following Hurricane Katrina.

Obama – according to his questionnaire – supports banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, supports banning semiautomatic sport utility rifles and wants mandatory waiting periods, evidently forgetting what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said about “a right delayed is a right denied.”

Obama and Clinton contend that there should be “reasonable restrictions” on gun owners, without defining “reasonable.” We’ve gotten hints. Obama thinks the District of Columbia’s handgun ban – declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court and now being considered by the Supreme Court – is reasonable.

Neither senator would sign a Congressional amicus brief to the high court, as did scores of their colleagues, supporting an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Neither would sign a letter, as did 51 of their Senate colleagues, urging Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to change national-park regulations to allow licensed concealed carry on national park lands by legally armed private citizens concerned for their personal protection. Sen. Harry Reid blocked a Senate vote on a bill to legalize licensed concealed carry in national parks where dialing 9-1-1 doesn’t work, so both candidates could dodge voting on the issue.

So, Clinton and Obama believe in the individual citizens’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, they just don’t want individual citizens exercising that right.

When you purchase a firearm, you first must fill out a Form 4473 and go through a background check to determine whether you can legally own that gun. To lie on that form is a felony. Claiming certain things on that form in order to legally buy a gun on behalf of someone who can’t own a gun is a “straw purchase,” and that’s also a felony. When they prosecute you, one cannot simply claim to have “misspoken” and rush off to the hairdresser or a photo-op.

Clinton and Obama are on record taking consistent stands against the very civil right they now claim to support. Not only do they flunk the “background check” on gun rights, their rhetoric doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Yet here they are, trying to “straw purchase” the votes of gun owners. If we applied the same standard of truth to Obama and Clinton that they demand for gun owners, SWAT teams from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be kicking in their doors and carting them off to jail.

Texans Have Disgraced the Banner of Liberty

Below is an interesting post from Prairie Fire Journal.

The people of the state of Texas don’t deserve to live in a free country. They support a government that has trampled the Bill of Rights under the heel of jackbooted DPS thugs. As it becomes increasingly clear that the rights of several hundred Americans were sacrificed at the alter of tyranny over a hoax phone call, you should know that your actions and behavior of the past two weeks will come back to haunt you, your children, and your grandchildren for generations to come. You might as well take the Constitution out of the National Archives and put a match to it.

The great revolutionary patriots who sacrificed their lives in the name of liberty are rolling in their graves. The flags should be lowered to half-mast because a great tragedy has befallen our nation. The sacred ground where so many Americans spilled their blood for the cause of freedom has been spit upon and defiled. It is, indeed, a dark day of mourning for mother liberty.

Tyranny has prevailed.

If you would like to see more of his posts, click here.