Demolishing the idea that 'there's no such thing as an ex gay'

"NPR should have tried to find individuals that were not 'ex-gay for pay.' Truth Wins Out always challenges journalists to find such people and they come up empty handed," he wrote on his group's website. "This speaks to the fact that there is no genuine 'ex-gay' movement, just a high-dollar, politically motivated marketing campaign to create the appearance that such people exist in large numbers." Wayne Besen, Link

That ex gays abound is an undeniable fact. I would only agree with the idea that there are no 'ex gays' if it is meant in the context that nobody is actually 'cured' of alcoholism. A condition as such still might require active participation on the part of the recovering alcoholic to avoid ruining their life through alcohol. Likewise, homosexuality can be viewed as a problem that is quite complex for the person dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction that can be attributed to a wide variety of factors. However, if Mr Besen or anyone else would like to know if there really are people who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind and are glad they did so, perhaps they might want to speak with such courageous people as...

ex homosexual Michael Glatze

ex homosexual Joe Dallas

former lesbian Jeanette Howard

former lesbian Luanna Hansberger

former lesbian Sandra Aslesen

former homosexual Stephen Bennett

former lesbian Linda Jernigan"

former lesbian Christine Sneeringer

former lesbian Charlene E. Cothran

ex homosexual Phillip Tucker

ex homosexual Nathanael Flock

ex homosexual Richard Weller

ex homosexual Tim Wilkins

former lesbian Melissa Fryear

former lesbian Melinda Selmys

former lesbian Jackie Clune

former lesbian Linda Wall

former lesbian Abigail Meadows

former lesbian Cindy Hinsch

ex homosexual James Hartline

former lesbian Janet Jenkins

former lesbian Teresa Britton

ex homosexual Greg Quinlan

former lesbian Shereka Ford

former lesbian Janet Boynes

former transexual Walt Heyer

former homosexual Stephen Black

former lesbian Yvette Schneider

former lesbian Kristin (Johnson) Tremba

former homosexual James Wimbush

former lesbian Melanie Spinks

former homosexual Deacon Remnant

former homosexual DL Foster

former homosexual Matt Moore

Former homosexual Christopher Doyle

former homosexual Mike Davidson

former lesbian Akila Brayboy

Former homosexual Robert Breaud

And on and on the list goes. These names were accumulated with just a perfunctory seach, could you imagine if one sat down and really analyzed the issue for a considerable length of time? I hope we can finally rid ourselves, once and for all, of the idea that there 'are no ex gays' and diminish the amount of hateful bigotry leveled against former homosexuals who are brave enough to speak the truth. The above list should provide a starting point for anyone truly interested in finding some that actually exist.

Iowa: Romney 25% Paul 22% Santorum 16%‏

This has GOT to be the best news of this young campaign season. It's music to my ears!

"In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since

Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.

According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.

Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.

"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland."

Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Romney and even Gingrich and Paul have had their moment in the sun and surged in the polls, if even briefly, why not Santorum?If youre a conservative and you have a long checklist of conservatives you want in a candidate, Santorum would have alot of checkmarks next to his name. I don't think for one moment that there is a 'perfect' candidate, you can always find something wrong with someone's record. But Santorum has been consistently conservative on a variety of issues.

".. a lot of folks who are very concerned that between Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and myself, that we're going to split the conservative vote and someone like a Gingrich or a Romney or now even a Paul could end up winning the Iowa caucuses, and we could be left with someone who's not particularly conservative as the standard bearer of the party.

And there were a lot of conversations. Several people called me and said, would you consider maybe getting out and supporting someone else? And we're going to call the others and do the same.

My response to that is let the people of Iowa vote. This race isn't going to be over
after one caucus. This is a long process.

Let the people decide who the best person to carry the conservative banner is. I believe that they are going to select me, and I feel very confident about that. But you know what? If it's somebody else, that's fine." Rick Santorum, 12/21/11 Link

Despite evidence, Left still enamored with Alger Hiss

Mark Judge has a wonderful article that provides yet another perspective into the mindless lemming mindset of the fringe Left. Despite overwhelming evidence, Leftists still consider Alger Hiss (above) to be some sort of martyr for the liberal cause, unjustly prosecuted by mean, old conservatives. Besides Hiss, Whittaker Chambers exposed alot of subversives...

"But here's the thing: the people Chambers named were, in fact, guilty.

They include Henry Collins, employed at National Recovery Administration and later the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA); Lee Pressman, assistant general counsel of the AAA. John Abt, chief of Litigation for the AAA from 1933 to 1935, assistant general counsel of the Works Progress Administration in 1935, chief counsel on Senator Robert La Follette, Jr.'s from 1936 to 1937, council to the Communist Party USA, and special assistant to the United States Attorney General, 1937 and 1938; Charles Kramer, employed at the Department of Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Nathan Witt, employed at the AAA and the NLRB. George Silverman, employed at the Railroad Retirement Board; Marion Bachrach, sister of John Abt; John Herrmann, who introduced Chambers to Hiss and was an author assistant to Harold Ware (who ran the communist cell in Washington) employed at the AAA; Nathaniel Weyl, Donald Hiss, and Victor Perlo of the War Production Board and later the Departments of Commerce and Treasury.

Either by their own admission or released records, all of these people were revealed to be communists acting against America."

I doubt that history will correct itself in this matter. As to why they cling to an alternate version of reality, I think the last line of Judge's artiicle sums it up nicely for thise who really believed that the Soviets were on to something back then. "To the left, Hiss still represents the Future. It's a faith that, to the Godless, won't ever die."

The Catch-22 of Radical Feminist Pro-Aborts

To witness the contortions in which pro-aborts would have to stretch the imagination and twist truth on this topic would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious....

"U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona, has filed a bill that would accomplish those ends. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would criminalize sex-selection abortion in the United States, subjecting physicians who perform such abortions to fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Organizations that perform sex-selection abortions would forfeit federal funding under the proposal. Women who seek the abortions would be exempt from prosecution.

The sad irony is that the same technological advances that have bolstered the pro-life cause -- ultrasound images -- have promulgated sex-selection abortion. Parents may now more easily determine the gender of their unborn child, and opt for an abortion accordingly...

Yet leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have blitzed Franks' bill, calling it an attempt to circumvent access to abortion. "This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That argument carries weight with the far-left spectrum of the pro-choice cause, but it won't fly with the general American public that decidedly supports restrictions on abortion. The logic isn't even coherent: How is ensuring that more females are born discriminate against women? On the flipside, how does aiding the termination of unborn females help women's liberation?"

I really don't see how they can squirm their way out of this one. We already know that such practices are carried out in highly secular Scandinavia and also in Vietnam. I wonder what made femi-nazis think for one moment that the cause that they so screechily and ardently support would not eventually amount to political hari-kari for thier own membership?

(Above: Baby development at 9 weeks)

Gay Activist Supports Supervisor Demoted Over Pro-Traditional Marriage Remarks

Gay activist Peter Tatchell has spoken out in support of a fellow Brit Adrian Smith who was demoted by his employer for remarks he made on his private Facebook page...

"Smith’s Facebook comment went on to state that he felt civil unions were a state issue but that those unions excluded Christian marriage.

"The bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same-sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience,” he wrote on Facebook.

Tatchell will testify on Smith’s behalf because he feels that Smith has done nothing wrong.

“He expressed an opinion. He did not personally discriminate against anyone. There is no evidence that he has treated any of his gay housing clients adversely,” Tatchell wrote...

However, despite Tatchell’s strong backing for Smith, other members of the LGTB community have strongly supported the harsh punishment.

Tatchell disagrees: “If a gay employee was treated this harshly by a Christian organization for writing pro-gay comments on their personal Facebook page, there would quite rightly be an outcry and accusations of homophobia. Why, then, are some lesbian and gay people supporting such a harsh penalty for Adrian Smith?”

I would like to thank Mr. Tatchell for being a voice of clarity and reason in this blatant attempt at free-speech bigotry by Smith's employer. Some of the most deluded people in the entire universe are those who actually believe that by advocating/supporting gay marriage, they are somehow 'standing up against discrimination of a repressed minority'. Nothing could be further from the truth and such mindless, robot lemmings are only aligning themselves with a certain segment of the gay population that actually wants gay marriage when opinions on the topic within the gay community are hardly monolithic. ( Click here and here for examples.)

"Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some cheese — without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are fine things in themselves — you just can’t make an omelet out of them." Link

Will Rick Santorum turn out to be this primary season's Mike Huckabee?

Tony Lee informs us of some of the latest developments affecting Santorum's campaign in the Hawkeye state in the day's leading up to their caucus to be held on January 3rd...

"The Family Leader, an influential social conservative organization in Iowa that has a lot of sway with Iowa's key Evangelical voting bloc, decided not to endorse a candidate today. Two of its most prominent leaders though, CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Policy Director Chuck Hurley, endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum​, citing Santorum as the candidate who has most prominently linked the strength of the nation's economy to strong families.

Vander Plaats and Hurley both referred to Santorum as the potential "Mike Huckabee​" of the Iowa caucus. Huckabee, who won Iowa's caucus in 2008, often, as Santorum has done, spoke constantly about how strong families and strong economies are interrelated.

"I saw him as a champion for the family on the campaign trail," Vander Plaats said. "He always brought the issues of the day back to the family."

Vander Plaats also said that he called Santorum after his third place finish in the Ames Straw Poll this summer to tell him to stay in the race because his voice was needed.

"I've never seen a caucus like this," Vander Plaats said. "People are going from one candidate to another in a ten minute period, figuring out where to land."..

“I believe Rick Santorum comes from us, not to us,” Vander Plaats said. “He’s one of us.”

A strong showing by Santorum in Iowa would certainly make things more interesting for those of us tiring of Romney/Gingrich talking points. Why not Santorum? Bachmann, Romney, Cain and Gingrich have all seen their stars rise, if only for a little while, in popularity polls and I wouldn't be suprised if Santorum gets his shot at the limelight being that there are still alot of people who haven't made up their minds yet or if they have, they're not too committed in their choices. I would definately consider voting for a Bachmann-Santorum presidency, irregardless of which name is at the top of the ticket. Link

Anglican Fever! Catch it!

This article caught me by suprise and if its accurate, then perhaps we will be witnessing a growing phenomenon within the Christian church...

"For decades young people have flocked to seeker-friendly churches that feature culturally relevant services and a casual environment.

Now, a new denomination that emphasizes tradition and centuries-old sacraments and practices is drawing them in.

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) officially began in 2009 with hundreds of congregations that severed ties with the Episcopal Church...

While the congregants are casually dressed, the service has a more formal, liturgical feel and the students that CBN News spoke with say that's exactly what they like.

"I love the emphasis on Scripture. I love that we read four long passages every Sunday so you really ingest a lot of scripture each Sunday," said Andie Roeder, who studies at Moody Bible Institute.

"And I love the way it's interactive so there's a call and a response and you get to pray back and forth," she said...

Archbishop Robert Duncan dubbed the movement "Anglican fever" in an address to the Lausanne Congress last year.

CBN News spoke with Anglican leaders who are witnessing college communities springing up, from Florida to Massachusetts and beyond.

A possible reason for the growth is the authenticity. Many congregations in the new denomination gave up buildings and property in order to break from the Episcopal Church and its increasingly liberal theology.

One of the worst cases happened in Binghamton, N.Y., where the Episcopal Church evicted the Good Shepherd congregation and then sold its property to a mosque.

Rector Matt Kennedy found out about the new owner while he was driving by the old property and saw a crane taking down the steeple.

"It was very sad," he said. "Because it is a place where generation after generation the gospel had been preached."

"People have come to know Jesus Christ, people have been brought from darkness into light and now it has been sold to a group that promotes the darkness," Kennedy added."

I have often thought that such qualities as a definative direction, a rich tradition and strong sense of liturgy are what young people are craving in their spiritual lives. It's easy to offer up a type of folksy worship in which there is great emphasis on accessibility of the pastor and a down to earth image is contrived. However, I am of the opinion that people, and especially young people desire structure in their worship and they like knowing that there is a sense of permanency in their style of worship that goes back with a wonderful tradition stretching back for centuries in their praise of God and fellowship with other Christians.

More on the passing of Hitchens..

The recent death of writer and atheist Christopher Hitchins is spawning a number of great articles for consumption in atheist/theist debate circles. Author Cal Thomas (above) who is more often a political correspondent, weighs in on atheism and it's shoddy belief system...

" C.S. Lewis, once an atheist and thus conversant with the subject, wrote after his conversion, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is. The late singer Peggy Lee put the result of such faith this way: "Is that all there is? If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose. If survival of the fittest is the rule, let only the fit survive.

That was the sentiment of Ebenezer Scrooge before his visitation by those three spirits and his subsequent transformation. Let the poor and starving die, he said, "... and decrease the surplus population." Who is to say such a notion is wrong without a standard by which to judge wrong.

To object to God is to create morality from a Gallup Poll. In Gallup We Trust doesn't have the same authority."

The Southwestern Journal of Theology is now coming out with a series of essays, the intention of which "offers pastoral and intellectual advice for combating the new atheism" put forward by such writers as the dearly departed Mr. Hitchens, Dr. Richard Dawkins and others. Dr. William Dembski is one of the contributors to the essays and provides us with the following...

"The more virulent atheists might better be called 'anti-theists,'" writes Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern. "They not only deny that God exists but also hate Him. Yet whence this hatred of a nonexistent entity? 'There is no God and I hate Him' seems a strange position to take."

More common than the "anti-theist" is the "Christian atheist," who admits that God exists but lives as if He does not. Whatever the form of atheism at hand, Dembski notes, the "challenge in confronting atheism is ... to bring those who deny God to repentance and faith, thereby closing the moral gap between them and God. In the end such moral transformation will always be the work of the Holy Spirit, ... (but) every act of divine grace presupposes the means of grace by which God makes that grace real to us."

Perhaps Mr. Hitchens is looking down with great amusement and favor over all of the discussion and robust debate that his passing initiated. Hopefully some of the more intellectually honest atheists out there will listen to the arguments advanced by theists and come to accept such a position in spite of Hitchens' protestations to the contrary.

Could Christopher Hitchins be in Heaven?

Could arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens be in Heaven? His Anglican brother, Peter Hitchens recently wrote that "he no longer held hope to convert his brother, whom he described as having "bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful.""

Russell D. Moore raises an interesting point in today's edition of Baptist Press concerning the potential for where the deraly departed Mr. Hitchens is possibly spending eternity...

"..I'm not sure Christopher Hitchens is in hell right now. It's not because I believe there's a "second chance" after death for salvation (I don't). It's not because I don't believe in hell or in God's judgment (I do). It's because of a sermon I heard years ago that haunts me to this day, reminding me of the sometimes surprising persistence of the Gospel.

Fifteen or so years ago, I heard an old Welsh pastor preach on Jesus' encounter with the thieves on the cross. The preacher paused to speculate about whether the penitent thief might have had any God-fearing friends or family members. If so, he said, they probably would never have known about the terrorist's final act, his appeal to Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). They never would have heard Jesus pronounce, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

These believing family members and friends would have assumed, all their lives, that this robber was in hell, especially dying as he did under the visible judgment of God (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). They would have been shocked to meet this man in the Kingdom of God. "We thought you were in hell," they might have said, as they danced around him in the heavenly places.

That sermon changed everything for me about the way I preach funerals for unbelievers. Now, death bed conversions are very rare. Typically, a conscience is so seared by then, so given over to the darkening of the mind, that the Gospel rarely is heard. We shouldn't count on last-second repentance.

But, however rarely, it does happen, and who knows? Perhaps you have relatives who, in the last seconds of breath, breathed out a silent prayer of repentance and faith. You might be as surprised as the thief's believing cohort."

Christopher Hitchens certainly was an interesting fellow. I'm sure that the former adjunct professor had some time to contemplate his fate in his final days. I hope for his sake all of the bombastic diatribes he launched against Christianity were mere bluster to sell books and that he examined his heart with a clear mind during his final days. Either way, he now knows the truth and may God rest his soul.

Virginia says Nein! to Gay Adoption uber alles

Its only fitting on a day that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) makes note that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (above) would be 'very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine', that a Virginia State Board of Social Services would stand up to the bullying tactics commonly utilized by the Gay Left.

"The Virginia State Board of Social Services voted against proposed regulations Wednesday that would force faith-based adoption and foster agencies to act against their religious beliefs and provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.

The decision angered homosexual activists who submitted 2,500 comments in April supporting the regulations. The vote also encouraged officials who believe faith-based adoption groups should have the religious liberty to follow their convictions.

In a 5 to 1 vote, the Social Services board decided not to add extended discrimination protections to final regulations set to begin May 2012. The extended protection would have banned selective service based on “sexual orientation, gender, age, religion and political beliefs disability and family status.”

Wednesday's vote was the second time the board rejected the extended discrimination clause. It was first voted down in April by the same margin.

Currently, Virginia law does not allow unmarried couples to adopt nor does it recognize gay marriage. As a result, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli advised the board in an April memo that it “lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language.”"

Hurrah! for speaking up for decency and common sense. Apparently the agitators activists' tactic to make them Vote 'Till They Get It Right was ineffective in this case.

Poor Gov. Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin is another case though. It seems that the effort to recall him as governor after the backlash he experienced while battling public workers unions is going on full tilt. Recall petitions would be considered valid even if they are signed by 'Adolph Hitler' or 'Mickey Mouse' so long as they are properly dated and have an Wisconsin address.

EDIT: In his latest entry titled Who hates Rick Santorum?, Molotov Mitchell smacks down the behavior of one of, if not THE biggest gay bullies on the planet, Dan Savage. Its definately worth watching. Link

Will Anomalocaris eyesight prove to be daunting for Darwinists?

If an important component of Darwinian theory is that "the highly complex species of today gradually evolved from earlier, simpler organisms" then Anomalocaris is an anomaly of the highest order (see video animation here). A recent article points out how highly complex the eyes of Anomalocaris and anything comparable is seldom seen in nature to this day...

"Bizarrely, the eyes of Anomalocaris were positioned on stalks on the side of the animal's head. The popular science media are abuzz about a recent discovery -- published in Nature and based on fossils found on Kangaroo Island, South Australia -- that Anomalocaris possessed compound eyes similar to those that modern insects and arthropods have today. The only difference is that Anomalocaris had even more lenses per eye (according to the Paterson et al. Nature article, as many as 16,000 hexagonal lenses per eye) than most of those modern groups do. These remarkable eyes (which presumably would have required a reasonably advanced brain) would have afforded the creature very sharp vision..."

The above article goes on to quote a New Scientist article which states...

"Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this," says Paterson. Houseflies, for instance, have a mere 3000 lenses. The only comparable species are some predatory dragonflies that have up to 28,000 lenses in each eye."

I'm sure that the leadership within the Cult of the Dead Scientist is already scrambling to reassure their adherents concerning this latest problem this poses for their preferred fairy-tale beliefs. Perhaps something along the lines of finally junking Natural Selection in favor of Biased Mutation or Genetic Drift will keep the congregation happy and sufficiently obfuscate the matter for the time being. And if all else fails, they always have Genetic Flow that they can appeal to. How convenient.

The Next Tim Tebow?

While Tim Tebow Mania currently grips both the sports world and pop culture, it is duely noted that Tebow is the son of Baptist missionaries who wears his faith on his sleeve. Less talked about in the past week is that this year's suprise winner of the Heisman Trophy, Robert Griffin III, hailed from a historically Baptist university (Baylor). Jim Denison informs us on the background of this up and coming, superstar Christian athlete...

"This year Griffin led Baylor to upset TCU, Oklahoma, and Texas on the way to a 9-3 record, their best in a quarter-century. He has set 46 records during his college career. He recently won the Davey O'Brien Award, given to the nation's top quarterback, and now he is the first Baylor player to win the Heisman.

Griffin earned his bachelor's degree in three years, finishing with a 3.67 GPA in political science. He will finish a master's degree in communications next spring, and plans to attend law school. He is also expected to be a top-10 pick in next year's NFL draft.

Robert Griffin is known on the Baylor campus for his faith as well as his football skills. He attends University Baptist Church, where my oldest son attended worship while a student at Baylor and Truett Seminary. God has entrusted him with a unique combination of outstanding intellect, NFL-quality ability, and world-class speed. And he has been an excellent steward of his gifts."

Hopefully this is a trend in sports where faith and character are upheld as virtues to be admired by fans young and old alike rather than the tired, old bad-boy image so often times offered up in it's place. Getting back to Tebow, one media personality had this to say recently about Tebow's affect on the opposing teams he faces...

"..a little while after the Denver Broncos beat the Miami Dolphins in Miami. One of the linebackers for the Dolphins is a guy named Karlos Dansby, who used to play for the Arizona Cardinals, and according to Karlos Dansby, what happened when the Broncos played the Dolphins in week seven was this. Dansby said that the Dolphins saw God working through Tebow and, in the process, Dansby became closer to God himself.

Karlos Dansby, linebacker for the Miami Dolphins, said, "Us losing to Tim Tebow the way we did, we seen it first hand. Young man is blessed. Young man has a special anointing on him. And for God to show himself in that game the way He did, through the guy He did it through, it opened a lot of guys' eyes on our team. And it brought a lot of guys closer to God, so like I said, everything happens for a reason. ... My hat goes off to Tim. And God working through him like that, it opened up a lot of eyes. He’s a blessed young man and I wish him much success the rest of his career." Karlos Dansby. He said that on the Jim Rome Show." Rush Limbaugh, 12/12/11

Parker: 'When Santa Claus Decked the Arian Heresy'

James Parker III has a brilliant article regarding the original St Nick that provides some background information on one of the important saints of the early Christian church. I'll provide a brief segment here to get your attention...

"One of the most interesting stories connected with him was his role during the Arian controversy. St. Methodius asserted that "thanks to the teaching of St. Nicholas the metropolis of Myra alone was untouched by the filth of the Arian heresy, which it firmly rejected as death-dealing poison." (Arius, of course, asserted that Jesus was a created being and had not existed from all eternity.)

One weak tradition has him actually attending the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Arian doctrine was rejected. The story goes that he got into a heated debate with Arius himself about whether there was a time when the Word (Jesus) did not exist. Nicholas strongly disagreed.

The debate ended suddenly when Nicholas punched Arius then and there on the floor of the council. This gives new meaning to the ditty: "He's making a list and checking it twice, he's going to find out who's naughty or nice."

The mental image of Santa Claus punching Arius on the floor of the Council of Nicea with Emperor Constantine looking on fundamentally changes the way one ever sees Santa Claus again. While I might not agree with his methods, I certainly admire his passion for Christological orthodoxy and doctrinal purity."

I'll take this tough, old saint over the corporatized, sissified version of Santa currently on offer any day.

Is Hitch Ready to Flip?

Mark Judge posits that it's possible that arch-atheist Christopher Hitchins is close to accepting faith in God. Judge cites a Vanity Fair article in which Hitchins seems to reject 'a popular aphorism attributed to Nietzsche: “Whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” '...

"After enduring chemotherapy and radiation treatments that made swallowing unbearable and left his entire body a rash, Hitchens rejects Nietzsche’s slogan. “In the brute physical world,” Hitchens writes, “and the one encompassed by medicine, there are all too many things that could kill you, don’t kill you, and then leave you considerably weaker.” Hitchens speculates that some maladies are so devastating that it may be better to have not lived, while acknowledging that sometimes we push through the pain and reach the other side glad that we hadn’t given up...


Perhaps Hitchens’s admission that Nietzsche might have been wrong, even about something small, will lead him to a healthy curiosity about Christianity. Up until now, Hitchens has had nothing but bile for Christianity and all religion — including the religion of Marxism, which Hitchens, a former leftist, eventually admitted could not survive “the onslaught of reality.” But Hitchens’s attacks on religion were always propelled by the kind of fury that one usually finds in zealots and former believers; it’s always the ex-Catholics (Maureen Dowd, etc.) who are the hardest on the Church."

Time will tell if Judge's theory proves correct. The whole article is a great assessment of Hitchins and his writings. I personally think that Hitchins is too well vested in his own, pet beliefs to turn any time soon. But who knows? I hope that Time is a luxury in which Hitchins has in abundance in order to weigh his own flawed theories and beliefs against solid logic and reason and believe.

A day with Dr. Gary Cass

Blanche Ely High School was the scene of an effective Flash-Mob For The Truth about Islam yesterday as supporters of the organization DefendStudents.org flocked upon the area, distributing flyers to the high school teens as they were leaving school for the day. I had the honor of participating in yesterday's events and it was a blast. Our group, led by Dr. Gary Cass, was made up of about 15 people from various entities including churches and Tea Party affiliates around Broward county that are quite concerned with the creep of radical Islam.

We staged beforehand at at a local church where Dr. Cass shared pointers with us as to how to most effectively carry out such a campaign for truth given that Dr. Cass has performed such outreaches various times in the San Diego area. The whole event went off without a hitch. Members of local law enforcement community stopped by and, although they seemed a bit bewildered in that they probably never encountered Americans exercising there 1st Amendment right to free speech in such a way, were polite and let the distribution of flyers go on unabated. The students and parents were overall quite receptive in that very few flyers were seen discarded on the ground. In order to see a copy of a similar flyer that was distributed just click here. Among the many points raised by the flyer that you can be almost certain is never discussed in any of the student's social studies classes are the following...

• Iran's former 'Supreme Leader', the Ayatollah Khomeini had sex with a 4 year old girl.







• Khomeini in doing so was only following in the footsteps of the prophet Mohammed who had the audacity to engage in such outright perversion as marrying his 6 year old niece.







• Mohammed referred to blacks as "raisin heads" (Hadith, vol. 1:662, vol. 9:256)







• 
  
  Muslims continue to enslave people to this day.

One would be hard pressed to find a more hate-filled, intolerant group of people on planet earth than the Gay Left, however radical Muslims take the cake on that distinction using a number of different metrics such as beheadings, honor killings and suicide bombings. The approach utilized by Dr. Cass involves targeting the young minds around the areas of the most radical mosques in America order to present opposing viewpoints to the whitewashed image of the World's Most Dysfunctional Religion so commonly crammed down our collective throats by a compliant and milquetoast media. The tide has only begun to turn people, and the good guys are winning.


EDIT: The above photo is a stock photo and not from yesterday's event. I have added Dr. Cass' DefendChristians.org website to my blogroll on the right if anyone is interested in more information on the group.

12 Nurses stand up to Obama

Cathy Ruse reports that one hospital in New Jersey is getting more flak than they bargained for when they decided to compel healthcare workers to participate in abortion procedures, "their personal religious or moral objections" be damned...

"Under a new hospital policy, nurses in the “same-day surgery unit” at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey must participate in elective abortion cases even against their personal religious or moral objections. If ever there was a violation of conscience rights, this is it.

Myriad federal laws exist to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals, denoting their right not to have to “assist in the performance” of abortions or, indeed, to perform any religiously or morally objectionable procedure. The laws prevent the federal government, and state and local governments receiving federal funds, and even federally funded health entities, from discriminating against nurses or other providers who object to performing or assisting in the performance of abortion.

Yet the hospital is fighting back, asserting that as long as it does not compel their “direct” involvement in an abortion, the policy is beyond legal reproach.

It is easy to imagine a spirited debate over where the line should be drawn: If the nurses do not wield the instruments that actually kill the child, are they really participating? What if they hand them to someone else? What about sterilizing them? What if they are required to do prep work, such as assisting with anesthesia, or post-op and cleanup?"

The article mentions that the nursing field is considered more of a calling or vocation than a job. I cannot understand why the hospital is so inclined to trample on people's personal beliefs. That Obama is an extremist supporter of abortion, even to the point of infanticide, is beyond a doubt, and for what? A few measly votes from the farthest Left fringe? To say that this administration supports personal freedom is a joke.

Cal Thomas asks, 'What's so bad about adultery?'

Cal Thomas examines the importance of fidelity as it relates to society in his most recent article....

"What is marriage? Is it something for the convenience of the U.S. Post Office for orderly mail delivery, or is there a Higher Authority behind it?

For most people, marriage is a sacrament with "rules" firmly established by God and when followed these rules benefit married couples, their children and society.

Among the main requirements of marriage is fidelity. "Forsaking all others" is the phrase contained in the Christian marriage vow. Divorce has become widely accepted (though not to the Author of marriage) as a sometimes "necessary evil," but adultery remains for most people what it has always been: a betrayal.

It's not just a religious concept. Ask a person who is married but does not believe in God how he or she would feel about a cheating spouse and you most likely would get the same response you would receive from one who does believe in a higher power: anger and profound disappointment."

I think we can all agree with Thomas's assessment. Monogamous marriage is the very bedrock upon which our society is based upon, no matter how others may try to redefine it. Thomas goes on in the article to relate the problem society has with adultery as it relates to the current primary campaign for president...

"Once, divorce was a political "kiss of death." Now we are debating whether adultery should carry a similar penalty. One shudders to think what might be next.

Ultimately, what voters must decide is this: Does a presidential candidate's personal flaws rise (or fall) to a level that inhibits his ability to do the job of president?

Put another way, if you are about to have surgery, do you care if the doctor is a cad, or do you care more whether most of his patients are alive and well?

With the multiple challenges Americans face and with the choices presented to us, if the country is to be made well, voters may just have to sacrifice the ideal for the pragmatic."

While some may criticize Newt Gingrich's personal life, we now know that the 'He Served His Dying Wife With Divorce Papers on Her Hospital Bed' rumor to be completely false, albeit difficult to shake for Gingrich. Americans that had no problem voting for someone who lowered the bar when it came to their personal life like Bill Clinton may soon have to ask themselves if they would vote for a Republican whose personal life is less than pristine and see if the same standard of 'who cares what he did in his personal life' still applies.

Can I Get My Science With a Side of Agnosticism?‏

Scientist Daniel B. Botkin reflects on the growing number of assertions of certitude amongst certain scientists and the science fetishists as to what their god can do...

"I was one of many scientists on several panels in the 1970s who reviewed the results from the Viking Landers on Mars, the ones that were supposed to conduct experiments that would help determine whether there was or wasn't life on that planet. I don't remember anybody on those panels talking in terms of absolute certainty. Instead, the discussions were about what the evidence did and did not suggest, and what might be disprovable from them and from future landers.

I was also one of a small number of scientists—mainly ecologists, climatologists and meteorologists—who in the 1970s became concerned about the possibility of a human-induced global warming, based on then-new measurements. It seemed to be an important scientific problem, both as part of the beginning of a new science of global ecology and as a potentially major practical problem that nations would have to deal with. It did not seem to be something that should or would rise above standard science and become something that one had to choose sides in. But that's what has happened...

It is helpful to go back to the work of the Wright brothers, whose invention of a true heavier-than-air flying machine was one kind of precursor to the Mars Landers. They basically invented aeronautical science and engineering, developed methods to test their hypotheses, and carefully worked their way through a combination of theory and experimentation. The plane that flew at Kill Devil Hill, a North Carolina dune, did not come out of true believers or absolute assertions, but out of good science and technological development.

Let us hope that discussions about global warming can be more like the debates between those two brothers than between those who absolutely, completely agree with Paul Krugman and those who absolutely, completely disagree with him. How about a little agnosticism in our scientific assertions—and even, as with Richard Feynman, a little sense of humor so that we can laugh at our errors and move on? We should all remember that Feynman also said, "If you think that science is certain—well that's just an error on your part."

A good starting point in dialogues between strict materialists and theists would be the recognition that scientists work with unproven assumptions and to deny that flies in the face of reality.

Donohue: Secularism becoming 'militant'

In a recent interview, Catholic League President Bill Donohue summed up what he believes to be the current state of affairs concerning relations between the Christians and secularists....

"“Secularism has become militant,” ... “Many elites are taking an aggressive secular approach. They have lined up against the Catholic Church and other Christian churches particularly for their stand on moral values.”


Donohue pointed to New York where gay ‘marriage’ was passed without debate or exemptions for clerks who objected to having to grant such licenses. He also noted the closing of Catholic adoption and foster care agencies since they were unable to comply with laws forcing homosexual adoptions.


“The real big one,” he added, “is the [Health and Human Services] of the Obama Administration.” The forcing of abortifacient and contraceptive coverage in private health care plans under penalty of fines was described by the Catholic League President as the Obama Administration “on a full court press to shove its values down the throats of the Catholic Church.”"

In the same article, Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and now the head of the Vatican’s highest court stated "“it is a war” and “critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law.” Should they not, he warned, “secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.”.

Yet further proof that the Christian tolerance that fostered free speech in this country is turned on it's head and used as a wapon against the very institution from which it sprang forth from. In order to support this assertion of mine concerning the origination of freedoms we enjoy here in America, I will quote a transcript from historian Dr. Charles Hull Wolfe...

"As a result of their initial obedience, the Israelites became a free people-the first free people in history. As Moses said, they were to "proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" (Lev. 25:10)...In God's good time, through Jesus Christ, God not only fulfilled the Old Covenant but confirmed and universaized the Law, and showed men how to obey it better-by receiving Him as their Lord and King . Even more, Christ showed men how to be free-by being governed by Him from within, instead of being tyrannized by men from without! In turn, St. Paul, who knew that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" took the gospel and the principals of the Mosiac Covenant Westwardagain from Israel across the Mediterranean to Greece and to Rome.


Soon other believers took it Westward once more-to England and then to Ireland. In the Year 432 A.D., Patrick-using a Latin document known as "Liber Ex Lege Moisi" i.e. Book of the Law of Moses, in cooperation with the irish leaders whom he had converted, made the Ten Commandments the foundation on which Britons would base their civil law. In 890, King Alfred-the only monarch the english ever called "the Great"- made the Mosaic decalogue and Jesus' Golden Rule the basis of the code of the law for England and the foundation of British freedom.


in 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton, drawing on Britian's heritage of Bibl-based law, framed the Magna Cartra. A forerunner of the U.S. Constitution, it asserted the God-given rights of the English people and the Christian Church and is remembered today for its contribution to freedom under law."

For those truly interested in this subject, a more in-depth explanation is available by clicking here.

Pro-Life=Good War, Traditional Marriage Support=Bad War?

David French writes.....

"I’ve seen this reality on college campuses. Speak to conservative college students and you’ll generally find enthusiastic pro-life support and deep ambivalence about — if not outright hostility to — preserving traditional marriage. Younger conservatives want to talk about life. They don’t want to talk about sexuality. In the larger culture, support for life is growing, with the percentage of Americans identifying as pro-life now in rough parity (and sometimes exceeding) the percentage of Americans calling themselves pro-choice. And while there’s no question that the media has long exaggerated public support for same-sex marriage (marriage amendments keep winning in state after state), there’s also no question that general polling trends are decidedly negative."

I do believe that free speech bigots are doing a masterful job at cutting off public debate on the matter by utilizing the Big Lie approach when describing their opponents. So much so that in the linked article by French, there is a quote from Tim Dalrymple who states...

"As an editor and director for a large religion website now, I can tell you: It’s substantially easier to find Christians and evangelicals to write on the abortion issue than it is to find ones who will write on same-sex marriage. Academics in particular are terrified that anything critical of homosexuality or same-sex marriage will come up before hiring or tenure committees. One of the first subjects we addressed in our “Public Square” at Patheos was the same-sex marriage debate, and nearly every person I approached to write on the topic had to ask himself or herself: “Am I willing to give up the next job, the next promotion, the next award, because of my views on this topic?”"

French raises an interesting point towards the end of his article in which he weighs the influence of over a decade of 'no-fault divorce' has had over the traditional idea of marriage as being a covenant rather than a contract. Perhaps he is right when he says that we should begin with restoring marriage to it's rightful covenant status rather than merely a piece of paper. It's becoming more and more clear every day that the demonization of gay marriage opponents is drowning out the arguments that highlight the negative effects that gay marriage will eventually have. Based on what is happening in the arena of public debate on abortion, then perhaps, as French says, " courage, persistence, and truth can turn the tide."

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God' Part II: Dispatches from an intellectually-dicey atheist

And the winner of the 1st Annual Caias Ward Award for Intellectual Dishonesty is..... Justin Vacula! Congratulations pal! (Caias, you were 1st runner-up and Tricia Woodcock wound up in 3rd place) Place your Caias high upon your mantle of accomplishments my friend. You earned it.

It seems that Justin can write an entire entry on the so-called hiddenness of God but when asked.....

"So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against [people's] will ". I don't wish to define your position for you here, but would you argue for or against this idea? "[?]

Yes or no, for or against, pretty please, with sugar on top. We already agree on the definition of coercion. If by 'sky-god' you seek further clarification, then let's say that I'm talking about the God of the Holy Bible."

What clenched this victory for Justin over Caias was when Justin poured it on at the end and blocked me from 2 different sites from asking him a direct question pertaining specifically to something he wrote. Even though Caias had to be asked a simple, one-sentence question requiring a yes/no response 6X before answering it, Caias only sought to be my the intellectual bitch by taking the easy way out and blocking me rather than answering a straight-forward question on one site. Kudos to you both though. I'm in awe of your respective intellects.

Me personally? I would have conceded the point had I been in Justin's position. He had several options of which none of them, I imagine, must have seemed particularly savory to Mr. Vacula. Concede the point, deny the obvious that it would fit the textbook definition of 'coercion', come up with an imaginative new definition of the word 'coercion', or argue in favor of coercion. Justin, I fully realize that you dedicated a lot of text to explaining your position, but none of it related specifically to the direct question I posed to you and I do not feel that I should have to defend arguments I did not raise or points I did not make. What are you going to do in the highly unlikely event that you ever debate someone the likes of a William Lane Craig? Block him? Ignore the question? 'Tis to laugh. That the intellectually-dodgy atheist slithers back to his echo chamber where he can preach to the closed-minded choir and not have to answer hard questions concerning his position is only par for the course in these types of discussions.

EDIT: GCT posits the following (albeit with no corraborating evidence) Quote "He (Justin) has answered it, multiple times, in multiple wordings."

I'll tell you what. If anyone can show where Justin answered my question in any of the evasive, non-pertinent responses he provided, I will take back every word of this entry. Please note that this offer is conditional upon Justin having actually answered the specific question I posed to him. For instance, Justin could have responded to the above question by changing the topic and asking me how we would discern such a manifestation as being from God or from alien technology and I could have answer him by saying 'Blue'. Although it can be considered a answer, it does not answer the specific question posed to me in this example. Good Luck!

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God': Dispatches from a clueless skeptic

Justin Vacula recently posited yet another, unique nail in the coffin pearl of wisdom to bolster his atheistic worldview, an argument concerning the so-called 'Hiddennes of God". Such arguments are nothing new and basically boil down to, 'if God exists, then why can't He manifest Himself in a manner that I can see him?'. Theists can argue that if one studies the fine-tuning of the universe to allow for life on this planet or if one were to examine the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance, that the fingerprints of a Creator God are all over His creation. And yet, if I open my window in the morning and look outside, I don't actually see God Himself. In fact, there are no widespread claims that anybody is seeing God.



One big reason put forward by philosophers for God not manifesting Himself (assuming for a moment that He exists) is that God unmistakeably and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do. That is to say, that such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail.



One thing Mr. Vacula cannot deny is that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. That's not just me saying that as a general obeservation but, a cursory search would indicate, it's also what Newcastle University, UCLA and sciencemag.org are saying. I doubt that Mr. Vacula can deny that.



While involved in an online discussion recently, a certain clueless skeptic (MS) offered up the following 'questions' on this subject that I will attempt to answer....


1)Does not the bible 'record' such instances of God as visible, audible, etc? eg. Moses, the early Israelites? Were the Israelites coerced into accepting the covenant? Perhaps, and under yo...ur view, definitely.

The Isrealites were freed from captivity by the Egyptians and God made a covenant with them. God did lay down ground rules (laws). However, this is not like the topic of Justin's entry in that Justin is wondering why "-- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven."

However in looking at your question, it seems to me that the only alternatives would be that God's laws are revealed by someone other than God or that they are not revealed at all. That's a case you would have to make to convince me that either is preferable and the reasons you would think that is so.

As to when God actually WAS audible to the Israelites, exactly how did that work out?



2) Does not the threat of eternal hellfire amount to a coercion of worst order?

I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions. It is explicitly stated that there are consequences for not obeying God's laws. A truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgement and by then, it's too late. I doubt that you would argue that not knowing would be the better option here. There are two points I would like to bring up at this moment.

1) The temporal eminence of the threat. I think we could both agree that if we were to be held up at gunpoint by a robber and our wallets demanded of us, we would perceive such a threat as quite eminent and thus we would be coerced do something against our will like give our money to a stranger. However, if the robber said something to the effect like, "I have a blowdart in my hand and if you are shot with it, there is no antidote and you will die in 50 years", then we would assess things differently than if the threat were much more immediate as in the first example in which a firearm is used.

But, let's say that I concede that the threat of Hell alone, in and of itself, would still take away any free will in this matter, we would still have to examine another factor concerning the threat.

2) The epistemic eminence of the threat. What I mean by that is people do things everyday that can get them killed, but yet they do them anyway. For this reason, we see advertising campaigns urging people to "Buckle Up!" their seatbelts when getting in to automobiles and to quit smoking. It's not that people who smoke or don't use their seatbelts don't believe that they can die because these things, it's that somehow, if these things are shouted out from the radio/movie screen/computer screen/tv screen loud enough and especially, often enough, they can send a powerful enough message that can potentially alter behavior.

I would assert that if God were to "unequivocally reveal himself", make Himself known and constantly repeat the eminence of a threat, then THAT would be 'coercion of worst order'. Either you are Justin are free to tell me why this would not be the case.


3) Am I coerced into being in a relationship with other persons just because they are visible, audible, and present to my senses?

No. I assume that you are in relationships with people (assuming that you are), because you want to be.

This is ludicrous. If God expects a relationship, it is only natural that he would disclose his existence in an unmistakable way


I think you are either ignorant of, or forgetting the fact that such a revelation as described by Justin is not the only way we receive revelation from God. If either of you are willing to accept that personal revelation is a possible option, it would go a long way towards actually having a meaningful discussion here.



4)What's wrong with some general sense of 'psychological pressure' -- i.e. the pressure brought about by being compelled to acknowledge the existence of something

I think you were quoting me here. What I actually asked Justin was 'So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will "[?] which is a textbook definition of the word 'coercion'.

Rather than actually answering this question directly, Justin (I'm sure you were just going to mention MS) simply changed the subject, a point we will examine in our next blog post.

Leftist Intolerance of Freedom of Religion

"If you look at the history from the mid-1960s, we've gone from a request for toleration to an imposition of intolerance. We've gone from a quest to understand others to a determination to close down those who hold traditional values." Newt Gingrich (above)

Timothy P. Carney's article from today highlights how the secularist Left is steadfastly against religious freedom. No matter how much they bandy about such terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', the end result shows that it is quite Orwellian for them to do so....

"Social liberals claim they promote tolerance, preventing oppressive Christian conservatives from "imposing their morality" on everyone. But the state of the culture war in America today is almost exactly the opposite: The secular Left is using the might of government to make it harder for religious people to live their own lives according to their faith.

Nancy Pelosi, who regularly and loudly declares herself a faithful Catholic, last week belittled Catholic hospitals: "They have this conscience thing," she sneered about the hospitals that want to be free not to abort unborn babies. How ironic that Pelosi and like-minded liberals call themselves "pro-choice."...

Obamacare gives us the latest case study. The bill gave the secretary of Health & Human Services unprecedented power to regulate insurance plans, while also forcing individuals and employers to buy health insurance. Department Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule outlawing any new insurance plan that doesn't fully cover the cost of all contraception, including "morning-after" pills that can also cause abortions.

The rule included a conscience exemption for "religious employers," but it defined "religious" so narrowly that it applies to virtually no one. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that "not even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would qualify as 'religious'" because they served and preached to non-Christians.

Belmont Abbey College is a Catholic college in North Carolina that was founded by Benedictine monks. In all likelihood, the "religious employer" exemption won't protect Belmont Abbey, and the school will be forced to buy contraceptives for its students, in violation of the Church's teaching.

College President Bill Thierfelder wrote in a memo, "As a college, we find our center in Jesus Christ. Not only in our teaching, but also in our actions. Our policies must mirror our beliefs -- we simply cannot do what we believe is morally wrong."

He added, "We are not imposing our beliefs upon anyone else. We respect the constitutional right of all faiths to freely exercise their religion. We simply want that constitutional right given to us as well."

I wish Belmont Abbey College all the best in their fight against anti-Christian bigotry. I would suggest to them that if they wished the blessings of the Obama administration while in holding on to religious values, then perhaps they should support Sharia as this seems to be the cause celebre when this administration mulls over who the winners and losers are going to be when it comes to support in matters of faith.

The Unmitigated Disaster That Would Have Been Henry Agard Wallace

Fresh off of last night's viewing of Captain America (Note: We rated it 'Very Good', but not quite 'Great') I approach today with a renewed interest in 1940's geopolitics. Today's article by David Stokes reminds us of how thankful we should be that Franklin Roosevelt left Henry A. Wallace (above, left) off of the ticket when he ran for his last term of president and instead replaced him with Harry S. Truman. Some facts raised by Stokes in his article to buttress his main point are..

• "...if Franklin Roosevelt hadn’t dumped Mr. Wallace from the ticket in favor of Harry S. Truman that year, the post-World War Two world would have been significantly influenced by a pro-Communist lackey for the Soviet Union, who once suggested that “if we could practice eugenics on people. We could turn out a beautiful golden race.”
  
  
  


• "Henry Wallace was the highest-ranking nut ever to serve the Republic. He was known to think not only out of the box, but also far from reality. Consider some of the strange and embarrassing letters he wrote to a self-styled Russian mystic named Nicholas Constantin Roerich, things like:
  
  “My Dear Guru: The search, whether it be for the lost world of Masonry or the Holy Chalice or the potentialities or the age to come is the one supremely worthwhile in objective. All else is Karmic duty. Here is life.”
  
  Translation? No clue—but that’s the point, the guy was clueless.
  
  


• "Quite frankly, everything we know about Henry A. Wallace from the 1948 campaign suggests that U.S. foreign policy would have been one surrender after another to Soviet European hegemony. In fact, in 1946 and while serving as Secretary of Commerce under Truman, Wallace advocated cooperation with the Soviets in spite of overwhelming evidence that the Communists had every intention of dominating Eastern Europe. This was in a speech delivered at Madison Square Garden in New York. Truman fired Wallace shortly thereafter."

The article by Stokes is an interesting read for those interested in American history. It focuses on a man scarcely remembered and whose name sits practically undisturbed upon the ashbin of history, and yet he was, quite frighteningly, a mere heartbeat away from being sworn in as leader of the free world.