S.C. Governor Mark Sanford: Another Phony Using God To Get Elected

June 30, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who has been having an affair with an Argentinean woman, was “found out” on June 18. After lying to his staff and family, he left his four sons and jetted off to see his mistress on Father’s Day weekend, leading reporters to wonder about his whereabouts. After saying he needed some time alone to write, he was said to be on “the Appalachian trail” – then after being discovered by a reporter in an Atlanta airport, having just got off of a plane from Argentina, Sanford claimed he needed a bigger adventure so he left the country.

Lie after lie finally caught up with him until he embarrassingly admitted in a press conference that he had been having an affair for some time; that his wife knew about it; and that he was trying to figure things out. In the twenty minute press conference, Sanford didn’t seem to have enough sense to shut up. He rambled on about how God forgave him; and he rambled on about his mistress. Later, emails between the governor and his mistress surfaced in which Sanford blathered on like a junior high boy about how “in love” he was with her. Having met in 2001 when Sanford began counseling her about staying with her husband (yeah right); they eventually became attracted to each other…then magically fell in bed….several times. Until they finally got caught and had to pay the piper. Here are some thoughts I have on this bizarre incident….

First, Sanford should resign….IMMEDIATLY. He has no business serving the people of South Carolina. His mental state is that of a lovesick adolescent. His family is in shambles. And no one trusts him. The only thing keeping him in office right now is an ego that won’t let him back out of the spotlight. Though he whined and cried during his press conference, he seemed to relish the attention. This is typical of politicians who never met a camera they didn’t like.

Sanford is just another in a long line of phonies who will say whatever they have to say in public to get elected…even while they’re doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. These cretins know that to get elected they have to belong to a certain religion (in South Carolina its Christianity), they have to have a certain kind of wife, a certain amount of kids, a certain kind of education, a certain type of hair style, etc., etc…..you get the point. Like cleverly crafted robots they do and become whatever they must to gain power. Sometimes they’re wife is in on the plan (Sanford’s wife was his campaign manager)….sometimes they’re not. Case in point…has anyone ever thought that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage was anything other than a political partnership? It seems perhaps the Sanfords are the Republican version of the Clintons. They seem to have both wanted power….but Mark was too juvenile to hold on to it.

If Sanford were any part of a man he would break this affair off, resign, and try to somehow salvage his marriage. He would move somewhere away from the limelight, find a job flipping hamburgers, get an apartment, and attempt to save his family. He won’t do that…but he should. He sort of claims the affair was not really his fault because he “had to listen to his heart.” This is pure poppycock of the lowest order. Sanford blathers on like a smitten teenager who can’t control his emotions. A man his age ought to know better. Let’s be honest, his “heart” was not the part of his anatomy that was controlling his decision making. Even after getting caught he described his mistress as a “dear, dear friend.” He has said that “at the end of the day” his fling is not a tawdry affair but rather a “love story.”  He calls his mistress his “soul mate” whom he tragically can’t have.  This lovesick fool is so detached from reality that I’m not sure he knows what planet he lives on, much less what state he’s governor of.  I’ve never heard anyone in my life over the age of 17 carry on the way he is.  His wife has said he tried to get the two of them to meet, but she refused. What kind of a moron is he? Did he actually think his wife was going to become friends with her? Did he think once his wife met her she would understand why he wanted to have sex with her so bad? I’m floored at what a complete imbecile Sanford appears to be. If that’s what “listening to his heart” led him to do, then he obviously needs a heart transplant…and maybe a brain transplant too. What a complete idiot! But I digress…

Another bothersome comment Sanford made in his ridiculous press conference was that “I’ve been a person of faith all of my life.” I think this statement gets right to the crux of the problem. There are two things wrong with that sentence.

First of all, he uses the generic spiritual phrase “person of faith.” I for one, despise this phrase which is frequently used by pantywaist “Christians” who don’t want to offend those of other “faiths.” Sanford claims, at least officially to be a Christian. Well guess what….Jesus didn’t call us to be “people of faith” he called us to be committed followers of Jesus Christ. Anytime I hear someone use the “person of faith” line, I’m immediately suspicious. Why are they too embarrassed to claim a particular faith? Why are they ducking the name “Christ?” I fear that Sanford spoke the truth. That he is a “person of faith” (which can mean anything), as opposed to being a genuine born again believer and follower of Christ. “People of faith” have affairs then immediately and unrepentantly declare themselves forgiven by God (or the Deity or whatever they call him [or her]). Christians are truly heartbroken over their sin. They repent. They try to make amends with people they’ve hurt. And they accept the consequences of their actions. They resign as Governor. They focus on Christ. They fix their mess. Unfortunately, Sanford is a “person of faith” so God only knows what he will do. He’s compared himself to King David, like all pious adulterers like to do. But David repented. David was broken hearted over what he had done. David was in anguish over sinning against God, not simply getting caught. Mark Sanford, don’t kid yourself….you’re no David.

Secondly, Sanford said he had been a person of faith “all of my life.” Again, this indicates that they’re has never been a time in his life in which he truly felt the conviction of God to the extent that he turned from his sin nature and submitted his life to Christ as Lord. As a good Southern boy, he was probably brought up in Sunday School, got baptized and has been a lifelong member of the church. He’s been a part of the “religious establishment” from day one, but that doesn’t make him a Christian.

Sometimes politicians realize that a Christian conversion experience will help them politically, especially in places like South Carolina, or Arkansas, so they’ll give a “testimony” of one…..and 99 times out of 100 it will magically involve Billy Graham. If all the politicians were really saved at Billy Graham crusades, who claim to be, Washington would look like a Seminary, rather than a brothel. Make no mistake, “you will know them by their fruits” and many of the loud mouthed, pious politicians in America bear rotten, smelly, embarrassing fruit.

Sanford’s situation is obviously disappointing. As was New York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s. As was Bill Clinton’s. As was Newt Gingrich’s. As was Rudolph Giuliani’s. As was……you get the point. Sadly, I think it’s pretty obvious that there are vast amounts of moral depravity on both sides of the political aisle. I am a conservative, Independent because I believe both parties are hypocritical and corrupt. The only difference is that some are liberal hypocrites while others are conservative hypocrites. The bottom line is power and money, and both sides will do whatever they have to do, and say whatever they have to say to gain as much money and power as they can….until they get caught. Like it or not that’s my opinion. Being a conservative I typically vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But many Republicans are just as slimly as Democrats, albeit with a different public face. There are exceptions to the rule and I have a handful of politicians that I think MIGHT be legit. But I’m not holding my breath. I see Barack Obama and the Democrats absolutely destroying and bankrupting our country, while the Republican leadership is flying to South America for sex. Sadly, that pretty much sums up America today.

In closing, I know some will criticize me for “kicking Sanford when he’s down” or say “who are you to judge” or whatever. I don’t judge Sanford. His actions have judged him. I simply point out what a decent man would do in his situation. And I point out his hypocrisy as a warning to everyone else, including myself. Every time I see one of these embarrassing press conferences, I remind myself that any man is capable of a moral failure. And I would encourage all people to put yourself in Sanford’s place and imagine what he’s going through….before you decide to have an affair. Sanford found himself caught up in a world of lies, then he found himself in a roomful of disappointed people looking to him for answers. His wife and he are separated. Undoubtedly his kids feel like they’re life is ruined. Though Sanford may be too dumb to see it…his career is over. His family is all but gone. His life will never be the same again. Was the fling worth it? If he and his mistress end up together, he’ll claim it was worth it….but he’s kidding himself….and he’ll never be truly happy. Unless he truly repents, he’ll always just be a shell of a man, who once governed a state while he himself was being governed by his hormones and his emotions.

Mark Sanford has done enough damage for one lifetime. He needs to resign and move off of the public screen, and ride off into the sunset as yet another example of a phony politician who doesn’t have the self-control, nor the maturity to handle the power he so desperately sought. His time in the spotlight needs to end. He needs to get on with his life. He needs to try and fix his life. And he needs to be out of our lives for good. That’s my opinion for what it’s worth….take it or leave it.

Posted in Politicians | Print | No Comments »

George Tiller’s Life Was the Greater Tragedy

June 3, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Today, I can’t help but think about the George Tiller tragedy.  But the tragedy I’m thinking of is not the same one many in the world are thinking of.  I don’t condone the killing of another person, in the way that Tiller was killed.  Anytime a man is shot in the face at church, it is a tragedy.  Even if the man is evil, and the church is a church in name only with no gospel being preached.  I feel bad for those who witnessed the scene.  I feel bad for Tiller’s family and friends.  And I feel bad for the thousands of good, God-fearing, law abiding pro-lifers who will be caricatured by the media and the political left because of this tragedy.  But George Tiller’s life involved a much greater tragedy than his ignominious death.  George Tiller’s entire life was a tragedy of Biblical proportion.

            Like Herod of old, Tiller was famous for killing babies.  I know that many will sweep that “elephant in the room” under the rug now that the killer has been killed.  I know that many will hold vigils and sing the praises of Tiller the humanitarian….but Tiller the Killer, must not be forgotten.  Nor the thousands of babies over the years who were murdered, mutilated, and incinerated in Tiller’s modern day death camp.

            Abortion is one of the greatest moral evils of our day.  In a physical sense, Tiller’s death bore an eerily similar resemblance to the numerous murders he himself committed over the years.  As most know, the abortion of a baby typically involves the removing of the brains by a suction device.  In other words the baby’s brains get sucked out, instead of blown out, but the result is the same.  Tiller performed this heinous act thousands of times over the years.  In fact, he was one of the few abortionists who would even do it on late term babies.  Fully grown, fully developed human beings – who had done nothing to deserve their slaughter.  Yet Tiller slaughtered him.

            Today the political left will sing Tiller’s praises and they’ll gush about how he helped “underprivileged women.”  They’ll ramble on about his bravery, and they’ll gloat about what a humanitarian he was.  This is nothing more than the clear and obvious evidence of how wickedly, twisted and depraved our society has become.  I know that most people don’t want to hear the truth about a man who was just killed…but George Tiller was a slime-ball of the lowest order.  He made his living by murdering innocent children for money.  Liberals can live in their warped dream world from now until doomsday, but the facts remain the same.  Tiller was evil.

            But Tiller shouldn’t have been killed.  Instead, Tiller’s butchery should have been outlawed years ago.  In fact, such savagery should have never been legalized in the first place.  Other options are available for women.  Other options besides killing their young.  Maybe some day the bleeding hearts of the left will stop talking about “standing up for the little guy” and actually have the nerve to do it with the littlest guys and girls our society produces.  The children in the womb, who can’t speak for themselves.

            I also have no doubt that the man who killed Tiller is a nutcase supreme.  He’s an isolated wacko, who will suddenly become the poster child for all who defend the life of the unborn.  I remember very well when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City building, and immediately every right wing gun owner in America was lambasted as a “Timothy McVeigh type”  as if all politically conservative gun owners just set around and dream of Federal buildings to blow up.  In truth the Tiller death seems like a perfect scenario for the Barack Obama administration which has already proven itself to be the greatest foes conservative Americans have ever had. 

            Homeland Defense Secretary Janet Napolitano recently released her “watch list” of potential terrorists that included “right wing pro-lifers” and “military veterans” – strangely absent from her list were left wing radical groups that have proven truly violent in pursing their agenda.  Obama is also no friend to gun owners, threatening to pursue action to severely limit our right to keep and bear arms.  The Tiller death seems to give Obama the perfect chance to move against both pro lifers and gun owners…and I suspect he will.  In fact I might even suggest that Obama set the whole thing up….kind of like Nero setting fire to Rome, then blaming the Christians…..of course if I suggest such a thing, Obama will promptly add my name to his watch list. So I digress.

            I’ll simply close by saying that Tiller’s death isn’t as big of a tragedy as Tiller’s deaths (plural).  The man was a butcher who got butchered.  I don’t condone Tiller’s murders…nor his own murder.  But thousands of innocent babies are a greater tragedy than one guilty and evil man.  It wasn’t the killer’s place to end Tiller’s life…just as it wasn’t Tiller’s place to end the babies’ lives.  But the surest way to assure that our citizens respect the life of adults…is to START RESPECTING THE LIVES OF THE CHILDREN…..THE BABIES….THE UNBORN!

            So maybe this death will move us one step closer to valuing all life, and abolishing the barbaric practice of abortion.  I seriously doubt that will happen, but I hope and pray that it will.

Posted in Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

Obama Appoints Unqualified Racist Sotomayor To Supreme Court

May 28, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice, based upon his desire to have someone with “empathy towards people’s struggles.” The problem is that judges aren’t supposed to decide cases based upon empathy. They’re supposed to decide cases based upon the rule of law. Empathetic judges sound well and good if they happen to empathize with your particular race or viewpoint. But what if they’re empathetic towards your enemies? What if they’re empathetic towards terrorists? Or child molesters? Or one particular race to the detriment of another race?

A judge’s decision must be based on the law, not empathy. Making decisions based on feelings will leave the people in a situation where they must observe whatever emotionally driven decision is reached on that particular day, all subject to the mood swings of the judge.  If Sotomayor and four of her colleagues are feeling especially “empathetic” towards Muslims on a particular day, then Christianity is ruled illegal.  If they feel especially “empathetic” towards deer, then hunting becomes illegal.  If they are particularly “empathetic” towards Al Gore, then aerosol cans become illegal.  You get the point.

Sotomayor has stated that her background as a poor, Latina woman makes her able to reach better conclusions than a white male. In a recent commentary, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg pointed out that Clarence Thomas knows better than any Supreme Court Justice what its like to be a poor minority. Therefore according to Obama and Sotomayor’s logic, he should make better decisions than anyone, right? Wrong. Thomas is a conservative; therefore his views are rejected out of hand. But Thomas wouldn’t even claim to be a conservative justice. He would simply say that he makes decisions based upon what the Constitution says. Which is exactly what a Justice is supposed to do, and what Sotomayor has promised not to do, and what Obama has stated he doesn’t want a justice to do.

Commentator Thomas Sowell recently wrote that if you were going to have open-heart surgery, you wouldn’t care about the background, race, or “empathy” of the doctor. You just want the most qualified person to cut on you. Likewise with the Supreme Court. A Justice’s background, race, personality, etc. isn’t the point. We need people who will judge based upon established law, rather than legislate from the bench. But in an address to Duke University, Sotomayor stated publicly that a judge’s role is to “make policy.” Of course she immediately covers her tracks saying that she knows she’s being taped and she shouldn’t say it…though she implies everyone knows it’s true. When listening to Sotomayor’s snide and arrogant comments about judges “making policy” you can also hear the nervous giggles of the Duke students in the background. Sotomayor was publicly stating what liberal judges do, even though the Constitution forbids them from doing it. She tipped her hand and should be voted down en masse. But it will never happen.

The United States Senate is largely made up of political glory hounds who care about nothing other than their own power, pocketbooks, and popularity. They will completely ignore what a Justice is actually supposed to do. They will completely ignore the fact that Sotomayor has vowed not to do it. And they will confirm her quickly because she is a Latina, woman who was appointed by an African-American man.

Of course if the truth were known, Obama only appointed Sotomayor because of her minority status to begin with. At least that coupled with her liberal worldview. Obama narrowed his list of potential Justices to four people….all women. Are we truly supposed to believe that there wasn’t one single man in all the Federal judiciary who was worthy of at least being considered for the Supreme Court? Not one?  Not even a man who is a minority?  Obama needed a women on the Court for political purposes…and if he could find a Hispanic women that would enable him to kiss up to that ever growing section of the electorate, then all the better.

Sotomayor and others like her are a danger to the rule of law in America. By usurping the legislative branch’s role to make laws, liberal justices frequently over rule the will of the people, based on nothing more than their personal preferences. In essence, liberal Justices serve as dictators, doling out decisions based upon their personal whims…or their “empathy” for a particular group or race. And their lack of “empathy” for another. This is racist and has no place in the courtrooms of America. Certainly not the highest court in the land.

If the Senate had any spine whatsoever, they would reject this nomination and any other Obama nomination that doesn’t promise to make decisions based solely upon the law of the land. “Empathetic” judges take the power out of the people’s hands and assume it for themselves. And they have no right under the law to do it.

When Justice John Roberts was being grilled by the Senate, he said that a judge’s job is not to made decisions based on personal preference. He said a judge was like a baseball umpire who was supposed to make judgments based on established law. Can you imagine a baseball umpire changing the rules in the middle of game and granting some hitters four strikes because he felt “empathy” towards them? If he did, the game would be a farce. But that’s exactly what liberal judges do, and they make our courtrooms a farce.

Sotomayor may be the most empathetic person on Earth. She may have an absolute heart of gold. She probably loves butterflies, rainbows, and flex-fuel vehicles. But that’s not the point. She has stated publicly that she will not do the job of a judge, as American Law and her oath of office, states she is supposed to. She won’t judge impartially; she will be “empathetic.”

We need more judges like Roberts and Thomas. Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with it. Serving as a Judge rather than a Dictator does. Sotomayor promises to be a Dictator. And I for one hope the Senate does what I know they will never do….and vote her down for her lack of judicial integrity. Today we are a nation of laws, but the more “Sotomayors” we have on the court, the closer we come to a totalitarian state where “empathetic judges” rule the lives of the people they’re supposed to be protecting.

Posted in Politicians, Political Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

Obama Says to Avoid Name-Calling in Abortion Debate, But I’ve Got a Few Names For Him

May 19, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

On Sunday, President Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame University…and was granted an honorary doctorate for his work of…….well, no one really knows any work he’s ever done other than getting elected President. But, nevertheless its always good publicity for your school to give the President a doctorate. Whatever. A bit of a firestorm was created in his invitation…and many Catholics protested, as they should have, because Obama is extremely pro-choice, while the official Catholic stance is pro-life. Some students even went so far as to skip their own graduation in protest of his being there. To miss your own graduation because of a principle deserves high praise indeed…at least in my opinion. They’ll still get their degree, but they made a point by their non-attendance that couldn’t have been made otherwise. They have my respect.

And while they missed out on getting recognition, they also missed out on the nausea of listening to Obama lecture the world on how both sides of the “abortion debate” need to emulate him by being “above name-calling.” He proceeded to tell the story of how his campaign website once stated that he supported a woman’s right to choose and would protect it against “right-wing ideologues” who seek to take it away. Obama shared how someone confronted him over the name calling and he had his website remove the phrase “right-wing ideologue.” Now…apparently…we’re all supposed to be so enamored with his grace that we mimic him…and refuse to use adjectives when describing those like him who defend the cause of slaughtering babies. Forgive me, if I choose not to take his counsel.

One of the biggest problems in America today is that we don’t use the correct “names” to call things what they are. “Marriage rights for all” is a sweet way of saying “government supported perversion.” “Redistribution of wealth” is a sweet way of saying “rob from the workers and give to the lazy.” And likewise “pro-choice” is a sweet way of defending a women’s right to let a doctor murder and mutilate her baby. Am I wrong to point out that abortion involves the murder of a child? Am I a “name-caller” like my President says I am? You’re darn right I’m a name caller…because things need to be called what they are.

Obama thinks he deserves a medal because he removed the phrase “right wing ideologue” from his web site, yet he’s also the same man who declared people like me to be “bitter” because I “cling to my guns and religion out of fear.” It might surprise the President to know that I don’t mind being called names. As the saying goes, “I’ve been called worse names by better people than him.” But I’m not the least bit offended if he chooses to call me a “right wing ideologue.” He can even call me a “right-wing, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, loud-mouthed, opinionated, furry-faced, four-eyed, Okie-Kansas, Calvinistic, religious-extremist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-liberal, pro-baby, pro-family, pro-liberty, state’s rights Constitutionalist, hillbilly, redneck with a bad case of acid reflux.”

None of those names offend me because they’re all true…at least in some people’s eyes. I am who I am, and I don’t mind people using names to describe me. But turn about is fair play. And as long as I have the freedom (though I won’t probably have it much longer)…I’ll continue to call things what they are….including our President. You know him don’t you? Mr. Obama…..the left-wing, radical, over-taxing, free-spending, baby-killing, freedom-hating, pompous, arrogant, self-worshiping, fascist who would rather kiss up to foreign leaders than support his own country. Who would rather spend more money than actually fix problems. And who….sadly….would rather defend the cause of left-wing, liberal feminists than he would defend the life of innocent, helpless babies who didn’t ask to be created, and sure didn’t ask to be killed.

Sorry Mr. President, but I cannot take your counsel…and as long as you continue to hold policies and defend practices that murder babies, I’ll continue to call you names that fit your crime. And maybe, someday, by the grace of God….if enough people will call “baby-killers”…. “baby-killers”…. then maybe someday “baby-killing” will no longer be an accepted law of the land. And we truly can move on to other problems that our nation needs to address. But until then, murdering children trumps everything else. And in my mind….it always will.

Posted in Politicians, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

Why I Listen to Michael Savage…Regardless of What Britain Thinks

May 6, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

On May 5, the British government’s Homeland Security director, Jacqui Smith released a list of sixteen people who are banned from entering their country because of their political views. The list includes murderers, racists, and various other criminals. But one notable name is conservative talk show host Michael Savage. His crime? Expressing conservative political views, such as a need for border security and opposition to gay marriage, that England thinks could cause “community unrest” if allowed to enter their nation. Savage never espouses violence, and in fact has been very critical of terrorists who use violent means to make their point. Clearly he is being singled out for committing the unpardonable sin of being conservative. His thoughts and opinions have caused him to be banned.

Today, the United Kingdom has proven beyond doubt that it has more in common with Soviet Russia and Communist China than it does any “free” nation. It is ironic how Liberals who claim to value “free speech” suddenly desire to suppress and even outlaw any “free speech” that is critical of their views. The same thing is happening in America where things like “Hate Crimes” legislation seeks to punish a criminal for what he might have been “thinking” when he committed a crime; and the “fairness doctrine” which seeks to silence conservative talk radio by requiring stations to also play liberals. So who would determine whether a commentator is conservative or liberal? Michael Savage criticizes both parties; so would he be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine?  Regardless, the government has no business dictating to radio stations what kind of political discourse they can and cannot air.  The British government is out of control, and America is right behind them.

Regardless of what Great Britain or the United States says, I’ll continue to listen to Michael Savage. Though I don’t agree with him on all issues, I enjoy his program…and I completely agree with his right to have and state his opinion as passionately as he wants to. Britain’s ban is ridiculous, and if I were planning a trip there I would cancel it…not that I have any desire to go there anyway. Keep reading, for more reasons why I am a regular listener to The Savage Nation, and why I think he trumps all other radio talk shows.

… … …

I confess. I love listening to Michael Savage on the radio. I know I’m not supposed to say that because most people see him as a homophobic, hate-mongering loud mouth that puts people down. But of all the commentators on the radio, he is hands down the most brutally honest concerning issues that many conservatives are too scared to touch.

I’ve listened to most of the conservative radio talk shows at one time or another, and to be honest, I seldom listen to any of them now except Michael Savage. While I agree with the political views of other conservatives, I can’t stomach much of their shtick. Sean Hannity, repeats the same worn out arguments over and over again. Regardless of the topic the caller brings, Hannity babbles on like a broken record. Bill O’Reilly is the most arrogant specimen I’ve ever tried to endure…and I AGREE with him on most issues. Quite frankly I’m glad he’s no longer on the radio because it wasn’t really his venue. He’s good at reading off of a teleprompter on his TV show, but not very good at thinking on his feet, as evidenced by the amount of “ummms” and “uhhhhs” on his radio show. I gave up on O’Reilly for two reasons. First, I heard Savage make an argument on his show one day for why Obama was doing something. Then, TWO DAYS LATER, I heard O’Reilly make the same argument and brag to his chick, lackey, co-host about how his brilliant shrewdness had analyzed the situation. I believe he stole the idea from Savage, then claimed it as his own. Secondly, I read O’Reilly’s book: A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity and was nauseated at how in love he is with himself. The basic premise of the book is that if everyone were as courageous, smart, outspoken, and all together as wonderful as him, then the world would be a better place. I’ll pass on O’Reilly.

Rush Limbaugh has been the king of conservative media for many years for a reason. His arguments are logical and articulated in a clear and entertaining fashion. But my complaint with him is that he is too reluctant to criticize the Republican Party. A group who I believe needs to be held accountable for its leftward slide. In contrast, Savage will call out anybody. Evidenced by the fact that he has been more critical of George W. Bush than any other conservative commentator because of Bush’s massive government spending, lenient immigration standards, and leftward policy lurches.

Savage is also the only person on the radio willing to tackle and speak out on problems in our society that are destructive and should be obvious to all. Homosexuality is not only sinful, it goes against nature. It destroys society by destroying marriage and destroying the family. But the “gay mafia” as Savage calls them, has brow beaten most Americans into submission, but not Savage. Though he lives and broadcasts from San Francisco (he calls it San Fran-Sicko), he regularly calls out the homosexual community for the fascists that they are as they try to silence anyone critical of their behavior and what it does to society at large.

Savage is one of the only cultural commentators who points out the fact that obnoxious children need to be disciplined rather than drugged with Ritalin. Savage points out that boys need to be taught to be young men, rather than feminized as our current education system seeks to do. Savage is an outspoken critic of global warming and is an outspoken advocate of increased oil drilling. But Savage is more than just an astute observer of American society, he is a student of history as well. Tune into The Savage Nation and you might here a history of the Muslim conquests, or an analysis of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and how it prolonged the Great Depression, or you might hear commentary on the similarities between Barack Obama and former Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, or an explanation of Fabian Socialism. With Savage you get accurate commentary on a variety of issues, argued logically, in an entertaining fashion. And sometimes, he loses his temper, which can be equally enjoyable to listen to for various reasons.

Our society has become inoculated against righteous indignation and assertive calls for justice. We are taught to speak sweetly and softly, while our nation is ruined by radical, anti-God, liberalism. Perhaps what we need is a little more outspoken and LOUDLY SPOKEN dissent against the dangerous absurdities of our society. Jesus turned over tables in the Jerusalem temple to protest the charlatans who had taken over his “Father’s house.” Americans likewise should speak out more loudly, clearly, and regularly about the evils that are taking over our country. Savage speaks out, unapologetically, and for this he should be commended.

Another thing I love about The Savage Nation is how he handles callers. I loose patience very quickly with “call in” shows that give the average Joe in the street air time to ramble on about his illogical opinions on every subject. Savage takes callers, and drops callers in mid-sentence if necessary, when they begin to drone on. Even when they’re agreeing with him. This I appreciate and enjoy. Furthermore, when he argues with a caller that disagrees with him, he points out the lack of logic in their arguments, and doesn’t allow them to change the subject when he’s proving them wrong. Again this is refreshing in our “nicey, sweetsy” world of talk radio where everyone’s opinion is considered equal, regardless of how asinine their opinion is.

I don’t agree with Savage on everything. At times he can be too harsh or resort to too much name calling. Sometimes when he quotes the Bible or talks about religion he comes to conclusions that I would disagree with. While he holds to a “Judeo-Christian” worldview, I don’t believe he would claim to be a “born again” Christian. But when I compare him to others in talk radio, he wins the day hands down.

When his show first comes on, he has a disclaimer that says: “The Michael Savage show contains adult language, adult content, and psychological nudity. Listener discretion is advised.” But don’t let that scare you. He rarely, if ever, uses profanity, (in fact last week he corrected himself in mid-word and said “heck” instead of “hell”) and the “adult content” is simply his criticism of things like homosexuality. As for the psychological nudity, that is simply him exposing his “psyche” or mind for all to see. Nothing perverse.

Regardless of whether he’s talking about huge topics like the end of western civilization…or telling funny stories about his dog Teddy. Regardless of whether he’s taking on the “gay mafia” or giving a recipe for meatballs. Regardless of whether he’s giving dietary advice (he has a Ph.D. in medical botany) or contrasting rap music with Beethoven…Savage is always honest, opinionated, entertaining, and accurate with his analysis. By listening to Savage you can learn a lot and laugh hard. You hear news stories that others aren’t willing to touch. And in our world of political spin, illogical argumentation, and liberal insanity, Michael Savage will give the brutally honest truth about the ills of our society…and he’ll do it in a way that stimulates the mind and often tickles the funny bone. THAT’S WHY, I listen to Michael Savage.

Posted in Current Events, Politicians, Political Issues | Print | No Comments »

The History of Conservatism & Liberalism in the American Republic

April 30, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

(NOTE:  This is somewhat lengthy paper I wrote on the history of Conservatism vs. Liberalism in America.  Read it if you wish.)

The History of Conservatism & Liberalism in the American Republic:  From Jefferson vs. Hamilton to the Political Right vs. Left

By Shane E. Kastler

In the summer of 1776, the American colonies were in turmoil. Outrageous taxes charged by the British government; a lack of representation, and a desire for freedom had captured the minds and hearts of many colonists. As representatives from the colonies gathered in Philadelphia to discuss a declaration of independence from Britain, many feared and suspected a long and bloody war would be the result. Naturally, some opposed the idea of independence and would thus have to be convinced of the need. The best of orators would be needed for this task. Men like John Adams, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton could be counted on for such prestigious work. But there was a “lesser” job that was also required. This “Declaration of Independence” would need to be fleshed out in written form.

The founding fathers assigned this task to a committee made up of men who simply felt too busy and too important to do the job. Therefore the assignment was given to a young, bashful, red-headed and little known Virginian by the name of Thomas Jefferson. One of the few things known about Jefferson was that he had a very prolific pen. When left alone in his study he could powerfully craft documents to meet a number of needs. Within a couple of days work, he had written his declaration of independence and the Continental Congress took on the task of editing the document for their mutual agreement.

Perhaps the most well known phrase in the document, which has been memorized by multitudes of Americans:

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal; and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

While this was the version that was ultimately accepted, it was not what Jefferson initially wrote. Rather than “self evident” Jefferson declared these truths to be “sacred”—a word that conjures up images of Divine blessings that some of our founders, most notably Benjamin Franklin had issues with. At Franklin’s recommendation the word was changed to “self evident” and thus the document had at least somewhat lesser of a religious tone. Jefferson was much chagrined. Though in spite of these editorial revisions, the Declaration still clearly pointed to our Creator as the one who blesses us with truth, liberty, and human rights.

While most likely not a “born again” Christian, Jefferson had a healthy respect for God and a true desire to see religious liberty be the hallmark of American spirituality. It is Thomas Jefferson who is credited with coining the phrase “separation of church and state”; a phrase that has been picked up and used by Americans including the Supreme Court of the United States. In shocking rulings the Court has based decisions upon the “wall of separation that was to exist between the church and the state.” Yet the phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the United States Constitution; the Declaration of Independence; nor any other founding American document. Jefferson used the phrase in a private letter written to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association who feared the growing Federal government would try to dictate matters of religion to them. Far from being a rule to ban religion from the government or public square, Jefferson’s phrase was meant to allay Christian fears that Government would interfere in their free exercise of worship.

While Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists that government would not interfere with their religious practices; the U.S. Constitution explicitly said it would not. In the very first amendment to the Constitution freedom of religion was protected with these words:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The so called “establishment clause” has been used and abused by scores of secularists to try and succeed in doing everything from banning prayer in school to ripping down monuments of the Ten Commandments in court houses. Yet none of these activities are in violation of the Constitution; though ironically, prohibiting them are. By the state taking a stand for or against religion they are blatantly “respecting and prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Such bans and government meddling are direct violations of the Constitution.

If a school required adherence to a specific religion then an argument could be made for government intrusion. But prayer, Bible reading, public displays of religion, including nativity scenes or Ten Commandment monuments are clearly not an establishment of religion. Because it requires no one to accept the tenets of said faith. America cannot escape its heritage of being founded on Christian principals by many people who were of the Christian faith. Admitting and honoring this Divine past is simply an exercise in History rather than a government establishment of religion.

While Thomas Jefferson’s views on religious liberty were clearly “pro-faith” his view on government as a whole should be studied and embraced by liberty loving Americans. The first political schisms began to show their faces early in our Nation’s history. Members of George Washington’s’ cabinet, who had been largely united in the cause of Independence had very different view on the role of Federal government in the lives of its citizens. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams sought to establish a strong (some might say overbearing) Federal government that would grant stability to the nation by providing a National defense; a National bank; and a hierarchical system of government. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others who came to be known early on as “Republicans” saw this growing Federal government as a grave threat to the cause of liberty. Jefferson famously said that “the government that governs best is the one that governs least.” Much like modern day Conservatives; Jefferson sought a Federal government that had very minimal power and control over the daily lives of its people. An early advocate of “States Rights” Jefferson believed that the more local a government was, the more adequately it would be equipped to meet the needs of its particular region. For example, rather than a large and cumbersome Federal government, which was at that time headquartered in New York, dictating local matters to far away states. Jefferson sought to allow the states the freedom to make their own decisions, assuming they didn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. Again, the Constitution explicitly stated that this would be in the case in the tenth amendment which says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, any powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal government were matters for the individual states to decide. Clearly, this amendment is being largely ignored by the Federal albatross that exists in the 21^st century.

As a case in point, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the Ten Commandments monument should be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, at that time headed by Roy Moore, was clearly outside the bounds of Federal jurisdiction. Not only was such a ruling not in line with the establishment clause; the ruling was a direct violation of the tenth amendment which requires the Federal government to keep their nose out of Alabama matters. If, for example, Massachusetts decides that they don’t want the Ten Commandments in their court house then they are legally allowed to make that decision. But Massachusetts convictions cannot be forced upon Alabama as an established Federal law. And yet travesties of justice like these are committed on a frequent basis by an out of control Federal judiciary.

Amazingly, this rift that existed in Washington’s first cabinet between the Federalists and the Republicans continues to exist today. Though the names have changed and at times the divisions have morphed into several factions; for the most part a two party system has dominated American politics for over two centuries. In an array of semantic confusion, the Federalists of Revolutionary America became the Whigs and Republicans of Civil War America, and then became the Democrats of New Deal and 21^st century America. The Republicans of Jefferson’s time became the “State’s Rights” Democrats of the Civil War, which once again shifted to the current Republican party of our day. While the names have changed and sometimes simply switched camps; these two overarching political and governmental philosophies have remained constant. One group seeks Federal government control; while the other group seeks Individual liberty without an overwhelming Federal presence. One group seeks to expand government with programs and taxes, while the other group seeks to limit government by eliminating programs and cutting taxes. While hybrids of these two philosophies exist in some circles, the broad political philosophies still hold true.

Republicans, including Jefferson, saw a need for a certain amount of Federal governance. For example, the Federal government would be the protector of the people’s rights by providing a strong national defense. But the common belief of men like Jefferson was that “government made a great servant but a lousy master.” The government was meant to serve the people, yet today many people think they exist and are allowed to function as a gift from the Federal government. And therein lies one of the most inherent dangers in a large and cumbersome Federal entity. People are prone to look at government as their ultimate provider and protector rather than God. This sad and fearsome slide towards secularism began in early America, peaked during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Administration, and continues to hold sway over millions of Americans today who’s first reaction to any tragedy be it natural, accidental, or terrorism related is “where is the government?” Our people have exchanged the freedom they were meant to have by founders like Jefferson, for government control that more closely resembles Soviet Russia than the United States. With cradle to grave government control, some seek a Federal babysitter to meet their every whim and need rather than a Federal guard dog that will stay out of the way and let them live how they choose to, provided they don’t violate another citizen’s rights to do the same.

American Liberalism is a form of Socialism that is very similar in philosophy to Communism made famous by such dictators as Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and modern day China. While many on the political left bristle at such suggestions the facts bear out the truth of this comparison. Communist regimes want no power to be conceived of higher than themselves. The last thing a dictatorial government wants its people to believe is that all people are accountable to a Sovereign God for their life and actions on earth. Such “theistic” views threaten the strangle hold these governments have upon their people. Communism, like American Liberalism, is an obvious system of power that is easily corrupted by its adherents because its core message is an evil denial of the ultimate power of an Omnipotent God. Therefore Communism, like American Liberalism, is in direct conflict with Biblical Christianity and the principals of freedom and liberty inherent in a Republican form of government. Just because American Liberals may sound sweeter and talk in more loving and flowery phraseology doesn’t mean their underlying desires for governmental control are any more benevolent than the heavy handed tactics of a militant dictator. American Liberalism, like Communism, means government control at the expense of Divine worship and personal liberty.

Ironically, this type of government control was the very reason the United States of America became a country in the first place. The British monarchy of King George III had driven the colonists to a state of rebellion because of its smothering taxation and despotism. Though they had fiercely fought and won freedom from the monarchy, some within the government sought to re-attach the yoke of oppression under a different name. Rather than a King ruling over the nation, the Federalists sought to have a Federal government rule the people in much the same fashion. Men like Jefferson fiercely opposed this and sounded the alarm early on. Yet Jefferson’s pleas were drown out by the overwhelmingly influential Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton was a protégé, almost a son, to President George Washington. Born out of wedlock and raised on the island of St. Croix, Hamilton migrated to America and fought in Washington’s Army during the War for Independence. Immediately recognized by General Washington as an extremely able soldier of tremendous organizational skills and intelligence; he was made a member of Washington’s staff serving as Aide-de-Camp. When Washington was overwhelmingly elected as the first President of the United States, he sought to have a group of advisors who would assist him in the administration of the government. Though not specifically laid out in the Constitution, Washington’s plan for a “Cabinet” became a fixture in Executive American government.

Washington’s Cabinet sounded like a “who’s who” of great American patriots. John Adams was Vice-President and President of the Senate based upon his 2^nd place finish in the Presidential election. Thomas Jefferson, who had just completed a five year stretch as Ambassador to France, was tapped as the first Secretary of State. And Alexander Hamilton, a brilliant financier, was named the first Secretary of the Treasury. Though today, a “pecking order” is somewhat established by the Presidential succession laws, in Washington’s time Cabinet power was largely up for grabs, and Hamilton seized it early on. He was clearly seen as Washington’s right hand man and closest confidant. Subsequently, many of the arguments that Republicans like Jefferson made to the President fell on deaf ears.

Hamilton had a massive job ahead of him as Treasury Secretary with a Nation nearly broke from a long and expensive war with Britain. Many of the individual states were deeply in debt because of war costs, but Hamilton had a plan to alleviate the states of this burden. His plan of “Assumption” called for the Federal government to take over the war debts of the individual states. Kind of like a modern day “consolidation loan” Hamilton sought to unify the state debts into one massive national debt. On the surface this might seem like a tremendous blessing to the states, but make no mistake Federal strings were attached. The reliance and power this would give to the Federal government made men like Jefferson way too uncomfortable. Furthermore, the Southern states had already worked hard to eliminate much of their war debts; so the North would stand to benefit much more from the measure. The ultimate lynch pin for whether or not this plan would pass was the support (or lack of support) granted by President Washington. The most revered and influential man in America, Washington eventually backed the Assumption plan which led to its acceptance. Again Jefferson was bitterly disappointed with even more political fights and disappointments to come.

Alexander Hamilton’s next desire was to establish a National bank that could boost the economy and provide loans to the business sector. While Jefferson did not oppose financial institutions per se, he cringed at the thought of one that had as much government influence as Hamilton’s plan called for. No doubt seeing the “hand writing on the wall” Jefferson entered into an act of shrewd cunning in order to grant Hamilton the support he sought for his bank.

In what has been called the most important dinner party in American History, Thomas Jefferson invited Alexander Hamilton and James Madison over to his house for dinner. Many years later, as President, Jefferson would become legendary for his dinner party deals and politicking; but this dinner party dwarfed all others in its bearing on history. Jefferson was a loyal Virginian who favored the “State’s Rights” doctrine of his fellow Southerners. Furthermore, with the Nation’s capital in New York or Philadelphia; Jefferson feared that too much Northern Federalism would permeate the government. He desperately wanted to move the capital South so that he and other Virginians could keep an eye on it. His belief was that the Federal government would become way too radical unless it was in a physical location that forced the Northern Federalists to be aware of their Southern Republican brethren. To grant the Nation’s capital to any one state seemed unwise, therefore Jefferson proposed that a “Federal city” be built to house the Capital and the President’s office and home. A tract of land on the Potomac River, surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, both Southern states, was suggested for the new capital that would be named after the first President, Washington, D.C. If it was support for a National bank that Hamilton sought, Jefferson said he was willing to grant it…IF, Hamilton would support plans to move the capital to Washington. The agreement was made, and the rest is history.

With his first term as President coming to completion, George Washington desperately sought retirement. He longed to be back on his farm at Mount Vernon and to hand the reins to another. But both political sides balked at such an idea. Jefferson’s Republicans and Hamilton’s Federalists were united in their desire for Washington to serve another term. While the two sides had drastically different ideas about government, they were in agreement on their desire to see America succeed, and they couldn’t see that happening without Washington’s unifying presence. Washington finally acquiesced and won a second term by unanimous support of the American people. Four years later when he finally did step down, the scene was set for a bitter fight to assume his mantle. The Federalist John Adams and the Republican Thomas Jefferson squared off in the infamous election of 1796 and again in 1800. Historians have declared that the 1800 election could have very well been the most vicious campaign in American History. Both sides slandered the other in a vain attempt to gain power. “Dumpster diving” newspaper reporters were employed to find, or make up, dirt on political opponents. When it was all settled, Adams won the battle for the Presidency in 1796, though he might have lost the greater War of Historical importance. Jefferson, who finished second, was named Vice-President according to the current law of the land, and would go on to win the Presidency in 1800.

Although by 1800 Adams and Jefferson were bitter enemies, this was not always so. During the 1780’s both men had served in Europe as ambassadors of the United States, Jefferson in France and Adams in Britain. During this time a strong bond was forged between the two. So much so that Adams referred to his son John Quincy as “our” when talking about him to Jefferson. Adams stated that John Quincy almost considered Jefferson to be a second father to him. Likewise, Abigail Adams serves as a powerful feminine influence to the widower Jefferson. In her forthright manner, she implored him to send for his daughter living in America so that his family would be united. Jefferson eventually took her counsel with Abigail actually picking up Jefferson’s daughter when her ship docked in England. Abigail stated that her husband John had no closer confidant in the world than Thomas Jefferson. They were the stereotypical example of opposites attracting. Adams was a short stocky, outspoken Northerner from Massachusetts with a legendary temper. Jefferson was a tall, lean, bookish Southerner who hated confrontation. Their friendship flourished while in Europe, but was severely strained once they jointly served in Washington’s cabinet, and was all but destroyed by the election of 1800.

The first twelve years of the Presidency saw a Federalist in power. Though technically Washington was a political neutral, his policies were so heavily influenced by Hamilton that he is largely considered a Federalist; and Adams was clearly a Federalist. But Jefferson’s 1800 election ushered in twenty-four years of Republican dominance. Jefferson served from 1801-1809, followed by his protégé, and fellow Virginian James Madison from 1809-1817, followed once more by another Virginian James Monroe from 1817-1825. During this period of Republican dominance, the Nation grew in numbers and in land. Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, considered the greatest real estate deal in History, doubled the size of the country for a paltry $15 million. It was also during these years that Jefferson’s legacy began to grow and become enshrined in American lore. As Jefferson and the Republicans grew in stature, the Federalists of John Adams day began to wither. In 1824, Adams’ son John Quincy won the Presidency only to lose it after one term to a Southerner, Andrew Jackson. While Jefferson’s name grew more famous and John Adams grew more forgotten the two had an amazing reconciliation in their later years.

Benjamin Rush, who had served with both Jefferson and Adams in the Continental Congress, had kept up correspondence with both men; and he pleaded with them both to contact each other. Finally on New Years Day 1811 John Adams picked up a pen and wrote wishing Holiday wishes to his old friend and enemy. Jefferson wrote back in what would be the first of 158 letters to go back in forth between the two. They discussed everything from books to philosophy to education to religion. When Adams’ beloved with Abigail passed away in 1818, Jefferson consoled his friend as no others could, having lost his own wife Martha at the age of 39 and remaining a widower to the end. In 1826, the curtain was closing on these two lions of the American Revolution. Adams, 90, and Jefferson, 83, were both in poor health. As providence would have it, John Adams passed away on July 4, 1826; the 50^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. His final words were: “Jefferson survives.” Though unbeknownst to him, his final words were in error; for Thomas Jefferson in had passed away in Virginia five hours earlier. Thus two of the most influential men in American History, the second and third Presidents of the United States both died on the 50^th anniversary of the Nation’s Independence. An eerie coincidence that many read as a sign from Heaven that America was indeed a gift from God to the world. A nation where freedom would exist unlike any other nation in world history. A freedom that would have to be fought for and defended on countless battle fields. And a freedom that would have to be protected in government from those within the nation who would seek to undermine and even destroy it.

Jefferson’s political descendants remain. They can be seen in all liberty loving Americans who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace and earn a living by the sweat of their brow. They can be seen in the local and state governments that believe they can better serve their people than a faraway Federal dictator can. They can be seen in the home schooling parents that wish to provide a solid Christian education to their children without the atheistic and secular control of a government that scoffs at all they believe in. They can be seen in a movement of Conservatism that seeks relief from overbearing taxation that punishes hard work and robs citizens of the finances that are rightfully theirs. Jefferson’s political descendants can be seen in those who truly believe that “we hold these truths to be self-evident (and sacred). That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson’s personal belief was that “all men” included black men as he sought early in his career to see slavery abolished. Today his political descendants can be seen in those who stand up for the equal rights and opportunities granted to black, white, male, female, children born and unborn. Though occasionally taken to an extreme, the majority of Jefferson’s political descendants can be seen in the faces of hard working, truth seeking, liberty loving Americans who work hard for their families, and expect their government to work hard for them; rather than against them. Jefferson’s political descendants are there. They live daily in what many would call the political right. Adams’ and Hamilton’s political descendants exist today as well in a position that has veered so far to the left and away from anything any of the founders would have ever dreamed of. Indeed many within 21^st century America seek to take the Federalist philosophy to a totalitarian extreme. Re-enslaving the people to overwhelming taxation; government banned religion, and legalized infanticide.

The “American Experiment” has now lasted well over 200 years, but will America remain the world power and bastion of freedom it once was? Excessive governmental control is the very antithesis of liberty, but Federal control is mushrooming in our nation today. The election of Barack Obama as President has caused the radical, left to seize power…and the results will be nothing short of catastrophic to the American people, and the cause of liberty. It’s a fight that has existed since our Nation’s inception, and it will continue one. Will government be your Master? Or will it be your Servant? In a free society like ours….the people decide. The question remains….which will they choose…and what will become of our once cherished Nation of Freedom and Liberty.

Posted in Current Events, Political Issues | Print | No Comments »

Book Review: The Making and Unmaking of An Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell by Rudolph Nelson (reviewed by Shane Kastler)

March 20, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

In The Making & Unmaking of an Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell, Rudolph Nelson delves into the fascinating life and tragic death of one of the 20^th century’s most influential Christian philosophers, Edward John Carnell. After receiving simultaneous doctoral degrees from Harvard Divinity School and Boston University, Carnell blazed onto the theological scene in 1948 by winning the $5,000 first prize in a book contest sponsored by Eerdmans Publishing for his book: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. Soon after the book was published, Carnell sought and was granted a professorship at the newly formed Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. Though still a young man in his twenties, Carnell appeared ready to take the Christian academic community by storm. Instead, by the end of his short life some twenty years later…the “storm” had overtaken him. He died alone, in a hotel room, having overdosed on prescription sleeping pills. Adding further stigma to his name, the autopsy report stated that it was unable to determine whether the death was accidental or suicidal.

Early Life

Ed Carnell grew up as the third of four children born to a fundamentalist, Baptist pastor named Hubert Carnell. After bouncing around the Midwest, serving various churches, the Carnells eventually settled in Albion, Michigan, where Ed was a popular, though unimpressive student. Both his family and his friends were quite stunned when Ed, upon graduating from High School as a “C” student, announced his intentions to enter the ministry and to pursue training at Wheaton College in Illinois.

The college life, proved financially difficult for Carnell. Coming from a poor family, he had to make his way by working part-time in the school cafeteria. But, for the first time in his life, he excelled in the classroom. By sitting under the teaching of renowned Philosophy professor, Gordon H. Clark, Carnell found his wings, academically speaking. Clark’s influence over many of the Wheaton student’s was quite profound. An engaging, theologically Reformed, apologist educated at the University of Pennsylvania, Clark challenged and inspired his students to understand and properly defend the rationality of the Christian faith. This is exactly what Carnell set out to do.

After graduating from Wheaton, Carnell moved to Philadelphia to attend Westminster Theological Seminary. It was here that he encountered the teacher who was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the 20^th century, Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til influenced Carnell toward an Apologetic methodology that espoused man’s presuppositional belief in the Christian God; Van Til’s influence proved to be much less significant than Clark’s had been. By the end of his writing career, Carnell had received some mild rebukes from Van Til for not having embraced the full-orbed presuppostionalism that he espoused. Van Til was also involved in a major controversy with Gordon Clark over Clark’s ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The argument, over an extremely technical and theological point, led to a permanent schism between the two men, both of whom remained in the same denomination. Clark eventually left for a different brand of Presbyterianism, but undoubtedly, the damage done to Clark by Van Til, had a profound impact on Carnell.

Fuller Seminary

Carnell dutifully served Fuller Seminary as Professor of Theology for five years, but the situation at Fuller was contentious. Harold Ocknega had served during that time as President in Absentia, remaining in Boston where he pastored a church. He vacillated numerous times between moving to Pasadena to take up the Presidency full time and resigning to focus on his pastorate. But it was clear that the seminary needed on hand leadership. In 1957, into this void stepped Edward Carnell.

While it is frequently difficult for a person to go from colleague to supervisor, the transition seems to have been doubly hard for Carnell. Though the faculty sought an onsite President, they were divided in their agreement on Carnell’s suitability for the position. Young, ambitious, and inexperienced Carnell appeared to be in over his head, and perhaps he was. Add to the mix that Carnell was by personality and temperament more suited for the classroom and study than he was the fundraiser and figurehead role of President and you have a recipe for disaster. Carnell made it clear time and time again that he was not a fundraiser, but an academician. Nevertheless, funds were extremely tight, and stress weighed heavily upon him. Though the seminary progressed under his leadership, he ultimately resigned in 1959 after a five year tenure, and returned to the classroom. But his life was never the same again.

Later Life & Tragic Death

Carnell had suffered from insomnia for much of his life; and the added strain of the presidency exacerbated his emotional state. At times, he fell into deep seasons of depression and sought relief through medication and electroshock therapy. His mental condition was further assailed by polemic assaults from the fundamentalist Christians of the day. Though Carnell once labeled himself a “fundamentalist” he ultimately preferred the term “evangelical.” Fundamentalists were considered anti-intellectual, and legalistic in some of their views, and Carnell was anything but. He desired Christian scholarship to be rigorously academic and rational; and he confessed that he had grown up under a smothering brand of legalism that he found distasteful. Because of some of these comments, he was attacked by some fundamentalists, and the assaults took their toll.

It appears that in his later years, the medication and shock therapy influenced his teaching abilities. His once quick and sharp mind now took awkwardly long pauses when lecturing; and at times, he appeared to be distracted while in the classroom. The end came in 1967, when he was invited to address a Roman Catholic conference in Oakland, California. He had struggled for some time with remembering whether or not he had taken his sleeping medication, and his wife had gotten in the habit of dolling his pills out to him. But, he had done well for quite some time and was beginning to take care of the responsibility himself. Because of this, he attended the conference by himself and was scheduled to speak on noon of the second day. He never showed up and was found dead in his hotel room’s bathroom floor. He was 48.

It seems that Carnell’s death was more than likely accidental. A towel rack in the bathroom was pulled from the wall, indicating that he had fallen. Furthermore, several pill bottles were found in his room, with pills remaining in them. Typically if one is planning a suicidal overdose, they take all the pills they can. Finally, the level of barbiturates in his system was 3.5mg, and the average barbiturate suicide victim has between 6 and 8 mg. But, the coroner’s report sealed his fate and left a permanent cloud over his name as a “possible suicide.” Perhaps the suspicions are justified. After all, he was an insomniac, who suffered from severe depression, and had a history of mental anguish associated with his career. But the evidence points to the contrary; and in truth we will never know for certain.

Critique of Rudolph Nelson’s Critique

Nelson’s book is loosely divided into three parts. The first part examines Carnell’s life in a largely biographical fashion. The second part examines his theological positions and professional struggles. The third part, shortest in length, makes final conclusions. Without question, the first part is the most interesting section of the book. One cannot help but be impressed and inspired by this poor, underachieving “C” student, who works his way up the academic latter to the point of attaining two doctorates by the age of 30. Nelson contends, rightly so, that if Carnell had stayed in the classroom he probably would have lived a long and fruitful life. As it was, his ascension to the Presidency proved to be the turning point, and downfall of his career.

The author’s critique of Carnell’s theology is predictable. Nelson confesses that he was once a “fundamentalist” until he saw the theological light and became a liberal. In his criticism of Carnell, he sneers frequently at Carnell’s “primitive understanding” of the Bible and essentially dismisses him as an oaf because he never reached the enlightened position of denying the faith he claimed to possess. In essence, Carnell is ripped and labeled as an ignoramus because he didn’t reject his Biblical beliefs and climb (or slide) to the heights (or depths) of higher critical liberalism. In fact, in reading Nelson’s condescending critique of Carnell’s beliefs, one could easily forget that Carnell was not a backwoods illiterate at all. He had a Ph.D. from Boston University, and a Th.D. from Harvard having written dissertations on the philosophy of the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard and the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. The author seems aghast that one could attain such intellectual accomplishments and still be a Biblical Christian.

Nelson also implies that perhaps Carnell didn’t really believe what he claimed to. Based on a comment by Carnell’s brother, whom Edward was not especially close to, Nelson contends that Carnell suffered greatly because his mind refused to accept the Christian faith that he was taught to believe. Indeed Carnell does admit to struggles with doubt (as all people do), but nowhere in his writings, personal or private, does Carnell come anywhere close to denying the faith. He had his faults, and he had his struggles, but he remained devoted to the Christian faith to the end. It seems that Nelson makes a little too much of Carnell’s occasional mentions of suicide in his writings. In his first book, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, Carnell begins the book by writing of the struggles man faces in a fallen world. He mentions that these struggle are manifested most dramatically when once commits suicide. Nelson also comments on an alleged statement made by Gordon Clark in a debate with an atheist. Supposedly, when confronted with what he would do if Christianity proved to be false, Clark responded that he would kill himself because there would be no reason to exist. This statement of Clark’s is found no where in print and was given to Nelson by an alleged witness to the debate. But regardless of whether or not it’s true; to try and make a case for Edward Carnell’s anguish over the believability of Christianity from such shoddy evidence is unconvincing.

Nelson ends the book with a brief conclusion in which he takes the stance of Carnell’s death being accidental. And he suggests that his “primitive faith” combined with his foolhardy venture as a seminary President, pushed him over the emotional edge.

While I obviously didn’t agree with all of Nelson’s conclusion, I did enjoy the book and was fascinated by Carnell’s life. The author did a thorough job, in my opinion, of presenting the biographical information in a highly readable fashion. However, the author’s personal prejudice against conservative Christianity tainted his judgment towards Carnell and led to conclusions that were unjustified. I would recommend the book, with an exception. If one believes they can entertained by an interesting life story, while also warned about the possible pitfalls of entering a professions that doesn’t suit them then read the book. But the Christian reader needs to be discerning and see through the polemic attacks the author makes on the Biblical, Christian faith.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

Thoughts On The Pastor Shooting, Persecution, & the Lunacy of Gun Control

March 10, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Last Sunday, I taught the 4-6 grade Sunday school class at our church. My wife usually teaches it, but she suggested that I come and talk to them because they had tons of questions about things in the Bible they wanted to ask me. One of the questions asked involved persecution. Would we have to face persecution, or would we be “raptured” out of it? I briefly gave the differing viewpoints on the rapture, then I concluded by telling the kids that they should live their lives expecting to be persecuted…rather than expecting to be removed from persecution. I told them that right now, in many countries Christians are killed everyday…and that someday that might be the case in America as well. And if it is, we must stand strong for Christ.

Ironically, as I was talking to the kids, “persecution” was going on just a few hundred miles east of us. As everyone now knows, a crazed gunmen walked into the First Baptist Church of Maryville, Illinois while Pastor Fred Winters was giving his sermon. The man walked up to the pulpit, pulled out a pistol and began to fire. Winters was killed and the gunmen then pulled a knife and began stabbing himself and two brave church members who had tried to constrain him, as a horrified congregation watched.

Obviously, this story hits pretty close to home for me…since I’m a Pastor. I also graduated from the same seminary Winters did. In fact, he was the President of our Alumni Association. It seems that Midwestern Baptist Seminary graduates get gunned down with more frequency than most. A few years ago, two of our former students were shot and killed on the mission field. Is this a tragedy? Absolutely. Should we be surprised? Absolutely not.

For most places…and in most times…Christian persecution has been the norm, rather than the exception. Jesus promised the disciples they would be killed (Matthew 24). Jesus assured us that in this world we would have tribulation. The New Testament church lived their lives expecting to be killed for their faith. So the freedom and comfort we enjoy in America, is very, very rare when you compare it to how most Christians have lived through the centuries. I don’t want to be murdered, nor does anyone else. But we must prepare our hearts and minds for the time in which we will face persecution, and even death for our faith….Now, I’m going to move from “persecution” to “politics.”

Anytime there is a tragedy involving guns, many people begin to clamor once more for stricter gun control laws. I believe this is foolhardy, and I’ll tell you why. Gun control laws have a tendency to do ONE THING….they hinder law abiding citizens from buying guns. LAW BREAKERS could care less how many gun laws are passed, since they don’t abide by them anyway. The man who shot Fred Winters did not have a conceal and carry permit. Obviously, this violation of the law didn’t bother him too much, as the subsequent events proved. Let me offer another scenario, as to how this tragedy might have gone down.

According to reports, the first shot fired hit Winters Bible and shredded it like confetti. It was the SECOND, THIRD, or FOURTH shot that killed Winters. Perhaps a better ending to the story would have been, if after the FIRST shot was fired, a good, godly church member pulled out a pistol…shot the assailant…and ended the carnage. Would it still be a tragedy? Of course it would. But a murderer would be dead, instead of a Pastor, and perhaps two church members. Is it a sin to protect people from acts of evil? I assure you of this, if a gun-toting lunatic showed up at your church and pointed the gun at your wife, your son, or your daughter….and right before he blows them away…someone blows HIM away, I would bet you would be grateful to say the least.

Guns are not sinful. People are. There is an incorrect view of firearms, that is seeping more frequently into the thoughts of normal Americans. They have had the liberal, non-sensical idea that “guns are bad” crammed down their throat for SO LONG…they’re starting to believe it. I feel, that perhaps the spoiled brat mindset of American pacifists be corrected…and they be reminded that we have the ability to worship in freedom today…because of guns. How so, you ask? We won our freedom from Britain many years ago. Our forefathers were tired of being told how they could worship and they sought religious freedom in a “new world.” Eventually, they sought independence from the “mother country” so that we could live how we chose to. And when our forefathers fought for independence….they used GUNS.

When Adolph Hitler and the Axis powers of World War II sought to overtake the world and enforce their tyranny on all…they were defeated by our forefathers. And our forefathers used GUNS. GUNS…are a glorious invention. (Incidentally, so are BOMBS…but that’s another story.)

Does this make me a blood-thirsty lunatic? Far from it. I don’t wish to see anyone killed, but I live in the real world and I know that evil exists. And at times, it can only be reined in by the use of force. And one of the greatest tools of force we have is GUNS. So, I implore you, when you hear the bantering going on in the coming days about the tragedy of what happened in Illinois…take part in the conversation. Remind people that this IS a tragedy, and our hearts should break for this church and this Pastor’s family. We should keep them in our prayers. Remind them also…that as Christians we are taught to expect such persecution in this world. And remind them that it wasn’t a gun that killed this Pastor….it was a crazed lunatic with a gun that killed this Pastor. The problem was not that there was a gun at church. The problem was that there was a gun…in the hands of the WRONG PERSON at church. Sadly, the righteous, law-abiding citizens of America have been brow beaten for so long into thinking that guns are bad and that they have no right to defend themselves. If liberals such as Barack Obama and his ilk have their way….your guns will be gone…or at the least, your right to bear them will be hindered. And when that happens, watch out! For only the criminals will have guns…and mass carnage will ensue.

In closing, let me say that I do not carry a gun to church. If it is God’s will for me to die in the pulpit, I will die in the pulpit. I cannot thwart God’s will, nor do I wish to. But let me also say that I’m a Pastor…..that believes in the justice….of shooting back. I don’t carry a gun, but I do own them and I’ve shot them since I was old enough to do it responsibly. I was not taught to fear guns…I was taught to revere them. I was taught that you always treat a gun as though it were loaded and you never point it at someone…unless you mean to use it. And there is no sin in using it to protect those you love. If, heaven forbid, an assailant enters my home and threatens my family…they will not be met by a pacifist who will offer them tea and crumpets. By God’s grace….if I’m able to reach it in time….they will be met by a .22 in their face. Would I feel bad about shooting an intruder? I’m SURE that I would. But I would feel much worse…to look around my home and see my wife and kids slaughtered by a thug…because I was too “nice” to use force in their protection. Guns are not evil. People are. I wish Fred Winters was still alive….and his assassin were dead. For the sake of his church. For the sake of his wife. For the sake of his daughters. And for the sake of justice. The wrong man died last Sunday because the wrong man had a gun. Here’s to hoping the pacifists of the world can see and understand that before its too late.

Posted in Politicians, Political Issues | Print | No Comments »

BOOK REVIEW: "A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America" By John A. D’Elia

February 24, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

This book gives a fascinating account of one of the twentieth century’s most influential New Testament scholars. George Eldon Ladd had a sharp mind and a strong desire to influence the liberal scholarly community for the Kingdom of God. Though raised and brought to faith in a Dispensational church, Ladd grew up to reject Dispensationalism in favor of Historic Premillennialism, which differentiates from Dispensationalism in that it does not hold to a pre-tribulational rapture, nor a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Christian Church. Ladd was educated at Gordon College (today known as Gordon-Conwell); and after pastoring several New England Baptist churches, earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Though his doctoral studies were under the tutelage of a liberal advisor, Ladd retained his evangelical faith and sought to write a work, from a conservative theological perspective, that even the liberal’s of the higher criticism camp, would have to appreciate. Unto this end, Ladd devoted his academic life, and in the process, sacrificed much of his family life.

In many ways, Ladd was a deeply troubled man, as D’Elia depicts in this work. Ladd had a cold relationship with his father, who appears to have been overbearing. And he was jealous of his younger brother, who was always more popular, athletic, and approved of by their father. Ladd eventually marries and has two children, but his commitment (obsession) with his studies leads to an alienation with his wife, and children. Beginning in the 1950’s Ladd starts to struggle with alcoholism and eventually sexual sin (D’Elia implies that Ladd probably had an affair while on sabbatical in Germany and also made a pass at the wife of one of his students.) His alcoholism becomes worse, until eventually his employer, Fuller Theological Seminary has to reprimand and suspend him for one year. Ladd considers divorcing his wife, but never does. She dies in 1976. In 1980, Ladd, who by now is an uncontrollable alcoholic, has a stroke and spends his last two years in a nursing home, dying in 1982.

Though Ladd’s psyche was always brittle, it seems that he was ultimately pushed over the edge in the 1960s shortly after completing his magnum opus. For ten solid years, he had worked on a book called “Jesus and the Kingdom” that was meant to be a work to engage the liberal scholars of the day. One book reviewer, Norman Perrin, panned the book in a theological journal, and Ladd absolutely fell apart. From that point on, he considered his life a failure and he slid deeper and deeper into emotional duress and alcoholism. Friends, colleagues, and family all tried to help him but he refused. Ultimately his behavior cost him numerous relationships, including those of his children who rarely spoke to him. This is the tragedy of Ladd’s life, and a lesson for those who would put work, even God’s work, ahead of their relationship with the Lord and the family he has given them to care for. But Ladd’s academic achievements were indeed profound.

While dispensational theology was the predominant conservative view of the day, Ladd confronted it with some of its unbiblical and extreme tendencies. In so doing, he was much maligned by leading dispensationalists such as John Walvoord, but he added another, much needed perspective to the debate regarding eschatology. Ladd is still considered the most prominent twentieth century spokesman for the millennial view known as Historic Premillennialism, and is widely read on the subject even today.

Ladd also wrote a Theology of the New Testament, that some have considered on par with John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” in its scope and influence. Clearly Ladd had something to offer the world of Christian scholarship. But sadly, his personal life didn’t coincide with his stated, written beliefs.

My conclusion of this work is that it is a tremendous read for those interested in the theological academy, and for those who would like a glimpse into the personal life of this truly tragic figure. D’Elia does a masterful job of weaving the scholarly achievements of Ladd with his personal life in way that is interesting, albeit sad. Ladd’s life and work have much to teach us in both positive and negative ways. D’Elia brings this out clearly in a book that is both intellectually challenging, and personally interesting. I recommend its reading, and the reading of Ladd’s work, without reservation.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

Movie Review: John Adams

January 2, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Now on DVD is HBO’s 7 part mini-series on John Adams, our nation’s 2^nd president. Adams is often considered one of the “forgotten” founding fathers because of his being overshadowed by such historical giants as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. But Adams role in our nation’s founding was massive, as this series shows.

I’ll offer a word of caution from the outset. While this series can be very educational, parents need to be aware of three scenes that may be inappropriate for younger audiences. Two scenes involve nudity, but thankfully neither of them are sexual in nature. Early in the series, a British tax collector is stripped, tarred, and feathered. Towards the end of the movie, there’s a scene in which Adams’ daughter has a mastectomy because of breast cancer. While neither scene would be considered vulgar, parents need to beware. The only other “risqué” scene involves John and his wife Abigail. After they had been separated for a couple of years with John in Europe, Abigail comes to Europe and they are reunited. And they are REALLY, REALLY happy to see each other…if you get my drift. Actually, it was nice to see Adams longing for his wife as opposed to many diplomats of the day who simply took mistresses. Nevertheless, HBO being what they are, felt the need to show an intimate scene involving the couple. There was no nudity, but there was a little more action shown than was needed in my opinion. Now for the movie itself.

I found the series to be very captivating and accurate to historical events. The series is based upon David McCullough’s award winning biography of Adams, which is a classic. McCullough has also written biographies of Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt; as well as an account of American Independence called 1776. All great books that I would highly recommend.

The characters bear an uncanny resemblance to the originals. Washington, Jefferson, and Adams all look exactly like their famous portraits. The historical accuracy seems to be very detailed, even down to the facet of John Adams having an almost constant dip of snuff in his mouth throughout the movie (he was a habitual dipper).

The movie seems to have accurately portrayed Adams’ strengths, while still pointing out his shortcomings. He was known as an intensely honest man who was willing to stand for what he believed to be right regardless of consequences. This can be seen in his serving as the defense lawyer for the British soldiers accused in the 1770 Boston Massacre.

In the beginning, Adams was somewhat of a reluctant patriot, not nearly as zealous as his cousin Samuel. But though he wants to give Britain the benefit of the doubt, he eventually sees that their tyranny has gone too far, and he joins the cause.

Adams had some downfalls which are depicted as well. He could be extremely obstinate and overbearing at times. He worried excessively about his standing in history, and at times was a little too proud of his intellectual prowess. His wife Abigail serves as a stabilizing force in the movie, frequently bringing him back to earth. Abigail is depicted in many ways as a heroine, which is both right and wrong. She was a very impressive person in her own right, but I have read in other sources that her ambitious and controlling nature was at times more than her husband and children could bear.

While the Adams’ clearly loved and wanted the best for their children, they were at times too obsessed with John’s career and less focused on the parent/child relationship. But in their defense, this was common practice in early America. The paradox of this form of child raising can be seen in two of their sons. Their oldest, John Quincy went on to be the sixth president of the United States. Their next oldest, Charles grew up to be an embittered alcoholic who drank himself into an early grave.

The movie depicts Adams early life, days as a lawyer, foreign diplomat, Ambassador to Britain, Vice President, President, and elder statesman. One of the most fascinating aspects of his life was his relationship with Thomas Jefferson. They grew to be very close friends while both were serving in Europe. Then began to drift apart in George Washington’s cabinet where Jefferson was Secretary of State and Adams was Vice President. When Jefferson defeated Adams for the Presidency in 1800, they severed all ties. Many years later, as old men, they began corresponding by letter, in what still remains one of the most illuminating sources of historical data known to America.

The movie ends with one of those moments so bizarre that Hollywood couldn’t even conceive it. On July 4, 1826, the 50^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams dies. His famous last words were: “Thomas Jefferson survives.” But unbeknownst to him, Jefferson had died just a few hours earlier. Both of these patriots…the last two remaining from the Revolution…died on the 50^th anniversary of July 4, 1776.

Overall, I would highly recommend this series, if one keeps in mind the warnings I gave at the outset. It’s well written and well produced. Though it’s over seven hours long, there are not really any mundane or boring sections of the film. Some of the camera angles give you the feeling of peeking into the room while history is taking place. While some may find this mildly annoying, I thought it gave an authentic touch to the scenes. The musical score by Rob Lane was well done and enhanced the overall appeal of the movie. You’ll definitely come away more educated, and entertained in the process. And after all, “entertaining education” is the best kind of education there is.

Posted in Movie Reviews | Print | No Comments »