A FIFTY YEAR WAR

The New York Christian Coalition stands in full and unconditional support of the nation of Israel in its actions to defend itself against Hezbollah. We call on Americans everywhere to stand with us in unflinching support behind Israel, which has become the point of the spear in this war against Islamofacism.

Some have called it World War III. We agree. September 11, 2001 brought into the light what had been, until then, brewing in secret terrorist training camps all around the globe.

When we deposed Saddam Hussein, and went into Iraq we found that a brief and quickly won war against a tyrant dictator had quickly morphed into a fifty-year war against an ideology bent on the destruction of the West. The brotherhood of islamofacists are warring against liberty. They will never stop until they win, or they die trying.

The typical conventions of war do not apply to a people whose identity is caught up in the destruction of Israel. This is their reason for living, and for dying. They sincerely believe that killing, and even dying for “Allah” is a good and noble thing. This mindset places them beyond the limits of reasonable discourse. Any talk of peace or cease-fire is a strategic move on their part to rebuild and regain strength for the war that must be fought to the finish.

President Bush flushed out the terrorists into the open in Iraq. Now it’s all-out war. We must understand that this is like no other war we have ever fought. This is a war of ideologies. It will never be won until the next generation of future Jihadists is won over by the ideas of freedom and democracy. We are looking at no less than a fifty-year war to change the minds and hearts of millions of people. I question whether or not it can be done, but we must try, or succumb to tyranny.
It will be the children of the children of today’s Jihadists who may stand a chance to bring sanity to this sect of Islam.

We will never win this war with bullets alone. We must win the hearts of the next generation while we neutralize their fathers who would rather die warring against the west than talk peace with “The Great Satan.” If they choose to die than we must help them do so before they kill us. Then we must teach the principles of democracy, and the blessings of liberty, if there is to be any chance of real peace for coming generations.

There must be no talk of “proportionate response.” This is not a game where “You take my pawn, so I’ll take yours. “ No. This is war. The only acceptable proportionate response is the total neutralization of terrorist forces around the globe. Until then -and I am convinced it will be for no less than fifty years- we must continue to fight and support Israel with all that we have. The next generation of free people depends on no less.

TWO FUNDAMENTAL POINTS

Those expressing opposition to the New York Court of Appeals decision preserving the traditional definition of marriage seem to be missing two fundamental truths upon which this entire debate turns:

First, our “rights” are not granted by a judge or a government, but rather “secured” by government.

President Kennedy reminded us of this historical truth when he said in Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961:

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God…here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”

This fundamental truth provides an absolute standard of right and wrong that has served to provide stability in our society unmatched by any country in all of world history. Remove that absolute, and as Dostoyevsky told us,

“If there is no God then anything is permissible.”

Therefore our quest must be to find consensus concerning God’s design for marriage, family and society. To the degree that we align ourselves with His design we experience peace and prosperity; to the degree that we distance ourselves from that design we experience chaos.

This is the privilege and awesome responsibility of “We The people” to strive toward that “more perfect Union.” We will, no doubt, reap the rewards or the consequences of our collective actions.

Secondly, is the fact that this is not a civil rights issue.

To equate current laws with those that banned interracial marriages is a total misapplication of fact. Laws that banned interracial marriage were inconsistent with God’s Law that defines marriage as the union of a husband and a wife without regard to race, religion or ethnicity, yet with a very clear distinction between a man and a woman. This is the nature, the essence, of marriage.

A circle with four corners is no longer a circle; a marriage between people of the same sex is not, in essence, a marriage. A Judge does not have the right to change the English language.

You don’t give a dog license to a cat, not because you’re bigoted against cats, but because the two are different animals. So it is with marriage and homosexual relationships. They are different animals.

Most Americans understand this distinction, and understand the ungodliness and injustice of banning interracial marriage. So when the courts ruled such laws to be unconstitutional the American public accepted it as one more step toward that perfect union.

On the other hand, the Roe v. Wade decision was not seen as a step advancing us in that direction, and so a significant segment of America did not accept that decision as evidenced by the ongoing Right-To-Life movement that will not quit until that issue is made right.

The Roe v. Wade decision is a better comparison, because a large segment of America will never accept anything to be legally right that we believe God has declared to be morally wrong.

Homosexuals are no more a minority class than drug addicts are. We must respect them, love them, care for them, want the very best for them, but never through our public policy should we enable them to continue in an unhealthy and abnormal lifestyle.

To equate this with the civil rights movement is an affront to true minorities. I am of Puerto Rican descent. I can never be an ex-Puerto Rican. Neither can an African American be an ex-African American. Yet there are thousands of ex-homosexuals who are living happy productive lives in natural family relationships.

Civil rights movements are always characterized by the defense of an oppressed minority, a class that demonstrates disadvantage in three areas: economically, politically and socially.
In every area the homosexual community enjoys not only equality, but also superiority. They earn more, they have greater political clout, and they are the only protected social class.

They simply are not an oppressed minority, and it is an offense to legitimate minorities to place a group characterized by deviant behavior in the same class.

The New York Court of Appeals was correct in prohibiting a judge from changing the definition of words unilaterally, and placing the responsibility for writing the law on the State Legislature, the body that represents, We The People.”

Until we can find agreement on these two fundamental points further debate will only lead us in circles.

MT SOLEDAD -A SYMBOL OF SOVEREIGNTY

The battle over the cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego is representative of the larger war being waged across our nation from coast to coast.

Forces are leading a revolution intent on changing the basic nature of our country, which has always been in its systems and institutions, “One Nation Under God.”

These forces headed up by the ACLU are on a mission to change the very nature of our country, and if it means lying about our history and twisting the Constitution to mean something different than what our founders intended, so be it. After all, in their view “modern man” is much more enlightened than our less evolved founding fathers, and, of course, the Constitution must also evolve with humanistic, progressive enlightenment.

The cross on Mt. Soledad stands as a symbol of sovereignty over America. In the same way we all remember the pictures of Saddam Hussein’s statue being toppled in Baghdad, so the Atheistic Humanists see toppling the cross as their symbol of victory.

This next decade will determine whether we will continue to be One Nation Under God -a nation that looks to the God of the Bible as the source of our “inalienable” rights, or whether we will become a nation that has ejected God from our public life, and has placed human wisdom on the throne of sovereignty over our nation.
It can go either way, because we are, after all, a government “of the people.” If the people choose Humanism through their collective expression, we will no longer be that “One Nation Under God,” and we will be left to the consequences of our own devices.

The only people who will have the wisdom and power to preserve the foundations of our society are the people of faith who will leave their comfortable church pews to engage the enemy at the voting booth, and anywhere else he launches an attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage.

This is a rallying call to people of faith. There can be no slackers. We must all rise to the occasion. Church leaders must seek the heart and mind of Christ to discern His will for such a time as this. We must get out of our narrow focus that is pre-occupied with “our church,” “our denomination” or “our ministry,” and we must see the fields that are white for harvest in our communities, in our states and in our nation. We must not be “complacent in Zion.” We must bring the light of the Gospel into the political and public arena, or we will surely lose this nation, and God will hold us accountable for our failure to “possess the gates of our enemy.”

It is my earnest prayer that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this case to once-and-for-all clearly state what our founders intended when they gave us the First Amendment and the idea of "separation of church and state." This is an opportunity to stop the advance of Atheistic socialism -- for now.

Mt. Soledad is about more than Mt. Soledad; it’s about the heart and soul of a nation, the nation that God has entrusted to our stewardship. How will we answer when he calls us to give account?