Are American Patriots Really Dangerous?

By Donald Hank
If you enter the official web sites of mainstream denominations these days and do an on-site search for “nationalism,” you will find a plethora of scholarly articles denouncing nationalism. To underscore the importance of overcoming nationalism, the authors often point to the Islamists and virulent pan-Arabism.
Even the traditionally more orthodox Baptists and Southern Baptists now denounce nationalism as something dangerous and un-Christian.
The reasoning is that if you’re a Christian, you are part of an international community that knows no boundaries.
But who said you weren’t? I have never heard a Christian assert otherwise.
Since the earliest times, the Poles and Hungarians, for example, who speak vastly different tongues (Hungarian is outside the Indo-European group), have had an affinity for each other, so much so that a little Polish poem starts out “Pole, Hungarian, two brothers…”
And this is precisely because they see themselves as brothers in the Catholic faith.
Religion has always been international.
What’s more, it is precisely the internationalism, not the nationalism, of the Muslim world that makes Islamism so dangerous.  Go to any Al Qaeda training camp in the world and you will find an array of languages spoken among the brotherhood: Farsi, Darsi, mutually unintelligible Arabic dialects from Moroccan and Egyptian to Saudi and Levantine; Pashtun, Pashto, Sindhi, Urdu; Turkish, Malaysian, French, English, and others.
No nationalism here! Terror is as international as it gets.
Yet for some reason, the church fathers and mothers in America insist that nationalism – a code word for patriotism – is dangerous. Not one of them denounces internationalism, which, considering that communism was the international workers’ movement, has caused by far the most deaths worldwide, many more than nationalism. Not only that, the idea of internationalism as an evil ties in perfectly with Old Testament passages in which the prophets denounced disobedient Israelites for accepting foreign gods and foreign ways and for intermarrying with non-Jews.  Something doesn’t smell quite right here.
But as a former leftist internationalist, I know the game and the jargon. You can’t kid the kidder.
I once set about to spread the leftist gospel of secularist enlightenment to the world. A true believer, I lived abroad for a total of 8 years in total immersion situations, eating, drinking, and speaking native, in the belief that all human beings were brothers and that the best way to make everyone aware of this was to erase cultural and religious views that interfere—namely, just about all of them.
I am ashamed to admit I was that naïve.
At the end of the 90s, just as I was snapping out of this insanity, I came back from my last trip to an America that had fallen for the same nonsense.
One of the milestones in my journey back to reality was my acquaintance with a Chinese engaged couple who were studying law at the University of Taiwan. They were probably the smartest, nicest, most dynamic and optimistic people I had met in the three years I spent in that country, which is famous for its smart, nice, dynamic and optimistic people. I will refer to them as Ben and Rhonda.
Once over dinner at our favorite vegetarian restaurant, we got on the subject of Ronald Reagan, who was in his 2nd term then. Wanting to show them how non-chauvinistic I was, I said I thought Reagan was a warmonger. They both looked amazed and asked why I thought that. I sputtered out some incoherent tripe, trying to reflect things I had heard American leftists say (I had once belonged to the Nuclear Freeze movement).
But I frankly didn’t know. And with Ben and Rhonda as sounding boards, I could tell I sounded like an idiot.
Rhonda said “I think Ron Reagan has a terrific sense of humor,” and she told me a really funny thing that he had said. Coming from her mouth, I realized this was really funny and witty, and that I didn’t have a clue who Reagan really was, because I had never given his speeches an honest and fair audience.
Now, if any American had spoken to me of Reagan back then, I probably would have rejected their statements out of hand. But I was all ears when my foreign friends and acquaintances spoke—at least the bright ones.
And now, over 20 years later, thinking of a famous Reagan quote, I realize something important.
The quote is this unabashedly nationalistic one: “We will preserve for our children this last best hope of mankind on earth, or we will make them take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”
And the realization is this: American nationalism is unlike any nationalism I have experienced anywhere else in the world. This is because Americans are by nature—by culture—self-effacing, altruistic, thoughtful and open minded. So to be an American patriot is to love those attributes, which make us love and respect our fellow human beings everywhere on earth.
Further, when American leaders denounce nationalism, while giving internationalism a pass, it is clear that they are asking us to renounce our love for a people imbued with these outstanding traits, which according to Ronald Reagan, are the hope of the world.
Why would they do this? Clearly, they do so to support an agenda. And I believe part of that agenda is to ram supranationalism, and specifically, the stealth agenda of the North American Union and the LOST and Kyoto treaties, along with open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants, down our throats. The agenda is to eliminate not nationalism but our nation itself.
I still believe all human beings are brothers, because we are created in the likeness of our Maker. But I now realize that no country on earth has a clearer understanding of this or a greater compassion for their fellow man than the United States of America.
Let’s preserve it if we still can.
Donald Hank is a technical translator and a staff writer for Laigle’s Forum
Contact the author: don@zoilandonsplace.com
 

I am a radical Fundamentalist (updated)

by Donald Hank

 

So was Mom. So was Dad. As far as I recall, our whole family, except for 2 unchurched uncles, were radical fundamentalists who professed a naïve belief in the whole Word of God.

 

And here’s the bizarre part: Not one of us misfits has been observed to strap a belt of explosives to ourselves and blow ourselves up in a crowded bus terminal.

 

That’s because of a little-known fact, namely, that Christian fundamentalists typically exercise their religion and influence the political process peacefully.

 

This A.M. I caught an interview with an “expert” on terror who said that the Twin Towers were brought down by “radical fundamentalists.”

 

He didn’t mention the key word “Islamists” or call them “radical Muslims.” He is one of many who keep rubbing it under our noses that “fundamentalists” did the dirty deed. The clear implication is that deeply held faith is dangerous.

 

Since September 11, 2001 the “War on Terror” has failed to end terror. In fact, many Americans have been using that terrorist act as a pretext to accomplish something quite different, namely, an attack on Christians, which has been more successful than the fight against terror because it has confused unthinking people into equating the good guys with the bad guys. So much so that many of the “good guys” changed their names and identities, something the terrorists will never do.

 

Before that time, many evangelicals were still calling themselves fundamentalists. But since then, thanks to the media assault on this group, they have allowed themselves to be intimidated into dropping that name. Thus they allowed the Left to define their religion for them, which is always a mistake.

 

Friends, as I pointed out elsewhere, we have been allowing the Left to redefine America since the 1960s, and in so doing have shifted far to the Left as a nation, causing great harm to ourselves, our children, our unborn, our families, and our core values. Can’t we figure this thing out yet?

 

Let’s try harder this time. Here goes:

 

Webster defines fundamentalism as follows:

 

A militant conservative movement in American Protestantism originating around the beginning of the 20th century in opposition to modernist tendencies and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation of the Scriptures, the imminent and physical second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, physical resurrection and substitutionary atonement.

 

I need to point out that the belief system of “Fundamentalism” was the same as that once known simply as Christianity and existing throughout European and early American history, so it didn’t originate here or in the 20th century, as this definition suggests. Further, to put things in their proper perspective, the “militant” descriptor here deceptively obfuscates the fact that the opposition to traditional faith was much more militant (causing millions of deaths) than fundamentalism. Thus the lexicographer has dutifully bowed to the liberals in writing this definition.

 

Be that as it may, by this definition, most of those now cowering behind the “safe” descriptor “evangelical” are in fact fundamentalists in terms of their beliefs, though few will admit it.

 

I have heard pastors stoutly affirm on the pulpit all the beliefs set forth in the above definition of fundamentalist. Yet when asked if they are fundamentalists, they vehemently deny it.

 

One evangelical pastor wrote a memo on fundamentalism, in which he states:

 

Not in its classical sense, but in the sense of a 20th Century subculture in America, “Fundamentalism” has been a hindrance to biblical social concerns in several ways.

 

First, he states that prior to the 1980s, Fundamentalism was so “otherworldly” that it saw no need for interaction with the present world. He says this is “so anti-cultural that it saw little role for the Church at all in forming a social ethic.”

 

Apparently, he never heard of fundamentalist radio preacher Carl MacIntyre, who was a major force for social and political change in the 60s and was anything but “otherworldly.”

 

He goes on:

 

The “moral majority” formed and quickly grabbed the limelight as Fundamentalist forces moved out to change the shape of America. Lacking a sound theological grounding and a root in tradition, these movements had their “day in the sun” and then seemed to vanish.

 

Did this writer not know that Jerry Falwell, the founder of this moral majority, and his colleague James Kennedy were still very much active until their recent demise, and their many organizations such as Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, and Liberty University, still carry on, greatly impacting American public life for the better? Did he never hear of James Dobson, Don Wildmon (American Family Association), David Barton (Wall Builders), Beverly La Haye (Concerned Women for America) and many others like them who are still very much active in public life, affecting legislation and voters’ behavior? One such activist, Tony Perkins, founder of the Family Research Council, is sponsoring a values-voters debate on October 19 this year which will be attended by politicians, including at least one presidential candidate. So what does he mean by “vanished”?

 

The writer also says “today we see Fundamentalist social concerns attitudes [sic] which are cynical of anything humanitarian or governmental—almost acting, in my opinion, as if God had limited sovereignty over the affairs of state.”

 

Firstly, since he says they have “seemed to vanish,” how is it he knows what they are up to today? Secondly, and more to the point, God has not generally used rocks and trees or other inanimate objects to promote His agenda. Since the beginning of time, He has always used mostly human beings to influence the affairs of state, such as the writing and execution of Jewish Law and the Bible, and the preaching of the Gospel. The fact that He relies on human effort to perform His work does not make Him less sovereign.

 

But equally incomprehensible is this pastor’s claim that this memo is “written to stimulate debate,” yet he does not say how or when we are to debate him on this. He doesn’t even include his email address. (I received my copy through a friend).

 

Legions of pastors like this one have allowed the liberal agenda to have its way with them.

 

A few liberals speaking on TV after 9/11 sent them scurrying to come up with a name and a new definition for themselves that would be less offensive to the enemies on the Left.

 

These are the same bold souls who advise others to ask: “What would Jesus do?” and then to act accordingly.

 

Jesus was anything but a coward. Yet His followers are in effect denying Him in public.

 

For an evangelical Christian to deny the name “Fundamentalist” is to deny the virgin birth, the second coming and the substituionary atonement.

 

Given the timidity of church leaders, and their habit of running away from their own identity to placate the enemies of God, it is no wonder that churches are having such a hard time selling their beliefs.

 

After all, it’s hard to sell a product if you keep insisting you haven’t got it.

 

This is what I think Christians’ attitude should be regarding their own identity and the struggle against Islamism:

 

We are what we are and we will not be intimidated by unbelievers to redefine ourselves. The Left may not change us. Its opposition to us reaffirms us. Referring to murderous Islamists as fundamentalists is a transparent subterfuge aimed at making Christian fundamentalists look bad. We refuse to be judged based on false associations with people whose ideology is alien to ours.

 

After all, if for you the war on terror is nothing more than an excuse to denigrate Christians, then you, at the very least, aren’t taking resistance to terror seriously.

 

In fact, by attacking us, you are siding with the enemy.

 

This is so because Christianity is the only means to effectively combat Islamism. This is obvious when we look at Europe. Already, two German nationals have become jihadists, plotting an attack on a US Air Force base, and the reasons for this are clear if one understands Europe today:

 

Western Europeans have only 2 choices:

 

1—They can be secularists or atheists and blend in, or

2—If they want to worship freely, they can profess Islam and worship in a mosque.

 

They can’t worship freely as traditional Christians, who are marginalized, and are seeing their worship discouraged and openly hated in the European Union (EU). Poland’s resistance to the homosexual agenda on religious grounds, for example, met with a severe reprimand and threats of sanctions by the high priests of Secularism in Brussels. Christians who choose home-schooling in Germany risk having their children kidnapped by the Gestapo-like social services system.

 

Of course, America is not far behind in its abuse of Christians, who are marginalized on campus and have already been threatened with jail for expressing their views on gay sex. Any professor who dares to express any doubts about Darwinism will likely not be tenured.

 

The party line these days, one that, sadly, even “evangelicals” are swallowing, is that Christianity and Islam are parallel and equivalent religions, and that by denying the fundamentals of Christian faith, we can somehow induce Muslims to do likewise.

 

This is nonsense. Islam is by its very nature fundamentalist in the Muslim sense, because it rejects the notion of a forgiving God. Therefore, it is behavior-focused. Christians, however, including fundamentalists, believe in a forgiving God and are focused on the acceptance of Christ’s atoning blood, which is to be accompanied by a change in behavior thanks to the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists on the Christian side, unlike Christian liberals, are better able to represent this forgiving God to man because they do not deny the supernatural origins of their faith. “Christians” who doubt the fundamentals do not appeal to sinners and will therefore not increase the body of believers.

 

Yet as Christianity diminishes, Islam increases. Therefore, a trend toward diminishing fundamentalism in Christianity is a trend toward Islam (as demonstrated already in Europe), whose avowed purpose is to enslave us.

 

All of the founders of our faith were fundamentalists, without exception. For their pains, they were martyred. Yet their reward was eternal life.

 

Most pastors today are pathetically running after earthly comfort, denying the tenets of their faith and their Christian identity, and denying Christ when such is convenient. The earthly comfort they garner for this is their reward.

 

But a faithful remnant is still there, and will gain eternal life. Quite possibly, with the help of the Almighty, they will also lead our nation to righteousness. Should they succeed, against all odds, we can confidently ask: If God be for us who can be against us?

 

I wouldn’t ask that just yet…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a reply

HRES 590: Government as head of household

HRES 590: Government as head of household
By Donald Hank

The radical feminist movement tanked in the early 90s after domineering women’s belief system for 30 odd years.  People finally saw the hypocrisy.  When the N.O.W took no position on the Lewinsky case, it was obvious they only stood for leftist man haters, not traditional women struggling to keep their families together.

But the elitists in government (both parties), whose single-minded purpose is re-election at all costs, didn’t seem to notice.  They kept propping up the failed radfem ideology, which, as I showed in an earlier column, is one of the pillars of Maoism.

Here’s what all the fuss is about:

The radical feminists hate the “patriarchy,” which is their code word for marriage.  But since most American women are for marriage, they have been scheming to show that marriage is poison to women.  To do this, they stoutly maintain, at variance with serious studies on the subject, that men are typically violent and women are their perennial victims
There’s a lot at stake, namely, child custody, which translates into child support for the winner of custody cases—almost invariably mothers.

Important scientific studies, like Dr. Warren Farrell’s book Father and Child Reunion, which I mentioned in an earlier column, show that children fare best in intact marriages, followed by father custody, followed lastly by mother custody.

To keep these devastating findings from affecting legislative and jurisprudential reality, the radical feminists can always count on their numerous henchpersons in the legislature to introduce legislation based on grotesquely distorted study results fed to them by feminists.
House resolution 590 starts out: “whereas one in four women will experience domestic violence some time in their life…,” suggesting that men do not experience domestic violence.  Yet the most complete-ever review on the subject shows women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than men in their male-female relationships.

But more devastating than these figures is an analysis of PA child abuse statistics I performed for Lancaster-New York Non-Custodial Parents in 2000 showing that mothers plus the men they brought into their children’s lives after their relationship with the fathers are terminated perpetrated 4,021 child abuses in 1999 versus 2,263 perpetrated by fathers plus the women they brought into their children’s lives. 

In other words, as many as 1,758 excess child abuses may have been added to the system in Pennsylvania as a result of the tenacious policy of awarding child custody automatically to mothers.
This isn’t to say that fathers are necessarily better parents in a hypothetical state devoid of government interference.  But in a system where welfare and monetary “child” support incentives encourage women to have children, even those women who do not like—or even hate—children, our entire child support/custody system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that truly takes the child’s best interests into account.
 
HRES 590 is a step backward in this regard because it provides a specious prop for an agenda-driven custody system that harms children and decent fathers.
The prospect of driving a stake through the heart of the ill-begotten HRES 590 (not to be confused with HR 590, BTW, which is something else) makes a phone call to your congressman worth the effort. 
Donald Hank is a technical translator, staff writer for Laigle’s Forum and founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents.
Contact the author: don@zoilandonsplace.com

Duncan Hunter wins Texas straw poll

Duncan Hunter wins Texas straw poll
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-strawpoll2sep02,1,729234.story?coll=la-politics-campaign
Voters are a little torn these days. Fred Thompson talks a good talk, yet voted for McCain-Feingold and Paul Viguerie warns that he might be just a tad bit bushy for American conservatives’ tastes. Hard to say. The other GOP hopefuls each have a few fatal flaws or don’t seem electable for some reason.
The fact that the erudite Phyllis Schlafly endorses Hunter speaks volumes for this man, and a look at the Hunter for President home page shows he has voted consistently conservative since the start. Conservatives may just have themselves a winner here.

Donald Hank’s WND exclusive: Define and Conquer
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56737

Winning in Iraq? Don’t ask Iraqi Christians
Resorting to the post-modern logic that defending a Christian against non-Christians is somehow un-American, or even un-Christian, and certainly not politically correct, our government has never made a statement denouncing–or even acknowledging–the tragedy of the Iraqi killing fields for Christians.
The same logic applies to the ignored double standard in the Israel-Palestine region: Israel welcomes Arabs in its country and makes them citizens, whereas Palestine denies even entry to all Jews. Our government has never denounced this situation or even mentioned it publicly. Instead we treat both sides as if they were equally culpable. We make the right moves (sometimes) but say the wrong words–none at all when it counts.
If we fail to come to grips with this problem of the treatment of religious minorities in the Arab world, our rationale for being in Iraq is in jeopardy.
Condi, are you out there?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57416

Emerging church or God’s church?
Christian leaders need to know whose side they are on. Too many are trying to have it both ways, serving both the “emerging church” or “church growth” movement or serving the biblical God. The Bible tells us what happens to the lukewarm. It also warns against “serving 2 masters.”
This article should help you to determine what those sides are and which you need to be on. Many Christian leaders talk like Bible believers, but hesitate to refer to themselves that way for fear someone might be offended.
No wonder church attendance is off. People who are true seekers will give that wishy-washiness a big miss.
And those who come to hear sweet talk will not be the salt of the earth.
http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos81.htm
Shaping The Global ‘Christian’ Youth
By Berit Kjos