July 23, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Several years ago, when I was a college freshman, I accidentally locked my keys in my truck in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Uncertain of what to do, my first response was to get some wire out of my tool box and try breaking in through the window and unlocking the door. All the while, an older man was watching me from a few cars over. After a couple of minutes, the man rolled down his window and told me he was going to call the police. To him, it looked like I was committing a crime. And I have to admit, it looked rather suspicious. A young punk with a coat hanger trying to enter a locked vehicle should arouse anyone’s curiosity. And the man rightly left the scene and called the police. When they came, they asked for my driver’s license, which I showed them. They ran a check on the tag, proving the vehicle was mine. Then they helped me “jimmy” the door so I could get on with my life.

It looked suspicious, and I was accused by another person of committing a crime. Did I mention that I am white? The recent arrest of black Harvard professor Louis Henry Gates is the latest example of an arrogant black man thinking he can get away with anything because he’s black. And if anyone ever questions him over anything in life, he can accuse them of being a racist and the President of the United States will back him up.

The Gates case sounds like a crock from the word “go.” Apparently he locked himself out of his house, and then tried to break in. He was an innocent man caught in an awkward situation, and someone rightly called the police. The whole situation looks suspicious, REGARDLESS OF WHAT COLOR YOU ARE! But when police arrived on the scene, Gates immediately accused them of racism. When they asked him for identification, he initially refused. Then he threw a fit because they were singling him out because he was black. No, Dr. Gates….they were singling you out because you were trying to break in to a house.

This issue could have been diffused in a matter of minutes if the spoiled brat Harvard professor had simply explained the situation and shown identification from the start. But NOOOOOOO…he had to start screaming about racism. I would be willing to bet if there was REALLY a black man breaking into his house, Gates would expect the police to intervene. And if they didn’t (after all they wouldn’t want to appear racist by apprehending a black thief)……if they didn’t intervene he would accuse them of racism for not protecting his house….because he’s black.

Gates problem is not that he’s black. His problem is that he’s an arrogant jerk that’s been handed everything in life because of Affirmative Action. People like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. have trained a whole generation of black people to cry racism at the drop of a hat, and forego any sense of personal responsibility. Gates knows he can get away with anything because in our country today the unpardonable sin is to be a racist. Nobody wants to be branded a racist….so everybody is supposed to look the other way if you see, for example, a black man breaking into a house. And if someone has the nerve to call the police, they’re immediately branded as a racist.

President Barack Hussein Obama spoke of the Gates incident in a prime time news conference in which he said the police acted “stupidly” and that it was proof that we still have a long ways to go in terms of race relations in this country. Excuse me? It’s “stupid” for police to question a man breaking into a house? I beg to differ. I would say it would have been stupid for the police not to have questioned that. Especially after they received a call over it. The only stupid thing they might have done was not realizing they would be accused of racism.

I know that racism still exists in many circles of our world today. As a white male, I’m in a position to be discriminated against everyday. Over the years I’ve applied for numerous jobs in which the employer said they would prefer to hire a woman or a minority. Amazingly, the government encourages this blatant racism known as Affirmative Action. Undoubtedly, other races face discrimination as well, including black people. But need I remind anyone that we have a black man currently serving as President of the United States! And though many don’t want to admit it….Obama was elected President because he’s black. If a white man had run with Obama’s glaring lack of experience and qualifications, he would have been laughed off of the national scene. But not Obama. And now, anyone who questions anything Obama does is considered a racist.

Unfortunately, we have a “perfect storm” for the destruction of America. Obama has quickly acted to take over the nation with a system of “czars” who answer to no one but him. He’s taken over the banking industry, the automobile industry, and is poised to take over the health care industry as well. He’s traveled the world running down America while kissing up to terrorists and arrogant Europeans who despise us. And he’s in the process of bankrupting the country by spiking our national debt to historic levels. AND NO ONE CAN QUESTION HIM BECAUSE HE’S BLACK! Surely you’ve noticed….any Conservative who tries to question his antics is marked as a racist. And no Democrat has the spine to confront him….they’ve made that abundantly clear from the start.

The situation is indeed dire. Obama seeks government control of everything; and his desires are bankrupting the nation. And with the race factor thrown in….no one will try to stop him. The perfect storm exists for our destruction…and Obama is doing his best to do it in short order.

In conclusion, Barack Obama and Louis Henry Gates are both an embarrassment to their race. Both the black race and the human race. Its sad that America’s first black President will also be remembered as the man who single handedly dismantled our country. There are many black people who I believe would do an outstanding job as President, but they will never get elected because they’re not liberal enough. Clarence Thomas made that clear in 1991 when the smear campaign was waged against him during his Supreme Court confirmation. Thomas said the reason for his “high tech lynching” was because he was black man who dared think for himself instead of accepting the black liberal mantra of the way things should be. His punishment was to have his reputation destroyed by liberal Democrats and the leeches in the media.

In part, I agree with Obama’s press conference statement. I believe the Gates case does prove that we have a long way to go in this country in terms of race relations. Some how, some way, we have to get back to a level of sanity where the police can do their job and question a man breaking into a house. And that man, if he’s innocent, will simply explain the situation instead of going berserk and accusing the police of being racists. Calm, controlled, sanity is what we need. But I don’t expect to have it with a spoiled brat Affirmative Action, Liberal President who’s never worked a day in his life……defending a spoiled brat Affirmative Action Harvard professor who can be as hateful as he wants to anyone he wants anytime he wants and then accuse anyone who confronts him of being a racist. Yes indeed, our country has a long way to go.

Posted in Current Events, Politicians, Political Issues | Print | 5 Comments »

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 »

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 »

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 History, Current Events, Political Issues | Print | No Comments »

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 »

November 5, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

Tonight, as I watched the TV news people giddy over the Presidential election, I couldn’t help but think I was watching vast multitudes of suckered sheep, who had just been taken by the world’s smoothest wolf. A crowd estimated to reach 500,000 gathered in Chicago to celebrate the election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44^th President of the United States. All the pundits fawned over the moment. They waxed eloquent about how far America has come. Just 145 years after slavery was abolished—40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King—Just a few decades removed from segregation, America has cleansed its soul from what ABC News’ Cokie Roberts calls, our “greatest national sin of racism.” With all due respect to Ms. Roberts (who doesn’t really deserve any respect)….I would submit that the intentional slaughter of 47 million babies since 1973 trumps all “isms” as our greatest national sin. And I would further submit that racism is more rampant today in our nation than it has ever been…and in fact Obama was handed the Presidency because of the overt, shameless, and celebrated racism of Black Americans who came out in droves to vote for an ultra-liberal, socialist, radical who has shown a lifetime of contempt for America, and who has publicly spoken out AGAINST the protection of newborn babies.Somewhere between 97-99 percent of Black Americans voted for Obama. In some precincts 100 percent voted for Obama….for no other reason than the color of his skin. Which means they voted against John McCain because his skin is lighter in shade than Obama’s. For this they should be ashamed. If 99 percent of White Americans had voted for McCain we would have had a riot on our hands. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw and the entire leftist media would have bemoaned the travesties of how prejudiced our country is. And yet, when Black America does the very same thing…THEY ARE PRAISED for their bigotry.So pardon me, if I don’t jump on the “feel good” bandwagon of Barack Hussein Obama. For the last several months I’ve heard liberals say that any who opposed Obama were probably racist. We weren’t given the benefit of the doubt that perhaps we disagreed with his radical views for government control, increased taxation, and infanticide. I cast my vote against Obama…not because he’s Black, but because his policies are evil. In 1996 and 2000, I voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican Presidential primaries, which means I’ve voted for a Black man for President 12 years before any of the Obamaniacs ever thought of doing it. The Supreme Court Justice whom I most admire and respect is Clarence Thomas. I long to see Oklahoma’s J.C. Watts re-enter the political world. And I read Thomas Sowell’s commentaries whenever I can. But the media discards all of these admirable Black men, because it’s not enough to be Black. You must be LIBERAL and Black to be given the stamp of approval by the race police of our day.

As I watched the Obama celebrations, I was very intrigued by some words Oprah Winfrey said. Of course Oprah is the most famous woman in America. She also happens to be a new age cultist that uses the name of Jesus on occasion, even as she denies everything Jesus taught. Her following amongst duped American women is frightening. Oprah is one heartbeat away from Hell, and she’s leading scores down the path with her (but that’s a blog for another day.) Oprah told a reporter that she knew years ago that Obama would one day be President and she would do anything she could to help him. Oprah quoted a Scripture verse in EXTRMELY IRONIC fashion. She said: “There’s verse in the Bible that says, “what good is it to gain the whole world if you forfeit your soul’ and I knew that unless I helped Barrack I would be forfeiting a piece of my soul.” The irony of Oprah saying this is two-fold. First, the passage is speaking to those who reject Jesus Christ…..not Barack Obama. And second, Oprah Winfrey is the VERY EPITOME of this verse, for you see, she has rejected the gospel, and embraced fame, money, power, and influence….in exchange for her soul. That Bible verse was written to speak directly to people like Oprah…and she quotes it to praise herself and Barrack Obama.

Incidentally, this is not the first time a nation has fawned over a young, charismatic, orator who came out of nowhere. There was one other time in history, when a young man in his 40’s came on the scene and promised hope and change. He was handsome. He was immensely popular. And he could bring people to tears with his incredible oratorical gifts. Just like Obama, his “race” voted for him in massive numbers. Like Obama, he kept promising “change”—but was somewhat vague as to what he meant by that. Like Obama, he espoused massive government control over all aspects of life. Like Obama, he supported gun control and sought to take away the citizens right to bear arms. Like Obama, he publicly claimed a version of distorted Christianity as his own…but privately wanted to see religious opposition silenced. A handful of brave souls warned the nation that they were fawning over a man who wasn’t as great as they thought. But these souls were scoffed at and derided as paranoid. In fact the citizens of the nation were aghast that anyone would ever seek to criticize…or for that matter dare to question the greatness of their newly elected leader….Adolph Hitler. He was elected German Chancellor in 1933 and took the title Fuhrer (Supreme Leader) in 1934. Germany wanted “change” and they most assuredly got it. And those who opposed it were swiftly done away with. As the scoffers say in mass that such a thing could NEVER happen in America….let me just remind you that Germans SWORE the same thing in their day. But when a crisis comes and people get scared…they’ll do anything and give up everything to the leader who steps forth and promises them security. They’ll gladly sell their soul to the one who inspires and promises to protect them. Even if he truly is their biggest enemy and their worst nightmare. Americans are amazingly gullible and can sadly be exploited by a gifted politician. We witnessed such an event tonight.

In closing, to those who say I’m just bitter because my candidate didn’t win—let me just say that John McCain wasn’t my candidate. He’s an admirable man that is closer to truth than Obama…but still light years away from what our nation truly needs. McCain ran a horrible campaign and from a political viewpoint, deserved to lose. My hope is that his loss will be America’s gain in 2012. And even now, I’m intrigued by potential candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Tim Pawlenty…and I doubt we’ve heard the last of Sarah Palin, although I probably wouldn’t support her for President. I truly hope Obama’s wave of glory will be a one-term flash in the pan, but it’s hard to beat one who can hypnotize crowds like him. I hope he proves me wrong, and governs in a fashion pleasing to God. If that’s to happen, it will require some pretty drastic changes in his worldview. But God can change anyone, even Obama. And as a Christian, I’m commanded to pray for my leaders and so I will. We must pray for Obama. We must pray for America. We must pray for our world. Because our world and our country are very messed up places. Obama’s election proves that. But Obama’s not in control….God is. And to Him, I will look…no matter who occupies the oval office. I take great comfort in the fact that though my country is struggling, my God still reigns…..He’s still in control…..and He still “does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3). Obama can’t say that. But God can. And for that I rejoice….and I will continue to rejoice. (Philippians 1:18)

Posted in Politicians, Political Issues | Print | 2 Comments »

October 29, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

I believe in the separation of church and state as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution describes it – and as it was intended by our nation’s founders.  The entire principle can be boiled down to this idea:  “The government does not have the right to tell churches what they CAN and CANNOT do.”  The full text of the amendment reads: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

God-haters all over America have taken this seemingly clear statement on religious freedom to ban everything from prayer in schools, Scripture reading, Ten Commandments monuments, assault on the Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on.  Just last week, I received a letter in the mail from Barry Lynn, Executive Director of the Americans United for Separation of Church & State, threatening me with potential legal action if I made my political views known regarding the upcoming Presidential election.  The law is very interesting.  As a Pastor, I am in violation of American law if I endorse, or SPEAK AGAINST a political candidate at any church function.  Even if I preface the statement by saying it is my PERSONAL position and not necessarily the church’s position.  When the Pastor speaks at any church gathering, the United States government considers him to be a spokesman for the church at large.  And will prosecute the church for what the Pastor says.
    When you hear this, you might be prone to say that this sounds much more like Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy in the 20th century.  Yet, sadly, this unconstitutional law is vigorously enforced in 21st century America.  (So much for the part about free speech!)  
    Or, perhaps you go in the other direction and are tempted to say that pastors should be concerned with spiritual/moral issues and leave political/governmental issues alone.  Therein lies the greatest misconception on the issue of Church and State relations.  Church and State CANNOT be separated because Spiritual and moral issues CAN NEVER be separated from the political and governmental entities that pass the laws.  Though some erroneously say, “you cannot legislate morality” the fact is that ALL LAWS are an attempt to legislate morality.  We have laws against murder because our society believes murder is immoral (unless it’s a baby in the womb then we mysteriously say it’s OK).  We have laws against rape because we believe rape is immoral.  We have laws against stealing because…..(you get the point). 
    Church and State cannot be separated because morality cannot be separated from the law.  Any attempt to do so will either create churches that are secular and worthless….or laws that are immoral and dangerous.  Both of these absurdities exist in our country today, espoused by liberal organizations and the Democrat party, they have pulled America further and further down the slippery slope to immorality, and the inevitable judgment of God.  You see, GOD isn’t really intimidated by the ACLU.  Their threats don’t scare Him.  He’s not afraid of losing His tax-exempt status.  God calls nations and people to follow Him and His ways.  And when they arrogantly thumb their nose at Him, He continues to show them grace….until He decides enough is enough.  And His judgment falls on the un-Godly.
    We are currently studying the book of Jeremiah in our Wednesday night Bible Study, and the similarities between Old Testament Israel/Judah….and modern day America are shocking.  Israel thought their greatest problems were political and military.  So they made alliances with the world powers of their day Assyria and Egypt.  They turned from Yahweh, the One True God with whom they had a covenantal relationship with…and they turned to pagan nations for protection.  God offered them “fountains of living water”…but they rejected it for “broken cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13)  When pagan kings ordered them to desecrate the Temple they willingly obliged.  When pagan nations worshipped idols, Yahweh’s people joined in.  Israel took money from the Temple treasury and gave it to pagan kings as a gift.  They thought they were appeasing the powerful….but in reality, they were mocking the ALL-POWERFUL.  God makes it very clear, through the prophet Jeremiah, that though they were offered blessings –  they chose worldliness — and they would receive Divine judgment.  The same is true of America today.
    Morality cannot be separated from Law.  Christians cannot be banned from the Political process.  And Church CANNOT be separated from State….NOR SHOULD IT BE!  When you eliminate the true Church, redeemed by Christ, from matters of State, you remove the influence of the One True God from the laws of the people.  And Divine Judgment always follows.  The First Amendment is supposed to protect, rather than silence, churches.
    This year, our Presidential election is the most dangerous we’ve seen in our lifetime.  Barack Hussein Obama has no interest in hearing what the Bible says about morality, in fact he openly mocks it.  Obama favors Hate Speech legislation that silences those who speak out on moral issues such as homosexuality.  Obama embraces homosexuality as a “civil right” and will ultimately push for gay marriage.  Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and was the only Senator to actually give a speech opposing this bill which would have outlawed the murder of newborn children who survived a botched abortion.  Obama favors re-instituting the “Fairness Doctrine” which requires radio stations to have as many liberal shows as conservative.  Should the government have the right to monitor political and religious speech in a free society?  No.  But Obama doesn’t favor a free society.  He favors a far, left-leaning dictatorship where the Government is God…and He serves as King.  Don’t let the smooth speeches and pretty smile fool you.  His record speaks loud and clear…and he has surrounded himself with some very vicious people.  Yet, like sheep to the slaughter, the masses go after Obama.  Not realizing the danger of what they’re doing.
    America’s greatest problems ARE NOT Economic.  Nor are they Military.  Nor are they Educational.  Nor are they Health Care related.  America’s greatest problems are Spiritual and Moral.  America has repeatedly thumbed its nose at God and mocked Jesus Christ and the slide to judgment has picked up steam in the last several years.  A booming economy does no good, when it exists in a nation full of people who are slaves to the government…and are told to look to it for their survival.  God, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, warned the nation of Judah:  “Your own wickedness will correct you, and your rebellions will rebuke you….For you forsake the LORD your God, and the fear of me is not in you…. And you will be put to shame…” (Jeremiah 2:19, 36)
    I don’t know exactly how God might choose to judge America.  But an Obama presidency could certainly bring much of it about.  I speak now, because I still can.  Obama, and others like him who may very soon be in power, will seek to silence the voice of opposition.  In the style of a dictator, all dissenters will be “tarred and feathered” and laws passed in the name of fighting “hate” will only serve to remove the true and loving voice of God and His people.  As a Pastor, I’m already banned from endorsing political candidates.  Obama will try to ban me from making other “moral” arguments as well…..but we must obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19-20).  Obama and his goons….or some future president and his goons may one day pass laws to silence, imprison, or even execute those that disagree with them.  You say it could never happen here?  That’s the same thing Germany once said, prior to Hitler.  Anything is possible…even in America.  Especially in America….where people are more concerned with their 401 K’s than they are their standing before God.  Yes, I may be one day silenced by liberal goons calling themselves the “hate crimes police”…..but if so, I plan to die happy.  I’ll be with Jesus, who died the same way…..and I’ll be in Heaven where God’s judgment won’t be necessary anymore.
    Jeremiah was aghast at what was transpiring in his nation, and as God said through the prophet:  “Be appalled O Heavens at this, and shudder….for my people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and made for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:12-13) Listen up America!  Jesus is the fountain of living waters.  Obama is a broken cistern that can hold no water.  McCain falls WAY SHORT of Christ….but is MUCH BETTER than Obama.  And on Tuesday, November 4…the ball will be in your court.  Will you choose to reject the immoral policies of Obama?  Or will you embrace Obama and reject the living waters of Almighty God?  Your judgment hangs in the balance.

Posted in Politicians, Political Issues, Homosexuality | Print | 8 Comments »

October 8, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

Since the economy is making so much news these days, I thought I would recommend a great (and easy) book on understanding how the economy works.  The book is called, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, and is written by Thomas Sowell.

As a business major in college, I was required to take several classes in Economics, Finance, Accounting, etc……but I learned a lot more about economics from Sowell’s book than I did in any college class.  In the book he explains how free markets work, how prices are affected by supply and demand, how competition controls prices, and how government intervention usually screws everything up.  When the government gets too involved in economic situations, they distort the true value of things, thus creating financial havoc.

Thomas Sowell is what you might call a "Liberal’s worst nightmare"– he’s a black conservative who frequently speaks out against Barack Obama and democratic policies.  Sowell also has a fascinating life story.  A high school dropout who joined the Marine Corps, Sowell eventually got a GED, then earned degrees from Harvard and Columbia University before earning a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago.  So he knows way more than most of us ever will about the economy, but he’s able to explain it in a way that simpletons like me can understand.  His political commentary is very insightful as well and you can read it at townhall.com.

In conclusion, if you want to understand what in the world the news guys are talking about with the economy.  Or if you want to understand why Obama’s economic philosophy will be detrimental to our nation.  Get a copy of Sowell’s book.  It’s informative, well-written, and best of all, easy to understand.

Posted in Current Events, Political Issues, Book Reviews | Print | 3 Comments »

September 10, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

“If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed.” (1 Corinthians 16:22 NASB)

Newsweek columnist Lisa Miller wrote a critical column this week with a headline that reads: “The Senior Pastor of Palin’s Former Church Preaches Hellfire to Anyone Who Isn’t Saved By Jesus.” In typical, high-brow, snotty, liberal fashion, she looks down upon Christians and bemoans the fact that Palin is so narrow-minded that she is a pit bull for the “religious right” and for those who oppose abortion. While Palin’s conservative political views are well known, why is Miller, and other liberals so concerned that Palin’s church believes in Hell? Undoubtedly Miller is trying to scare her readers into thinking Palin is an extremist who should be shunned. Yet what Miller, and other liberals, fail to realize is that beliefs such as this one, in Hell for the unrepentant, is embraced and believed by all Biblical Christians. Millions of Americans believe in Hell, because Jesus spoke of it often. The Bible is full of warnings to those apart from Christ who will perish in their sins unless they turn to the Lord. That may sound “old fashioned” and “radical” to people like Lisa Miller; but that just sounds like Christianity to those who believe the Bible.

This is where I believe the Political Left and the Mainstream Media are shooting themselves in the foot with regards to Sarah Palin. Since they spend most of their time hob-knobbing with uppity, liberal, elitists they fail to realize that the majority of the country is much more like Palin than they are them. I recently heard a liberal pastor complaining that Palin didn’t win office in Alaska by courting the “religious right”—she ACTUALLY IS apart of the religious right. He said it as a put down, but I rejoiced to hear it. And many other Americans do as well.

When you listen to clips of Wasilla Assembly of God Pastor Ed Kalnins preaching on Hell, it sounds very similar to what I myself, and scores of other pastors preach every Sunday. Preachers who preach “hellfire” actually have the audacity to proclaim an eternal reality that Jesus Himself proclaimed, and commanded us to likewise preach. We have the audacity to believe that if you call yourself a “Christian” then you should actually believe what Christ taught. We have the audacity to believe that there is an eternal world that awaits all people after they leave this life. We have the audacity to believe Jesus’ words that “No one comes to the Father except by me.” (John 14:6) And we have the audacity to believe that those who do not come to Christ in repentance and faith will perish in eternal Hell, just like Jesus said they would. When I hear that Sarah Palin attends churches that proclaim these eternal truths, I rejoice that at last a politician has arrived on the national scene who shares my beliefs, and I know that she will pay a dear price for it in the media.

But it doesn’t end with Hell. Pastor Ed Kalnins also apparently opposes homosexuality. Can’t you just hear the liberals shrieking!!! Imagine, a Christian minister who actually thinks homosexuality is a sin, and that unrepentant sinners go to Hell!!! Who knew???? Why it must just be an Alaska thing right???? No, my dear liberals, this is what all Biblical Christians believe…..and there are many of us in America today.

Kalnins says that people have a conscience that tells them what is right and wrong. And that homosexuals know their sin is wrong because their conscience tells them so. But in an effort to ease their conscience they try to pass laws supporting their sin. That way they can ease their conscience by saying the government approves of their behavior, even thought their conscience condemns them. To which I give a hearty AMEN!  That is exactly what Romans 1 teaches.

I’m not sure of everything Kalnins believes. He is an ordained Assembly of God, and I am an ordained Baptist so we probably would differ on some lesser issues. But on foundational issues, he teaches salvation through Christ alone, the reality of Hell, and the truthfulness of sin’s devastating effects. I commend him, and any Pastor, who has the backbone to speak out about Hell and Homosexuality since both issues will get you maligned in our world today. Incidentally, Kalnins and his wife also have 7 children, which no doubt drives liberals crazy as well. (Don’t those people in Alaska know we’re supposed to be KILLING babies, not HAVING babies??!!??)

I got to be honest…when I hear of Sarah Palin’s associations with “radicals” like Ed Kalnins, I rejoice rather than recoil. When I hear Barack Obama’s Pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright shrieking “God-D–N” America” and calling America the “US of KKKA.” Then I hear Kalnins preaching the truth of the gospel and the reality of Hell; the choice for our country is clear. While these two Pastors are not running for office, it says a lot about the candidates when you examine the spiritual company they keep. While Newsweek liberal Lisa Miller tries to scare people by writing of Kalnins belief in Hell, all she’s doing is galvanizing the millions of Americans who agree with him, and Palin; and she’s motivating us even more to get out and vote come November.

Sarah Palin has an extremely rough couple of months ahead of her. Her enemies are numerous and powerful and they will unleash all they have to try and destroy and discredit her. So far their attempts have backfired, and I hope they continue to. What our nations needs from it’s government leaders is a deeply rooted, God-fearing, love for Jesus Christ. Palin seems to fit the bill. Lisa Miller calls her the “pit bull for the religious right”…I simply call her a breath of fresh air. Continue to pray for her as the liberals, reporters, and snobs of America seek to ruin her….and in the process, further ruin our country. And pray for Kalnins and other Biblical preachers. The tendency will be to go soft on the gospel in order to avoid political fallout, but the Great Commission leaves no room for reticence in the pulpit. We must speak boldly, faithfully, and truthfully about all things Christian, including eternal Hell. Bravo to Kalnins for doing it. Let’s hope and pray he keeps up the good work; and that the gospel of Christ is proclaimed in the midst of this political election season.

Posted in Eternal Issues, Politicians, Political Issues, Homosexuality | Print | 3 Comments »

September 5, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

There’s an old expression that talks about people who: “put their money where their mouth is.” Gambling reference aside, this expression refers to people who not only make claims, but actually backup their claims with authentic action. Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin seems to be one those types of people…and she’s a breath of fresh air in the putrid world of politics.Many in the nation were stunned when John McCain picked Palin, a relative unknown, as his running mate. But her name had been mentioned as a possible candidate for quite some time. Palin is a staunchly conservative, Pro-life, Pro-gun, Pro-Christian, first term Governor who has made a name for confronting corruption in a state that is famous for it. She began her political career as a City Councilwoman in Wasilla, Alaska in 1992. She went on to become Mayor, and eventually Governor in 2006. In 2004, she was appointed by Governor Frank Murkowski to be the Ethics Commissioner for Alaska’s Oil & Gas Commission where she blew the whistle for ethical violations committed by one of her fellow commissioners, who just happened to be the head of the state’s Republican Party. She has a reputation for taking on corruption wherever she sees it, regardless of party affiliations, which is bound to make you some enemies in the political world. But perhaps her greatest crime, according to some, is that she has the audacity to be a conservative from a small town.

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