What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?

Published December 24, 2010 in the Lynchburg Ledger 

Because of revisionist history, religious bigotry and just plain bias, there is a great misunderstanding between the principles of Christianity and the religion of Christianity. 

Today, we see tremendous anti-Christian hostility in our institutions of learning, the media and the entertainment industry.  The pagan beliefs of people of influence in these institutions have succeeded in spreading much false and misleading information. 

There is no better time than the Christmas season when the world pauses to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, on whom the Christianity was founded, to set the record straight.

Christianity is better described as a relationship, not a religion.  Just as if being born in a garage wouldn’t make you an automobile, being born in a Christian family or even attending church doesn’t make you a Christian.

A person becomes a Christian by recognizing he is a sinner, believing that Jesus died on the cross for his sins, and accepting the salvation offered by committing his life to following Jesus. 

We can contrast the difference between Christianity and Islam because the God of the Bible sent His Son to die for us.  The god of Islam has the sons of his followers die for him.

Various Christian denominations address the concept of salvation differently.  Romans 10:9 declares, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” 

In John 3:3, Jesus said, “no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”  In John 4:16, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

Unfortunately, many churches today are preaching a “social gospel,” “liberation theology,” and various other perversions of the gospel of Christ, leading many astray. 

A Christian does not do good works to gain salvation, but does good works because they have salvation, called justification.  They do good works because they desire to please God and this is called the process of sanctification.

The principles of Christianity transcend the religious rituals and traditions of the various churches and have profoundly impacted world history for the past 2,000 years.  It is possible to adopt Christian principles in one’s life without actually becoming a Christian and this is what leads to much confusion.

The Christian church arose following the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in a pagan environment that was the Roman Empire, where slavery was a long accepted institution and women were second-class citizens. 

Early believers desired only to live their lives in accordance with Christian principles and had no expectation of transforming society, but that is exactly what happened.

Over the next 2,000 years, the principles of Christianity were responsible for transforming much of society from a pagan existence to the society we know today.

For example, in pagan Roman society, the killing of unwanted infants was a common practice.  Deformed boys and unwanted girls were abandoned to die.  This resulted in males outnumbering females by as much as 30 percent. 

Because of the Christian principle that man is created in the image of God, early Christians would rescue these discarded infants and raise them as their own.  The early pagan society soon took note of the Christian compassion and love shown to these children.

Christianity was born into a world teeming with slaves.  Slavery was accepted as a part of life, and even Plato and Aristotle both approved of the institution.

It was the early Christians like Justin Martyr who first deplored the selling of children for prostitution, a form of slavery.  “Pretty boys” were sold for homosexuals, and girls were sold to brothels.  St Patrick rejected all forms of slavery in the fifth century.

However, it was not until just after American independence that a voice against slavery was raised in the British Parliament.  William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, made it his life’s work to abolish slavery, and indeed on July 29, 1833, slavery was ended throughout the British Empire.  Wilberforce died three days later.

In America, Christians also labored to end slavery and operated the Underground Railroad, which helped many slaves escape to the north.  However, there were also Christians who supported the institution of slavery.  It took a civil war and the death of over a half million men to settle the issue.

Slavery still exists today in Muslim countries such as Sudan, where Christians are forced into slavery even today.  The sex slave business is also thriving and is becoming more prevalent here in the U.S. as our national morality declines.

Besides emancipating women and slaves, Christianity is responsible for the first true hospitals.  Many still bear their Christian names, such as: St. Elizabeth’s, Holy Cross, St. Jude’s and Virginia Baptist.

Christianity is responsible for most early colleges, such as: Harvard (1638), Yale (1701), Princeton (1746) and Dartmouth (1754).

Christianity showed the world how to minister to the poor and raise them up.  It taught the world the ideals of law, peace, and justice and individual dignity.

Today however, much of what Christianity has given to mankind in under attack from those who would have us return to a pagan society.  The recent vote in Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” is a prime example of what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “defining deviancy down.”

So this Christmas, we would do well to pause and reflect just how much the birth if Jesus, which is the only real meaning for the season, has meant to the civilized world.  Try to imagine what a pagan world might be like if Jesus had never been born and Christian principles had never been widely accepted even by non-Christians.  Also, picture what society may be like in the future as we become more and more of an anti-Christian nation.

A Bad Compromise

By Bill Wheaton

Press Media Group, LLC

Published December 17, 2010 in the Lynchburg ledger

Politics is the art of compromise.  The more political power you have, the less you have to compromise, but what goes around comes around.  Those with the political power one day will in the next be the ones without.

In 2008, with the Democrat sweep, Republicans were effectively locked out of the debate.  When Republicans took their thoughts and ideas to Obama, they were greeted with two words, “We won.”

With the 2010 election the power has once again begun to swing the other way, but there is a difference.  Democrats in power are arrogant and have no hesitation to throw their political weight around.  They think nothing of denying Republicans a seat at the table.

Republicans on the other hand are much more conciliatory.  They give Democrats a chance to participate and compromise when there is no need to do so.  They find that this is a way to keep the liberal media off their back.

But this time around, Republicans need to play hardball with the Democrats in spite of what the media might say.  They need to give them a taste of what they have been dishing out.

In the lame duck Congress, the Democrats still have total power, but many Democrats have seen the handwriting on the wall.  They find they must compromise in spite of holding all the political power because that is about to end.

Obama and the Republicans reached a compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits.  In the compromise, all the Bush tax cuts would be extended for two years and in return, unemployment benefits would be extended for an additional 13 months or 56 weeks.  This is in addition to the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation already provided.  The “death tax” would also be reinstated, taxing estates more than $1 million up to 55 percent. 

I oppose this compromise for a couple of reasons.  First, let us look at the Bush tax cuts.  The only reason the tax cuts had a sundown provision is because they compromised with the Democrats in the first place.  Democrats still do not understand that by cutting the tax rate, you stimulate the economy, which produces more revenue to the government, not less.  John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush understood this principle well. 

The Bush tax cuts, although modest at best, helped pull us out of the economic slowdown which began at the end of the Clinton administration and was exacerbated by the 9-11 attack.  Allowing the tax cuts to expire at the end of the year will result in a de facto tax increase; the last thing you want to do in a recession. 

The argument has been in regard to the high income earners.  Democrats, most of which have no business experience, hate those with higher incomes, not understanding it is this group which produces the majority of the jobs in this nation. 

The compromise (all or nothing from the Republican standpoint) was to extend all the tax cuts.  This has enraged the liberal left steeped in class envy.  Their objective is “equality.”  But their method is not to raise up the lower income earners but to lower the upper income earners.

The extension of the unemployment benefits is also a very bad idea.  Not only will it add to the already out of control deficit, but it will actually prolong the recession and slow any economic recovery, but, that is exactly what Obama wants.

Employers pay into a fund for unemployment insurance, which is designed to provide a short term economic bridge for someone who loses their job and is in search of another.  However, it is far too easy for people to become accustomed to getting that free money every week and they don’t work as hard as they could in finding a new job.

Being out of work in the past, I have had that experience with unemployment compensation.  I found myself becoming complacent and not hustling as hard as I should to find a new job.  Just to get back to work, I took a job in another field that paid a lot less than I was previously making, but it was more than unemployment.  That carried me until I found something more suitable.

We hear stories today of employers who can’t hire the workers they need because qualified workers want to be paid in cash as they don’t want to give up their unemployment compensation. 

This again is the long-term objective of Obama and the Democrats, make as many people as possible dependent on the government.

The bill in the Senate is being loaded up with pork-barrel spending and Harry Reid’s payback to the gambling lobby – on line poker.  A bill has yet to be fully written in the House but already earmarks are being added.

The answer is for the Republicans to block everything until the new Congress convenes in January.  Their first order of business should to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent and send that bill to Obama, daring him to veto it.

Any extension in unemployment benefits need to be paid for by a cut somewhere else in the budget.  They must also be limited to the very hardest of cases and in areas where unemployment is higher than normal, such as Martinsville and Danville.

The incoming Republican majority in the House will be making a big mistake if they think they can cooperate with Democrats.  Unfortunately, those days are gone, and as long as the Democrats have socialist objectives, they will not return.  Republicans need to understand that and act accordingly.

Bill Wheaton lives in Concord, Virginia.  Recent columns are available at billwheaton.blogspot.com.  His email address is bwheaton@moreinformation.net.

NOTE:  The House passed this bill Thursday night and President obama signed it into law on today.

Homosexual Anger behind WikiLeaks Data Dump

Published December 10, 2010 in the Lynchburg Ledger 

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised his homosexual supporters the repeal of the “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” policy of the military.  He is trying to make good on that promise during the lame duck session of Congress.  He has also managed to convince the military leaders in the Pentagon to support his objective, which is very troubling.

The repeal has to be done legislatively, meaning it needs to pass both the House and the Senate before it is sent to Obama for signature.  The incoming House is not likely to pass the bill and neither is the incoming Senate.  If we can block passage this year, the policy will stay in effect unless the liberal courts intervene.

The military conducted a survey on how service members would feel about the repeal.  However, that survey was fatally flawed and the military should be ashamed of themselves for polling such a hoax on the armed forces and the American people.

A week ago, the Pentagon released the results of their survey which on the surface seems to support repeal.  There was no surprise that the release of the military's new "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survey was carefully orchestrated to accomplish Obama’s objective.

However, the Pentagon had no interest in eliciting honest responses from the troops about whether the law outlawing homosexual conduct in the ranks should be preserved or repealed. Instead, soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines were addressed in terms implying that repeal is inevitable.

When one looks carefully at how the survey was conducted, one sees just how much of a fraud it was. 

63 percent of those responding to the survey indicated they live off-base or in civilian housing.  Consequently, they responded that a change in policy might not affect them.

But those in combat roles gave a different response. About half with combat experience said a change would have a negative or very negative impact in the field or at sea. Among Marine combat troops, two-thirds said combat readiness would suffer.  The concern increased where unit cohesion and trust are life-and-death concerns.

In preparation for the survey, the military held a numbers of working groups called “information exchange forums,” but only at bases in the United States, Germany and Japan.  Troops in combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan were deliberately excluded which diluted the negative response to the change.

When asked specific questions, like willingness to share a shower or tent with a known homosexual, 61 percent said they would take some sort of action to avoid this situation. 

Only 6 percent of troops surveyed said repeal would improve either recruitment or morale, but about 25 percent indicated they would leave the military early if the repeal is signed into law.  The liberal media is not reporting that.

"There was nothing in that report that showed a single benefit to the military in terms of readiness, recruiting or retention.  There is no compelling reason to do this," said

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.

Since 2005, only 1 percent of those detached involuntarily from the military were kicked out for violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rules, so this is not a burning issue within the military.  It is only a burning issue in the liberal agenda and the homosexual community.

There is another very sound reason for keeping the rule in effect and once again: the liberal media is covering it up.  The failure to apply “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” may just be responsible for a leak of classified documents.

The publication of classified U.S. government documents by WikiLeaks has captured the headlines as of late, but falling through the cracks was the motive behind a U.S. Army leaker currently being held in the brig at Quantico.  The person who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst.  What the media is not telling us is that Manning is an angry homosexual.

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend.  He was upset, so in a homosexual rage, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

The British media have been more forthcoming than the U.S. media.  They reported that Manning’s Facebook page contains many claims and clues about his homosexual affiliations. They reported he just split with his homosexual lover and has also been contemplating a sex change.

If Manning was this open about his homosexuality, and working in intelligence unit, surely someone in authority must have been aware of it.  One has to wonder if the Obama agenda of repealing the policy and the Pentagon’s selective survey concerning the policy sent unwritten orders to military leaders to not act on the policy with respect to Manning.  He should have been uncovered and separated from the military before he could do the damage he did.

Those willing to speak frankly about the homosexual sub-culture will tell you there is a great deal of emotional instability there.  There is also an incredible amount of alcohol and drug use.  It is suspected that one in four homosexuals is a victim of domestic violence - homosexual on homosexual violence. 

The U.S. Military simply cannot afford to take the risk of legitimizing other potentially unstable military personnel like Manning who would be willing to betray their country because of a homosexual relationship gone wrong.

Jihad – We Still Do Not Get It

Published December 3, 2010 in the Lynchburg ledger

By Bill Wheaton

Press Media Group, LLC

In December of 2009, AirTran Airways flight 297 from Atlanta to Houston expereinced a problem when 12 men in Muslim attire began dancing and singing in Arabic as the plane was taxiing to the runway.  They refused to be seated when the flight attendants instructed them to sit down.  It is unlawful to taxi an aircraft unless all passengers are seated. 

When they finally sat down, some of them took out their cell phones and began taking pictures of other passengers.  Again, they were ordered to stop by the flight attendants, but ignored them.

The flight crew then declared an emergency and the plane returned to the gate where the 12 Muslim men were taken off the plane and questioned. Their luggage was also removed and checked. Ten of the Muslim men were allowed to get back on the plane and 12 to 15 passengers decided that they wanted to get off that plane and take other flights.

This was likely a test to see just how far they could go with their intimidation tactics. 

Last week, while Thanksgiving airline travelers were undergoing an unprecedented level of security screening, a 19 year old Somali-born and naturalized citizen, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, was arrested in downtown Portland, Oregon after using a cell phone to try to detonate what he thought were explosives in a van.  His target; a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony crowded with children.  "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured." Mohamud said.  This would-be terrorist was caught in an FBI sting operation.

This is just two of hundreds of incidents that occur regularly, many not reported by our hapless liberal media.  The fact is, fundamental Muslims are out to enslave us or kill us and have been for a very long time.

The 9-11 Commission Report stated Islam has been at war with the United States for some time, and we failed to recognize it.  It appears we still don’t in spite of over 200 years of Islamic-declared war on America.

President Barack Obama recently hosted a White House dinner to celebrate the end Ramadan, known as Iftar. In a speech, Obama continued to suck-up to the Muslims by lying about American history.  He stated Thomas Jefferson hosted the first Iftar dinner at the White House.  Blatantly false.

During the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, U.S. ships were under constant attack from Islamic pirates along the Barbary Coast of Africa.  Numerous diplomatic efforts were made on the part of Jefferson, as well as John Adams, to try to alleviate what had become a crisis on the high seas for the U.S. since it no longer enjoyed British maritime protection following the Revolutionary War.  After these diplomatic efforts, the stunned Ambassadors made a report to Congress providing the Muslim response to the American request that they stop their aggressive and violent activities: 

The Tripolitan Ambassador to Great Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adia, had informed Jefferson and Adams of the following:   “…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Jefferson recommended that America go to war against the Muslims:  “The liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with the liberation of our commerce in the Mediterranean,” he explained to Congress. 

It was not until Jefferson was President in 1801 that the U.S. went to war against Islam, a conflict that lasted just over 4 years. Jefferson sent the U.S. Marines into Tripoli in 1805. The Barbary pirates finally backed down, but it was not until 1830 that terrorism on the high seas by the practitioners of Islam finally stopped.

But that didn’t mean Islam had changed; they just sought out new victims. Fundamental Islam has attempted to dominate and enslave populations wherever they met little resistance.  They also sought to ally themselves with non-Muslim nations for a common purpose.

During World War II, Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini aligned himself with Adolph Hitler.  The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated.

With a history like this, it should be abundantly clear that no amount of negotiation, no amount of groveling and apologizing is going to persuade Fundamental Islam to “live and let live.”

Barack Obama, our apologizer-in-chief, believes that if we are really nice to the Muslim terrorists, they will stop attacking.  For example, the Obama Justice Department moved the trial of accused terrorist Ahmed Ghailani from Guantanamo to New York and from a military tribunal to a civilian court.  Ghailani was found guilty on just one count and acquited on 280 charges, mostly murder, after the judge blocked critical prosecution evidence from being introduced. 

The worldview of Obama and the liberals says mankind is basically good and getting better.  That is why they believe they can appease the Muslim terrorists.  If Neville Chamberlain couldn’t appease Adolph Hitler with the Munich Agreement of 1938, how does Obama think he can appease the Muslim world sworn to kill us?

Bill Wheaton lives in Concord, Virginia.  Recent columns are available at billwheaton.blogspot.com.  His email address is bwheaton@moreinformation.net.