Three hundred who wanted to see you dead have been killed. That’s good new for those with humility and integrity—the only people who can think honestly. Then there are those who can’t:

Just three days after Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, Maxine Waters and several thousand other boneheads screamed and griped in front of the White House about how our President is sending more of our troops into slaughter with no new strategy, strong evidence to the contrary came out of Iraq. In Najaf with Iraqui forces in the lead upwards of three hundred Shia and Sunni jihadists/insurgents were killed after twenty-four hours of combat.

So is this not clear evidence that the Iraqui army is indeed stepping up? Doesn’t the President’s revised strategy seem to be working? Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear would know this is the truth. If they were at all concerned about the truth.

To some, like Hillary Clinton, and all of the rest of the Democrat Presidential candidates this must be bad news. Have you heard any of these folks ever praise one of our military victories in Iraq?

A family member told me recently that she didn't think we needed a CIA or FBI.  And I think she was being sincere.  Unfortunately this is an opinion shared by many Americans.  When I pointed out to her that the Clinton administration fired approximately 1000 of our CIA informants she seemed completely unconcerned by this.  Despite the fact that she was employed by a company that was located in one of the twin towers until one week before it was attacked and fell.  Her company moved to Virginia one week earlier.  She couldn't comprehend the connection between a strong intelligence network and our national security.  But hey, even President Clinton didn't see the connection.

To many people in this country our enemies are President Bush, our volunteer military and the Christian right. Or all those who recognize the need to defend ourselves from the threat of Islam--to subjugate or kill all unbelievers. Democrats in congress are now threatening to cut off funding for the soldiers and marines in Iraq.  While Muslims are actively at war with all non-muslims the liberals of this country and the world may be even more dangerous. By empowering the Jihadists through their political correctness and blindness, and opposing at every turn those who would defeat them they are clearing the way for them. Those who collaborate with and aid the enemy should be identified as the enemy.  This is too deadly serious to not do so.  But we should also pray for them, "for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth." John 12:35

Is this really so serious? Yes.  Just read the hateful and unlightened words in the Koran and the ahadith.  For example, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9:29  And "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them" Koran 9:5. Or "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies" Koran 59:60 61.

 A warning from our Lord, "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."  Rev. 13:15

I'm not saying we should start killing our liberal friends and family and neighbors but they should at least be identified for the danger that they are.  Does it make sense to just sit back and let them make it easier for Jihadists to kill us?  Our lives and our children's lives depend on us identifying them, speaking out against them, and making them as powerless as possible.  "And a man's foes shall be those of his own household." Mt.10:36.

Matthew Wells

Run out of Iraq, spread socialism in our country, etc. There was nothing unexpected in the Democratic response to the President’s state of the union address. It doesn’t really matter what was said. We shouldn’t give it the slightest bit of serious attention.

The person our Democratic leadership chose to deliver the address was Jim Webb senator/pornographer of Virginia. A paragraph from his book Lost Soldiers he artfully describes a man with youthful and hard muscles, having oral sex with his infant son. There is no need to expand on the book, or any of the other pornographic material he has written. It’s a sin to even discuss such things. It just needs to be noted—this is the person the Democratic leadership decided to use to speak on their behalf.

Matthew Wells

Here is what Los Angeles Times writer Kenneth Turan writes about a film shown at this years Sundance Film Festival:

"Zoo," premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen "Police Beat") and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Do you suppose the average artsy fartsy liberal will speak out against this film stronger than they would speak out against the Christian right, or big oil or tobacco companies on any given day?

Excuse me for being an extremist but I think it needs to be reiterated that tolerance isn’t necessarily a good thing. There is a line between good and evil, decent and disgusting. This isn’t it. We went past it a long time ago. This is just an example of how low our society has sunk.

We already have liberals trying to redefine marriage. Don’t be surprised if we see some idiots trying to promote the idea of marriage between people and animals. Twenty years ago who would have thought that there would be a movie about romantic beastiality? Much less a rave review about it from a major newspaper? And things could still get worse. It’s not defended by the average atheistic or God hating liberal yet. But that could be just around the corner.

Do you remember when homosexuality was considered shameful and unacceptable? I’m pushing fifty so that time is clear in my memory. Do you remember when it was considered shameful and sinful to slaughter unborn children by the millions? Now it’s promoted in the name of women’s rights. Do you remember when a woman’s virtue was something to be well thought of and highly spoken of? Now it’s an oddity. Do you remember when filth and ungodliness wasn’t popular and mainstream?

What has changed? The thoughts of millions of people obviously. And obviously the actions of millions of people. Consider the mark of the beast. It will be in the forehead, where thoughts originate. Or in the right hand, symbolic for service, or action. Is the mark of the beast already starting to show itself?

Yes I’m an extremist. I’m extremely against God being pushed out of our culture and Satan being put on a pedestal and called decent by worshipping his ways.

Matthew Wells
1/24/07

There was a time not long ago when honesty could be expected of the average person in this country. Though there have always been flatterers and liars, in recent years these acts, sadly, have become socially acceptable and commonplace. In fact the dishonesty in our culture is so pervasive that very often lying isn’t even called lying, and flattery isn’t called flattery. These acts are hidden behind the term ‘political correctness’.

When someone speaks in a politically correct way and at the same time also speaks the truth it is merely an accident. The use of political correctness is always an attempt to avoid offensiveness and generally an avoidance of truth. And as the definition below puts forth, political correctness is often agenda driven.

Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies.

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms

This is a somewhat generous definition, and yet one of the most accurate definitions I was able to find. It makes no mention of the inherent dishonesty of political correctness.

Here’s another:

Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. The concept is not exclusive to the English language. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org

The definitions themselves are politically correct! At the very least the definitions are incomplete, which is deceitful. In addition our language has been inundated with new words and new meanings for existing words that are used as tools of political correctness. Just take a look at some of the deceitful words common use:

Pro-choice—This is just a gentle way of saying pro-abortion. And abortion itself is a gentle way of describing taking the life of an unborn child. A lie upon a lie. The argument for pro-choice is usually made in the name of freedom or women’s rights. But no choice is offered to the millions of unborn children that are killed every year, or to the people who would love them.

Tolerance—This term is used very broadly. It includes tolerance for gay marriage, legal rights for illegal immigrants, and in San Francisco it even means tolerance for the rights of convicted sexual offenders to live near elementary schools. In the name of tolerance should we just turn off our brains and tolerate everything?

Affirmative action—It is if you don’t happen to be a white male trying to get into a college or get a job and are automatically placed at the bottom of a list behind all the minority and female applicants.

Extremist—This has become a recently popular term mostly used by those on the left to describe conservatives with opinions extremely different from their own. This word however is so nebulous that our President, who is often called an extremist, commonly uses the word himself to describe our enemy. It may be unnecessarily inflammatory to use the word Muslims to describe our enemy but he won’t even use the word Jihadist. The word is meant to be derogatory and to describe someone over the edge, but it is always one person’s opinion of another. To use the word in a rational and objective way, and with an understanding of its root word ‘extreme’ it would have to mean—a person who is passionate and firm in their unpopular or unconventional convictions, like the apostle Paul, Galileo Galilei, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Jesus Christ.

Though political correctness continues to be a common practice it is generally known that it is also a dishonest practice. This speaks very poorly for our society. If dishonesty is used to put forth political or social change, or even to just avoid confrontation, then how much value is placed on intelligent and honest debate?

Even an atheist must know that we can serve only one master. Are we serving God, who is truth and light, or His opposite?

As integrity is merely the courage to see and speak the truth, then other than silence, it is the only alternative to political correctness.

Matthew Wells
1/19/07