Wednesday, January 10, 2018


Once in awhile—no, more rarely than that,
A time or two, or ‘once upon a time,’
A man steps forward, endorses a pact,
Then starts to enforce it, line upon line.
Who dares to rail when finally a statesman
Discharges duty with all of his might?
What kind of pest, that kind of citizen?
‘Crapweasel,’ says Malkin, or parasite.
Who are they, really, who in Washington?
McCain, McConnell…so many are red, 
Every democrat, House Speaker Ryan,
‘The Cartel in DC,’ thanks good ole Ted!
Man’s worst enemies are those of his house,
Even a daughter! if not his dear spouse. 

For those who are not up on the political facts, some of the words and phrases in my simple sonnet need to be explained. ‘Crapweasel’ is an epithet that appears in the subtitle of Michelle Malkin’s latest book. Those who are ‘red’ are republican. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is a deluded leftist. His wife I do not know about; therefore, ‘if not his dear spouse.’ And Ted Cruz labeled politicians in Washington who collude in the interest of themselves at the expense of the American people, ‘the Washington Cartel.’ 

Arguably against more opposition than any president has ever faced, President Trump has done wonders to resolve domestic problems and foreign predicaments. To name only two of his significant feats: the American economy has picked up substantially, and North and South Korea are engaging each other in conversation. The friendly talk going on in Korea may be nothing but the accidental result of Trump’s foreign policy. Even the fallout from how he acts is often salutary; such is the wisdom of this man’s mature approach. I would not be shocked if North Korea began to noticeably westernize during Trump’s administration on account of his powerful sway. Would it not be wonderful if it ceased to be a dictatorship, or at least one as strict and insular as it presently is? President Trump has already accomplished more than I expected he would, though it may be that, under pressure, he will bend on immigration, and thus, fatally diminish his basic support system. The man deserves, nevertheless, to be honored for all the good that he has done in 2017. Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize even before he began to manifestly tear down and destroy; Trump faces a possible coup for building his country up and for standing up for it while abroad. Obama was celebrated in spite of exposing his citizens to mortal danger; Trump is derided for doing his utmost to protect all Americans, even the ones who call for his assassination.    

This sonnet appears on my modest blog before it appears anywhere else because I am the one who wrote it. Though my sonnet is less remarkable than those composed by Shakespeare, it is nonetheless Shakespearean in form.

Monday, November 20, 2017


I keep up with politics through radio broadcasts. The radio host who best informs me along that line—one of my best discoveries for figuring politics out, is Mark Levin. I listen to his broadcast regularly, at least some of it, and I have gained much understanding through him. No one speaks the truth about Washington DC with as much passion as he does while maintaining as much hatred of corruption as he does. One cannot love one’s country without hating what destroys its goodness and greatness. Mark Levin is a man that the founding fathers would not be ashamed of, which is about the best definition of a patriot that one could come up with. 

There is no sensationalism on the Mark Levin program. Nor does he promise coverage on a story that he saves until the last minute, like certain hosts on Fox do in order to hold listeners hostage. He does participate in commercials, which I hate. He has developed a manner of slipping seamlessly into his pitch in order to trick listeners into hearing these commercials. But I can put up with this because he seems to actually use the products that he endorses, and because I’m usually speedy enough to mute the radio before the pitch has a chance to take off. 

I have been listening to Mark Levin for several years now. During this time, I have noticed something creep into his disposition—something that is beginning to dull the luster of his passion. Mark Levin is not a theologian; I do not expect him to know the Bible very well. But he does remark on religion sometimes. I gather from some of his statements that his view is that any religion is fine as long as it includes a level of morality that does not undermine the certificates that the republic was founded on. That he seems to hold this view of religion does not surprise me; most conservative radio hosts believe exactly that. This view of religion will prove, in the end, to have been less than adequate. It is a religion of works, not grace. It is a religion of mere morality. We should not expect Christian virtue in persons who are not Christian; that said, the words ‘conservative’ and ‘pride’ should not be found together. 

Like other radio hosts that have become popular, Mark has enveloped himself in a protective bubble that only his favorites know how to penetrate. It is triste when persons become remote on account of their celebrity status. To some extent, their inaccessibility is unavoidable because of the volume of mail that comes their way. They can’t pay attention to, much less consider, every concern. Any warnings that they might have listened to for their own good are never heard; and therefore they continue hazarding themselves. Proverbs 16.18: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” This verse is one of the most frequently quoted, surely, in the whole history of Bible dissemination. Rightly so, for pride is one of the sins that men are most often guilty of, and in peril because of. I agree with Mark that we should not be cheerleaders; we should criticize as well as praise, whenever we perceive that someone on our side deserves it. We both disagree with Reagan on that point. A person who does not want his listeners to be mere cheerleaders should welcome, then, reproof from a friend. Proverbs 27.6: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” 

Mark Levin is not my personal friend. I have never seen him. I am not even on the outer edge of his inner circle. Nevertheless, we are on the same side politically. So, in that sense, the man is my friend. His political views are essentially the same as mine: Judeo-Christian/Capitalist. If we are wise to pay attention when political foes accuse us of pride, it must be foolish to dismiss a warning that comes from a friend. That pride goes before a fall, only a fool will deny; that it bodes well to heed the warning of a friend is obvious. 

Mark Levin has become proud—sort of puffed up about himself. He yells a lot; but that’s righteous indignation. He calls people names; but that’s because he’s furious. He does impressions; but those are funny, if not called for. He can be rude; but that’s because he’s impatient. His intro waves him in as ‘the great one’; but this preamble is part of his old pride, not the growing pride that I am referring to. So what is it? What do I mean when I say that he has become, or is becoming, proud? Here are a few examples. (1) The man frequently refers to his ratings, even while he prefaces the reference with something like, “Now I could sit here and talk about my ratings….” It is pride that makes him talk about his ratings in spite of his promise not to do so. (2) He is proud of other radio hosts repeating what he has to say, even while he denounces them for sharing the information. He is in the vanguard, you see; they are just ‘backbenchers,’ which is precisely what he calls them. I agree that they are, in fact, backbenchers, but it is far from humble of Levin to state the fact. He should leave it to others to do so. Proverbs 27.2: “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.” Mark is Jewish; he should know the Old Testament just a bit. (3) He gets upset when others use the word ‘Statist’ to identify the political strain that Obama wielded in Washington, as if no one else has ever used the term. That’s pride again. (4) When he is mentioned in the news, he reaches for a pretext to bring that into discussion. This is prideful behavior. (5) Sometimes he asks his call screener to clear the board to make way for a new question that he has, which means that the callers who have been waiting for an hour or more to speak to ‘the great one’ are dismissed. It all comes down to this: he thinks he is greater than he is. This is especially noticeable when he slips into his affected lisp. Let’s make the lisp point number six. (6) “People ask me,” he says, “how can you write such scholarship?” Has anyone ever asked him that? Is he that much of a scholar? It is far from difficult to find fault with his ‘scholarship.’ He points out, reading from one of his books, that tyrants have ‘infinite ideas.’ Is that great writing? To say that tyrants have an infinite number of ideas would still be incorrect, but at least it would be closer to the truth than to say they have ‘infinite ideas,’ for ideas are not infinite, are they? After reading from the stock of his ‘intellectual property,’ as he terms it, he says, with an affected lisp, “I should send them my books.” This affectation is revolting to listen to. When speakers become proud, they try to sound important. But in trying to sound important, they expose their pride. They get so big in their own eyes that they must add something extra to the sound they make. The lisp is the weight that so many of them think will convey their importance. The fake lisp is a common fault, frequently found among prominent ministers. The tone he uses when he says the word ‘substantive’ is not as irritating as the lisp, but it’s full of pomposity as well. I could have made that into point number seven. But I’m trying to go easy on him.   

In 2015, Levin had an amateur author on his program. He was trying to help promote her book. After calling her book something like ‘substantive’ and ‘fulsome’ (which words he uses to characterize practically every book he likes), he nevertheless stated that her book was not a book of ‘political philosophy’ or anything like that—just before he added, “leave that to me.” Yes, yes, pat pat on the head, little startup author, nice going, but leave the hard stuff for me to write. That kind of communication oozes with the slick oil of perilous pride.      
It is all the more prideful when we consider that he does not write political philosophy. He thinks he does; he says he does; but, in fact, he doesn’t. He has not written volumes of political philosophy, as he regularly boasts, unless his Liberty Amendments qualify, which I doubt. Let’s consider the two books of his that I have read and that he thinks are volumes of political philosophy: Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia. Can these books be called volumes of political philosophy? No, they are summaries of political philosophy, which difference is as huge as the disparity that exists between a limerick and a poem or between a book and the CliffsNotes on said book. It is one thing to summarize the thoughts of a political theory; it is altogether another world to hatch the theory itself. It is the difference between taking notes from a sermon, and constructing the sermon that the notes derive from. And yet Mr. Levin has the bad habit of tiring his audience with the story of how he writes books more ‘substantively’ than other authors do! He labors at his research, you see, while they just thoughtlessly scribble! Mr. Levin ought to take note of this: writing political philosophy is labor; taking notes on political philosophy is light duty. I have given both his books high ratings on Amazon, but not on the false notion that they are books of political philosophy! Take a peek at the chapter titles for each book; the proof of what I say will jump right out at you. In Liberty and Tyranny we have chapter titles like this: ‘On Faith and Founding’; ‘On the Constitution’; ‘On Federalism’: summary, summary, summary, and (I’m being generous because I’m going easy on him) commentary, commentary, commentary. If he had written a book that federalism could be founded on, that would have been political philosophy. In Ameritopia we have chapter headings like the following: ‘Plato’s Republic and the Perfect Society’; ‘Thomas More’s Utopia’; ‘Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan and the All-Powerful State.’ Again, summary, summary, summary, with (I’m being generous again) commentary, commentary, commentary. The author of the Republic wrote political philosophy; the author of Utopia wrote political philosophy; the author of Leviathan wrote political philosophy; Mark Levin did not write anything but summaries of, with commentaries on, political philosophy. That is all he did in Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia. They are New York Times bestsellers; but they are summaries of, and commentaries on, political philosophy, not actual exhibits of the science. His books becoming bestsellers has a lot to do, I think, with the increase of his pride.  

This demeanor, people, is worrisome to the point of deserving a warning. This prideful manner is what it is like to have a head that is just about fat enough to offset one’s balance. Then comes the fall, and there are many ways that that can happen. So my advice to Mr. Levin is that he set some time aside for reading and meditating on the Proverbs of God. Proverbs is a great headshrinker; it is the place where even the fattest head can be shrunk back to its normal size. Many kernels of the gospel may be consumed there, moreover, which content is nothing less than the Bread of Heaven in Old Testament form, and which is, without a doubt, the way  of salvation from sin and hell that each person needs, no matter how pure and decent his politics may be. I would not recommend that book of his dad’s on Proverbs, either, but the actual Proverbs. “Pride goeth before a fall.”

Tuesday, October 3, 2017


What I have to say about prescription drugs is a non-medical opinion. Do your own research and make your own decision. I am not a medical doctor. 

The DSM stands for ‘diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.’ Beware of taking your child to the doctor on account of your child being disobedient, restless, anxious, or disturbed for any reason that does not involve an obvious physiological problem. Even if your child is acting up or depressed because of a physiological problem, beware, for the doctors are trained to use brain-damaging, mind-altering drugs to cure your child of whatever he or she might be experiencing or displaying. Beware of antidepressants of any kind, especially those that are called SSRIs. Such drugs make energetic, vivacious persons into content unthinking zombies, and they lead many others to suicide. The fact that one cannot go off this kind of antidepressant without an increased risk of suicide is proof that the SSRI is not cure. It is better not to begin taking a substance that is extremely risky to quit. In my opinion (though I am not a doctor) a person who is on antidepressants of any sort might as well risk quitting them if he might have a chance, then, at living rather than merely existing. It is not very useful to be a walking-dead zombie.           

If you take your child to a doctor because you don’t like something about your child’s behavior, the odds are that the doctor will give you a questionnaire to fill out. Before you fill this questionnaire out, know this: if you give honest answers, your child will fail the test on some level or other, for the questions are calculated to achieve that result. Every child expresses a wide range of moods for a variety of reasons. Every doctor does too, for that matter. This does not mean that a drug should be prescribed. The questionnaire that your doctor gives you to fill out comes from the ‘experts’ who are in charge of deciding what disorders will be part of the DSM, the ‘diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.’

The latest DSM is the DSM 5. The DSM keeps changing because some disorders are periodically renamed or revised; as well, new disorders are regularly added to the list. 

Let’s look at some of the things that these ‘experts’ have decided to name ‘disorders’ that psychotropic drugs will be used to ‘treat.’ 

There is the ‘Hoarding Disorder,’ which means the inability to give up possessions. So a person tends to be a ‘pack-rat.’ Never mind why he is a pack-rat or how he became a pack-rat. He is a pack-rat, and the ‘experts’ have a drug for him. Jesus would tell the pack-rat to give to the poor and to be mindful of storing up treasures in heaven instead. But the ‘experts’ must think they are wiser than Jesus. Just think about it. You’re a pack-rat, and the cure, supposedly, is a drug. 

There is the ‘Binge Eating Disorder.’ The Bible calls it gluttony. A person could be a glutton for many reasons. What does the Bible say to a glutton? Does it counsel him to go to a witch-doctor who will whip up an herb for him to eat at a specified time every day? No, the Bible reproves him for his gluttony and warns him that such behavior is not in line with a proper association with God. 

Let’s look at some of the revised diagnoses; that is, diagnoses that are still in force, just revised a little. First, we have the ‘Pedophilic Disorder.’ A pervert likes to molest children, and the best thing the ‘experts’ can come up with is a drug. Jesus warns the pedophile of hell and judgment, which is a pretty good hint that we should deal with perverts by the force of a just law commended to our use in Romans 13. But the ‘experts’ would drug the pervert instead.

Next, we have the ‘Substance Use Disorder.’ A person becomes a drug addict of some sort, and the ‘experts’ decide that the solution to this is a drug to replace what the drug addict is addicted to. The Bible warns the drinker of the negative results of alcohol excess, and it does so in order to make him reconsider and to make him reflect on the God who has ordained these consequences. But today’s ‘experts’ have a better idea, apparently: prescribe a drug. The moral problem of alcohol addiction is being called a disease now. And it is because of the ‘experts’ and their DSM. Drinking to excess is not called a disease in the Bible. The Bible overrules everything and everyone. 

Next, we have the ‘Specific Learning Disorder.’ A ‘specifier’ will determine what area of learning the subject is disordered in: whether reading, writing, or arithmetic. That is almost word for word from the DSM’s own page. So your kid is slow to learn his ABCs and his 123s, and the only thing the ‘experts’ can come up with is drug use for an answer. The Bible says to train and to correct. The ‘experts’ say to give your kid a drug. 

What are some of the disorders currently being considered? There is the ‘Internet Use Gaming Disorder.’ The truth about this one is that the parents either can’t or won’t control their kids’ use of media devices, and the solution is to blame the kids, go to the doctor, and put the kids on drugs.

What are some of the disorders that have been rejected? Well, they’ve been rejected for now. How benevolent the ‘experts’ are. They will probably be rehashed into more acceptable nomenclature for the DSM 6. By that time, the public will be even more na├»ve and passive than it is now. Then the proposed disorders that are currently rejected will be accepted. So what do we have? We have the ‘Hypersexual Disorder.’ The Bible calls it sin, wickedness, or abomination, each of which requires repentance unto God and faith in Christ. But the ‘experts’ have a drug that will make everything right. Next, we have ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome.’ The background to this one? Parents who got divorced or decided to separate, or maybe a child was made through an adulterous fling. What is the cure for the child who becomes alienated because of the sin of divorce, separation, adultery, or fornication? What is the cure for the sin that the child had nothing to do with? Surprise! Or is it? Give that kid a drug because he or she can’t handle the consequences of the sins of its parents! Why not drug the parents? They deserve to be drugged against their wills more than the child does, don’t they? Well, at least we can be encouraged that often the parents do get the drugs that they deserve because the guilty parents often acquiesce to taking the drugs too. Synthetic drugs are becoming the number one solution to sins as old as Genesis—for the whole family. The chief concern is that these drugs that produce side effects, including suicide, are frequently administered to kids in order to solve ethical issues that immoral parents are the root cause of.   

Most doctors are just following protocol. They are not as guilty as the ‘experts’ who are being manipulated and bought (usually by plane tickets to exotic places) by the drug companies. But even the local GP or the local specialist is sometimes being bought by these drug companies. A relative of mine has a concubine who works for a doctor. She gets free plane tickets from her doctor/employer sometimes. My suspicion is that the tickets come from the overflow of gifts that the drug companies hand out to doctors who prescribe promiscuously. 

Parents need to pay attention to their child’s social, behavioral, or moral failures. More importantly, parents or guardians need to focus on themselves and then sort themselves out. Issues in the child are best resolved by treating the root cause, which, these days, is usually degenerate parenting. Are parents and/or guardians not the underlying cause, usually, of what the child alone gets blamed for? Observe what’s going on, and that is the conclusion you will come to. Children are no longer disciplined, guided, and given stable homes, which neglect leads to their acting out, which, in turn, leads to prescriptions, dependencies, and then side-effects and often fatalities.   

Instead of filling out questionnaires that are contrived to derive answers that will convince you to put your child on drugs, why not read your Bibles and then question yourselves about your permissive, worldly lifestyles that cause ‘alienation’ or ‘specified learning’ deficiencies in your children? Why not deal with the root of the issue (the parents and guardians) before considering a knee-jerk reaction to treat (with brain-altering synthetic substances) the rotten fruit (the behavior of children) that springs from the root? Now that would be hard work. That would be mortifying. That would astonish your friends and family. That would be biblical. That would be the best thing for your child. 

Why not bring the parents and principal guardians together in order to hammer out some agreement in order to give the child a more settled, serene, structured environment? For example, if the child lives in two homes because of irresponsible, immoral parents, how about making those two homes harmonious in what is allowed and disallowed? How about shuffling parents from home to home instead? That is what one wise judge ordered. How about canceling some programs that the child is involved in, in order for that child to gain a sense of stability and routine? Children need to feel lovingly hedged in so they can concentrate and acquire interests. Hustling them off to programs and trips will make their lives more harried than they already are. The chief point, though, is, they have no need of drugs to cure their response to the moral failures of their parents. 

Friday, September 1, 2017


[If Hank Hanegraaff is still on the air, I don’t care to know. His ministry was thoroughly worldly by 2007 when I sent this letter to his head office. Now that he has converted to unorthodox Eastern Orthodoxy, we know that his ministry, no matter how rich it has become financially, is made of wood, hay, and stubble spiritually. When I wrote this letter a decade ago, he was undergoing a financial crisis. That was his complaint, anyway. In the letter, I addressed his malicious accusations, his ongoing greed, his money-making schemes, his fads, his boasts, his guests, his products, and his general worldliness. I did it because I was concerned about where his ministry was headed. I received no answer.] 

December 2007

PO BOX 8500
Charlotte, North Carolina

Dear CRI:

Things continue to go backward for you, it seems, financially. But until Hank owns up to the mistakes he has made, and until he reverses the worldly trend he is on, it is likely that the program will continue to slide. Oh sure, Hank will be able to get money in by cleverness, finally; but who wants to succeed by arm-of-man tactics? Will there be any reward ‘for time and for eternity’ for those who achieve their goals in this way? What does Hank need to do? 

(1) He needs to apologize for his anti-Semitic accusations toward those who believe differently than him about end-times prophecy. (I am not a Pre-triber.) 

(2) He needs to quit his money-soliciting inventions, like Listener Appreciation Week. Why? Because the thing is a lie. Listener Appreciation Week is not about you. It is about CRI begging for your money. Is it reasonable to expect the Lord to bless a lie? If Hank’s listeners were the critical thinkers that Hank claims to have made them, they’d see his self-praising, money-grabbing charade for what it is. “Our goal is to express our gratitude,” says the narrator about Listener Appreciation Week. Why, then, for Listener Appreciation Week, does The Bible Answer Man ask people to call in to express their gratitude? Because Listener Appreciation Week is a lying scheme by which to secure money from people who are easy to deceive.

(3) Hank needs to wake up to his worldliness, and then put it away. How does he placate listeners who might be concerned about him promoting the reading of the Bible by Hollywood actors? He states that these actors should lend their God-given talents to this work. Does God really want his holy word spoken to his children by an impenitent, godless class of people who remind us more of citizens of Sodom than of his kingdom? Shall we listen to God’s inspired word through voices owned by men and women whose inflections and tones must forever remind us of the base characters that these actors have portrayed, the sins these actors are associated with, and the immoral lives they have flaunted before the public? Do I want to be reminded, every time I hear the words of Moses, of some lewd fellow, the worldly characters he has played, and the actor’s crude lifestyle? If I listen to this sordid reading of the Scriptures often enough, will I not be in danger of hearing the ring of this despicable Hollywood actor’s voice every time I read the Sacred Text? Hank is so willfully blind to these dangers, or so desperate to get proceeds in, that he hastily sells the production by pitching it in anger and frustration. “We are making this accessible to you!” he growls. Such is his anxiety to generate interest in the abominable thing, that he betrays his own poor judgment by pitching it in the spirit of which the thing itself is possessed! The Holy Word being mouthed by hypocrites and fornicators is an abomination, if anything is. Here is proof: “Excellent speech becometh not a fool” (Proverbs 17.7.) And what does God have to say to the man who puts hypocrites in honor? “As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool” (Proverbs 26.8.) 

(4) Hank needs to stop following after fads, which, ironically, is what he accuses those who read stuff like the Left Behind series of doing (not that I would read something like that.) What is Max McClean’s theatrics but a fad? What is Illumina but a fad? What does the title of Hank’s latest book of fiction suggest but a fad? Hank doesn’t believe in Armageddon. But to sell his book, he doesn’t mind using the word Armageddon in his title. Why? Because he knows that a title with that word in it is just the thing that will appeal to those who follow after fads. 

(5) Hank needs to give no more superlative praises to commonplace items. “This is a must,” or “This is not an option,” he says. As if there isn’t better stuff out there than what he advertises. As if we absolutely need what Hank Hanegraaff says we need. So many of Hank’s own sins are as clear to me as the sun at noonday, yet I have not read one single book that I remember him saying I need! One does not need the material that he sells in order to be enlightened.  

(6) Hank needs to obey Paul’s pastoral letters, and no more set women in places of authority. Here is an example why. He had Gretchen Pasantino on the program. She was on the show promoting some Christian-like participation in Halloween. A witch called in to commend Gretchen for giving people a proper representation of what witchcraft is instead of a caricature. Then Pasantino went on to explain that not only did she practice the golden rule, but the platinum also, the one about esteeming others better than yourself. The Wiccan then took this at face value, exclaiming happily that they could learn from each other, and that each had his or her own way to achieve the same good results, &c. In other words, the witch was saying how glad she was that we were all on the same team, and Gretchen was stuck for a reply. Gretchen sprung her own trap by misinterpreting Scripture. What she calls the platinum rule is a reference to how believers ought to esteem each other, not how believers ought to esteem witches. Hank then had to bail Gretchen out by drawing the witch out to admit her worship of many gods besides Jesus. Then he passed the conversation over to Gretchen so she could redeem her mistake. As articulate as the weaker vessel can sometimes be, she is unfit for spiritual leadership. 

(7) Hank needs to quit looking through the grid of the material he is so frantic to hawk. One man phoned in to ask about when one should quit praying for a thing. But he got no answer because Hank used the question as a ‘springboard’ to advertise his wares. 

(8) He needs to mortify his appeals for money, period. I went on his website the other day to see what it’s like. I saw this segment called, A Letter from Hank. This letter was just another, yes another, as if we needed to hear it—appeal for money! Indeed, there were at least three appeals in there!

This ministry is on a downtrend. Hank’s recent intolerance and accusatory attitude toward Christians of a certain prophetic stripe has caused much of his financial embarrassment. But if Hank’s new pugilism were not more than what the Bible warrants, would we not expect the Lord to uphold him and even increase his finances during the fight? When we stand on an issue worth dividing over (do secondary prophetic details qualify?) then—only then, do we have cause to hope that the good Lord will create new resources to replace the ones that our righteous stand caused to dry up. Here is an example from the life of Spurgeon, a man who knew what hills to be prepared to die on:   

“During another year the Lord has been exceedingly gracious to the various
institutions of which this magazine is the representative and right hand. Our practical protest against error has lost us many a friend; or, rather, has
winnowed away much of the chaff from the heap of our acquaintances.
Naturally, it might have been expected that this would tell upon the funds
of the Orphanage, College, Colportage, Evangelists’ Society, or some
other of our agencies; but our resources are beyond the reach of human
power, seeing we have all along drawn our supplies direct from the
Fountain-head. We have received, not less, but more of pecuniary supplies,
since certain great ones threatened to dry up the springs. They cannot stay
so much as a drop of heaven’s rain from the plant of the Lord’s right hand
planting. For this, with a deep, adoring reverence, we say emphatically,
‘The Lord be magnified.’”

The reason why Hank cannot say the same is because of the sins that I have been careful and gracious to inform his ministry about, not the least of which is his sin of shunning, and railing at, brothers who do not agree with him on secondary points.

Letters just like this one need to be put right on Hank Hanegraaff’s desk. Is it honest to read only letters of praise over the air? Are there no critical letters to choose from?


[Ten years ago I predicted that Hank Hanegraaff would suffer a great fall because of his pursuit of money. Now Mr. Hanegraaff is an Eastern Orthodox man. What greater fall can a professing Christian have than to adopt a works based salvation, which is no salvation at all? I wrote the letter to his staff at the branch in Canada.]  

June 2007

CRI Canada
56051 Airways P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
T2E 8K5

Dear CRI:

Have you noticed any negative changes in Mr. Hanegraaff’s ministry since about ten years ago? I used to enjoy the program. Now I listen mostly just to keep an eye on him. Inquirers are still being directed away from the cults. Many questions about the Bible are well answered. Sometimes Christians are edified. Sinners are told how to be saved. That’s all good. That’s all so good that Hank Hanegraaff should be admonished to repent of his faults in order that God will continue to bless. I have a long list of concerns. Just a few of these ought to be enough to convince you to voice your own disapproval to the main branch for the ministry’s own good. 

Concern number one: Hank’s blunt appeals for money. I understand that Hank is often distraught over the looming possibility that he might have to diminish his station coverage. But he should get no sympathy for being disrespectful and mean on account of the stress he is under. “I know that must be tough.” Is that a Christian way to ask listeners to dial the phone to give Hank more money? Is that kind of rude petition for funds even tolerated in the infommercial world? Can it even be found among the prosperity televangelists? Should anyone give when asked like that, even if their contribution is ‘for time and for eternity’? Should anyone working for this man be pleased to live off proceeds gained that way? Are you okay with hungry, angry appeals for money? Be careful to make your work follow you into eternity by way of reward. Refusing to reprove your leader works against that. 

Concern number two: Hank’s tricky appeals for money. For instance, consider his ‘listener appreciation week.’ First, he extended it to two weeks instead of one, which made ‘listener appreciation week’ a lie. But it was a lie in another way too. He said that “listener appreciation week is about you.” But it seems that it is more about something else. Listeners are urged to phone in and record their thank yous to CRI. Then these recordings are used as persuading preludes to appeals for money! Self-praise is one of the haughtiest sins among those that are prohibited in Proverbs. But Hank, a man who has memorized all the proverbs, went even further: he asked for praises. Proverbs 27.2: “Let another man praise thee”—that’s okay. Ask your listeners to praise thee—that’s wrong.  And what if one should not only ask for praises, but then go on to trickily use these praises for financial gain? Money gained by tricks, crass tactics, and tacky epithets like ‘listener appreciation week’ is what the Bible calls filthy lucre. And what does filthy lucre suggest but greed? Hank Hanegraaff is becoming haughty and greedy; he is becoming angry and mean. Hank is becoming angry and mean because of haughtiness and greed.

Concern number three: Hank’s rhetorical appeals for money. Conveniently, and quite often, instead of answering the question put to him, Hank goes on about hermeneutics and about ‘debating vigorously without dividing over an issue,’ and by this rhetorical skill leads into another extemporaneous commercial for his hermeneutical Apocalypse Code, as if the contrived commercials were not enough. And what is that but just another appeal for money?

What are the consequences of an unchecked zeal for money and book sales? Here’s one that I remember. A newly converted woman called in about her husband not being converted yet and not being awakened yet to the inadequacies of that eschatological system taught by Mr. Jack van Impe, whose program the husband was following with great interest. Hank immediately jumped all over that call as a springboard to advertise his Apocalypse Code, but said not one word about how this woman ought to be careful not to discourage her husband from watching his beloved program in case the Lord might be using the show to convert the man by. I am not a disciple of Jack van Impe, but once I sort of was—because I was converted through watching repeats of his program. Let’s suppose that Hank advertised his book in this instance, not for money, but only to teach his position. Fine, but his position on a secondary matter like eschatological details should not override and should never exclude the primary matter of someone’s potential salvation!

What are some other consequences of Hank’s behavior? A guest told Hank that he was like the apostle Paul. Men of God of old would have interjected at that point. We should be too humble to accept such overblown compliments, in particular when we are hosting a Bible program. By his own admission, Hank is ‘addicted to golf.’ We have a biblical right to expect Christian radio hosts to have long ‘put away childish things’ (1 Cor. 13.11.) Once we become addicted to a childish thing, we are soon on our way to promoting other childish things, even to advancing a childish thing that is irreverent. Hank is now promoting Max McLain’s theatrical reading of certain Christian classics. Jonathan Edwards read his sermon called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, in a monotone, and many were saved through it, says Hank. But Max reads it theatrically. Will that do any good? Probably not. Max is an actor. That’s what the word ‘hypocrite’ means. You can look it up in your Strong’s. And so Hank is promoting a hypocritical reading of a text that God used to convict and save sinners by. But here is something far worse. Hank promotes the hypocritical reading of Sacred Scripture by this same man!

In light of all this, which is just a portion of the concerns that might be brought up, is it possible that it is not God’s will to increase the scale of Hank Hanegraaff’s broadcast? I didn’t even mention how he promotes commonplace books by calling them ‘blockbusters’ and ‘must-haves,’ &c.; nor how he champions women who are in male ministerial roles; nor even how his new eschatological position (an issue we should be able to ‘debate vigorously without dividing over’) is causing great and unnecessary division among God’s people and in God’s churches. It is plain by Hank’s hotheaded speeches directed at certain Dispensationalists and his accusations against them of heretical and anti-Semitic intent that he has decided to stand or fall on this secondary non-essential doctrine of End Times particulars. What irony!—because if Hank Hanegraaff were to phone in to ‘the Bible answer man’ for advice, he would be told—: “That is not a hill I’d be willing to die on.” 

It should be plain to any discerning Christian that Hank Hanegraaff should be put on the trimming lathe and left there until a good deal of his worldliness gets shaved off, even if that means his program gets trimmed in the process. The alternative, without reform, is that he will suffer a mighty fall through pride. Will you confront him over his faults? Will your reward ‘for time and for eternity’ be negatively affected if you refuse to confront him?   

Wednesday, August 30, 2017


Is ‘The Bible Answer Man’ beyond reproach?

[This is an article that I wrote years ago, maybe around 2007 or so, about a well-known evangelical radio host who has just turned, ten years later, to Eastern Orthodoxy, the idolatrous, iconic religion that is, essentially, just Roman Catholicism without the pope heading it up. I never got around to posting the article. I will do it now just to have it out there.] 

There is a man called ‘The Bible Answer Man.’ I listened to his radio broadcast, almost daily, for years. In the main, I agree with his doctrine. But this Christian man is far from faultless. My letters of exhortation to him have been ignored. Probably they were screened, discovered to be negative, and then swept aside. I doubt that they ever got to his desk. The staff can’t sweep any letters from my blog though. Hank is a big fish—too big to be caught reading any reproofs of how he runs his ministry. But some folks will come across this letter, hopefully even some of the ones who were duped into sending him money.  

‘The Bible Answer Man’ is fond of using acronyms to teach by. I have put my exhortation into this form in order for him to learn something about himself. The acronym is also his name—H-A-N-K—for ease of remembering what he should repent of. 

The letter H is for ‘Haughty.’ This is a good old word that suits Hank’s proud attitude about the unremarkable books and products that he promotes on his program. These things are presented as ‘incredible’ or ‘amazing’ or ‘must have’ resources. This exaggerated, over-the-top opinion is especially offensive in the promotion of one’s own work, and is about as far from the spirit of humility as the shadowed dung heap compares to the brightness of the sun. Even modern novelists express more reserve about the worth of their books than Hank does. The Bible does not allow for self-praise, no matter how brilliant one’s work may be. And Hank’s works are frequently less than brilliant. Take his Flip Chart, for example, which is supposed to contain, under the acronym D-O-C-T-R-I-N-E, the essentials of the faith. He says this kind of thing has never been done before and that it is the most significant thing of its kind to date. That is an embarrassingly haughty thing to say. Here are the doctrines he presents: Deity, Original Sin, Canon, Trinity, Resurrection, Incarnation, New Creation, Eschatology. First, there are more essentials than just eight. For instance, do we not need a J for Justification, an F for Faith, et cetera? Second, this quaint acronym is incongruous. For instance, the D stands for Deity; the E stands for Eschatology. Deity is a specific doctrine. Eschatology is a general term that contains doctrines. Eschatology is not a doctrine any more than a shell is the nut it contains. The acronym may be a useful tool for remembering some essential teachings. But to promote it as the tool for defending the faith is absurd. Hank is haughty about many other items of similar, dubious merit. He should humble himself, and exercise restraint when advertising his stuff. 

The letter A is for ‘Avaricious.’ Here is another good old word to suit our purpose. Christians, more than everyone else, ought to be careful with money, especially if their money comes from donors. Take just one fact for proof that Hank lives lavishly off the proceeds of his donors, not modestly. He has confessed many times (though not with a view to repenting) to being addicted to golf. He admits to being addicted to it for about forty years. It is no secret that he plays golf often, that he has played it so much that he now can play it well, and that he plays in places prestigious enough to put him in company with some of the best known golfers in the world. But at what cost? It is not unreasonable to suppose that a golfer of his rank must spend more on the game than the whole salary of some his supporters. Moderation, not avarice (greed), should be the lifestyle of those who live off the charity of others. Hank urges his listeners to be responsible stewards by contributing to his ministry. But is that wise stewardship to trust your money to a man who throws so much of it around to feed his outrageously expensive habits? Should a man of God use the contributions he begs for to support golf, travel, and hobnobbing? What must the salary be that he allows for himself out of these charitable proceeds? (Just do a search on the internet to find out.) To say the least, the Bible does not commend prodigal behavior like this. 

The letter N stands for Nasty. Since he recently discovered what he believes is the gospel truth about eschatology, Hank has expressed an unchristian-like manner toward brothers in the ministry who hold end-time views that differ from his own but that are not heresies per se. In fact, when asked about end-times, he used to present the various views that fell within the pale of orthodoxy, and then leave it at that. Now he is combative. Here is what I mean. There are these Christians he calls ‘Christian Zionists.’ They are those whose aim and effort it is to reestablish the Jews in Palestine. (I am not one of them, incidentally.) Because they also believe in a future war in which multitudes of Jews will be killed there, Hank accuses them of evil intention, if not anti-Semitism. This is an unfair, ignorant accusation to make. These Zionists do not intend any harm. Hank should know better. He should imitate the great Jonathan Edwards, one of the scholars he promotes who really is deserving of high praise. Here is some of what Edwards said about Solomon Williams during a controversy on the doctrine of Communion. “My aim is not to beget in you an ill opinion of Mr. W….Men often do not see or allow the plain consequences of their own doctrines.” This is exactly the case with the Christian Zionists. Instead of accusing them of hatred, Hank should be gracious toward them.  

The letter K stands for Knavish. Here, I have had to resort, again, to a word not commonly used anymore in order to make my acronym work. Maybe my acronym is not as perfect as I would like, what with the use of three old-fashioned words beside one still currently in use. But at least my acronym is congruous where it matters most—each letter being specific to what I aim to show. Now, for the sake of brevity, just one example of knavish behavior. There is a command in the Bible against tooting your own horn. “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth” (Proverbs 27.2.) But Hank does worse even than the self-praise reprehended here, when he asks his listeners to phone in to say how the program has helped them! The Bible says to let others praise you. Hank nudges, asks, and even pleads for praise. And why does he do it? Here is where the knavery comes in. He uses these recordings of praise during ‘Listener Appreciation Week’—a sort of telethon he’s invented to drum up more financial support. And so he asks for praises, then plays these praises over the radio to set the listeners up just before he makes his appeal for money. This is what knavish behavior is. This is deceit with a capital D. That this scheme actually works is a pitiful testimony to how undiscerning the people who listen to his program really are. How ironic! The transmission of discernment skills to his listeners is one of the main objects of his ministry; and it is by his listeners’ lack of discernment that he draws money from them! But this is not all. ‘Listener Appreciation Week’ is then replayed just a few months after its first broadcast in order for the gimmick to pick up the stragglers who have not yet given. But herein the sin is compounded, for this is two weeks of knavery instead of one. A man who criticizes the ‘prosperity preachers’ must be faultless in how he prospers his own ministry. Hank Hanegraaff may not be a prosperity preacher, but by knavery he is a prosperity reaper. 

This is what the other portion of Hank's mail looks like—the critical portion that sheds an uncomfortable light on the darker elements of his ministry. To quote Hank, ‘Much more could be said.’ Regular listeners to his program will recognize the truth of this ‘Hankronym.’ And if these listeners read their Bibles attentively, they certainly will agree that Hank should repent without delay. Thankfully, this acronym is not very broad. But the sins represented by it are deep enough. He’s lucky I did not use his last name to frame my concerns.  

In case Hank reads this: this exposure could have been avoided if only you had been willing to receive more than just praises. Your ministry does much good. Please be humble and ask God to make you willing to reform. I have done this for your own good, and for the good of everyone listening. You know that what I have said is true. You cannot honestly deny it. Haughty, avaricious, nasty, and knavish—the words roll well together off the tongue. But they do not roll so well off the back. They will stick to you until you repent. May God bless you with repentance and ‘abiding, abundant fruit.’

[The heresies of the Eastern Orthodox Church are the same as those that are believed and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church: faith plus works for salvation, the worship of icons, prayers to saints, et cetera. So I must conclude my article, especially since Hank is a teacher, with what the apostle Paul says about gospels that do not conform to the perfect standard, gospels that 'pervert the gospel of Christ': "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1.8, 9.)]

Saturday, November 26, 2016


The CBC’s Cross-Country Check-Up for November 20th, 2016. The subject: the rise of fake news. Here is the CBC’s conclusion to why Donald Trump won the US election: Facebook is to blame because it did not censor ‘fake news’ enough. The CBC wants ‘fake news’ to be ‘stamped out.’ What the CBC calls fake news, of course, is just news that it doesn’t like—news that is more reliable than CBC spin, news that is more conservative than CBC Marxism, news that is more decent than CBC obscenity. The hidden reason for this episode was to gauge how much trust the CBC lost by its whitewash of Hillary Clinton and its slanderous treatment of Donald Trump. So, contrary to the usual protocol, some callers who disagreed with leftist talking points were allowed to get past the call screener. Here is how one such caller was treated. As he was informing the host that the CBC has refused to cover the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary Clinton’s corruption, the host hung up on him in mid-sentence. Then, when a caller compared Trump to Hitler, the host asked him to elaborate. The only hope that the CBC has of winning an argument is to disallow dissenting opinions. The CBC did not have a lot of credibility to lose. But it continues down its in-credible path, anyway, progressively plodding toward utter irresponsibility and irrelevancy. The CBC is not a proper Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because it does not tolerate the Canadian values of tolerance and free speech. Instead of our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we should call the CBC the Canadian Brainwashing Conduit or the Communist Broadcasting Channel. I don’t want to give the impression that the CBC is not sometimes entertaining. It occasionally is. The best part of this Cross-Country Check-Up episode was when the eleven year old boy called in to tell Canadians why global warming is a hoax. It’s pretty hard, even for a surly CBC host, to hang up on an eleven year old kid, though the host chided him for his ‘unorthodox’ belief. The boy obviously got his wise opinion from an alternative news source. Personnel at the CBC would like to stamp that news source out, whatever it is. They would rather keep kids in the dark than allow them the freedom to gain a little light. That’s how totalitarian Canadian Communism is. It’s just like every other form of Communism. Its goal is to control every aspect of an individual’s life. Its techniques are brainwashing, censorship, and coercion. To work at the CBC, you have to be willing to employ these techniques and to cultivate your skills at employing them.

Monday, November 21, 2016


Once in awhile I pick up a magazine from the rack at the store. I do so in order to see what non-critical readers are reading. This time I picked Seventeen magazine, the June/July 2016 edition. It cost me four dollars and some change. 

Seventeen magazine is for teenage girls. On the cover is a picture of a boy that teenage girls are presently wild about. That a boy-celebrity is on the cover tells us a lot about what the magazine is appealing to. It is not appealing to a girl’s moral constitution, or even to a high ideal. How could it, since there is not even one actual article in the more than one hundred pages of paper! It is appealing to nothing more than instincts and emotions. Some of the girls who browse through this magazine probably know the boy on the cover better than they know their father. The main draw is an interview of this guy, wherein he answers questions like: “What is your idea of a great date?” His answer, in part: “just one-on-one time in your pajamas together.” Now there is a boy that you can trust your daughter with! Of course, most parents today would be okay with that, and almost all of them would love it if this boy made their daughter pregnant because he’s probably rich. Extracting money from a rich boy at the expense of a daughter’s happiness and virginity would suit most parents just fine. 

Other features of this magazine include: awkward-moment confessions, an excerpt from a novel, and some profiles of athletes. The most positive part of the magazine is a page about dads, in honor of Father’s Day. Surprisingly, the dads are more honored than put down, contrary to what is usually done in our culture. The most disturbing feature is not the horoscope, though horoscopes are harmfully addictive, full of bad advice, and focused always on the most superficial aspects of life. After thumbing through the magazine the first time, I thought the most disturbing feature was the gender-identity profile spread. Six gender identities are spotlighted, none of which, by the way, include the only real, normal genders of boy and girl. Fourteen year old Katie is so mature that she can assure us that her bisexuality is not a phase. Being transgender, queer, bisexual, gay, asexual, and lesbian—all of this is pushed as the new normal. Being a boy or a girl is not good enough or normal enough to be allowed a spot. 

As bad as the promotion of perversity is, there is something even more sinister and harmful in this magazine than the promotion of gender-confusion. Out of 109 pages, 69 pages consist of ads. That is the scariest part of Seventeen magazine. This means that sixty-three percent of the contents of Seventeen is comprised of advertising! Girls are groomed to fear shiny skin, dry skin, white skin, acne, body hair, unruly eyebrows, and even droopy lashes that can be ‘plumpified’ by the latest product. Girls are enticed to pine after useless products such as ‘voluminizing’ shampoo and cleansing water. They are fooled to think that a hair removal product is ‘nourishing.’ They are prompted to buy a certain brand of shampoo by the dishonorable declaration that it goes by the name, ‘Not Your Mother’s.’ 

The peddlers and their marketers are greedy predators of young girls who are easily frightened and manipulated into buying what they are told they need. For the sake of their god: Mammon, these peddlers and marketers (one of whom is Katy Perry on page 47) rob these girls of the wonderful freedom of not worrying about skin tone, nail color, and hair volume. Young girls ought to be meditating on what their role in life might be under God’s direction—on how they might cultivate the virtues that are necessary to filling a noble role in society. Instead of this, they are pressured to worry about made-up concerns that have been dreamed up by wicked people who want to make money from manufactured anxiety. Because they covet money, the makers and pushers of chemical-laden snake oil get into whatever magazines they can. Once access is gained, they use what the Bible calls ‘feigned words’ to make merchandise of people, even young, vulnerable girls who can be effortlessly weighed down with worry by an ‘expert’s’ emphasis on something as trivial, tiny, and temporary as a zit. Where does despair come from? Where do bulimia and anorexia get their start? Where are suicides born? In part—maybe in large part, these evils emerge from the pages of a magazine like Seventeen when young girls begin to magnify moles and warts into mountains. Some atheists claim that preaching sin and hell might be harmful to kids. In truth, it is evangelical preaching that can drive kids away from what can drive them to despair, like these magazines that press girls to measure up to unnatural, impossible ideals of what to look like. Evangelical preaching (if you can find it) is the message of rescue for sinners who can’t measure up to what really matters: moral, not corporeal, perfection.         

Magazines are passing away, which is good, for the best of them are, at best, a waste of time. But now the internet is the hunter, and virtually every girl walks around with a tool to log into it at any hour of the day. Parental control is slipping away. Young girls are slipping into the claws of more and more trouble. Moral foundations must be gotten into our kids at a very young age, for they are drifting farther away sooner and at a faster rate than ever before. Sadly, we are losing this fight because we aren’t even waging it. We aren’t waging it because parents and teachers have no moral bearings either. 

In fine print, on the very last page, right at the bottom where it is least noticeable, there is a note surrounded by a rectangle. Some of what this note contains is obviously written in compliance to a law. It says there that ‘from time to time’ the subscriber list is “made available to companies who sell goods and services by mail.” Subscribers can opt out of receiving flyers and samples, it says. But what girl is going to do that or even read that fine print rectangle? The subscriber list will be made available ‘from time to time.’ What does this mean but every time the subscriber list changes, which it is always doing? 

So Seventeen makes money off girls from the sale of the magazine, then it makes money off companies by selling almost all of its space in advertising to them, then the companies who advertise make money off the girls through the products they sell, then Seventeen makes money by selling the girls’ addresses to the companies who advertise, then the companies make money off the girls by soliciting their attention by mail. And by the way it’s worded, the companies that these addresses are sent to are not limited to the ones who advertise in Seventeen. Easily swayed, impressionable girls are nothing but merchandise to Seventeen and these companies who have shady vanity products to sell. The boy on the cover, the tidbits of information about him, the gossip, the horoscopes, the celebrity photos, and the fashion advice are just snares to catch money from excitable, unwary girls. Teenage girls get money by way of allowance or part-time work, and those who make merchandise of them will get as much of that money for themselves as they can, using whatever means they can think of legally to use.      

The damnation awaiting those who make merchandise of others will not slumber, the apostle Peter tells us. It is not wrong to take a healthy dose of consolation from that. “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2.3.) This means that the payback for tricking people to pay for products they don’t need, is as good as done. From the eternal perspective of God, vengeance cometh quickly to pass.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015


On June 28th, 2015, CBC’s nationwide Sunday call-in show was about whether Canada should receive more refugees and migrants than it already does. The discussion soon turned into a conversation about immigrants generally. Before addressing what I heard on this episode, I will offer a little number-crunching commentary. Keep in mind, that in light of Trudeau’s plan to flood our country with Muslim refugees of dubious virtue, this topic remains extremely relevant, and will become more relevant as the months and years pass. 

Under just one program (the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program) Canada employs about 25,000 migrants per year presently. Each migrant may stay in the country for up to eight months at a time; many migrants come back year after year; and some of them come back regularly for decades. You could say that, practically speaking in many ways, migrants are just immigrants by another name. Then we have the refugees. Canada accommodates more than 20,000 refugees per year. These numbers are comparatively paltry beside the broader fact that this nation has been absorbing about 250,000 immigrants per year for many years now. Do we really need to bring in 50,000 poorly screened refugees from the middle-east? They should stay where they are and build themselves a democracy.  

For a country of just 36 million or so and that has a low birth rate, 250,000 immigrants per year is an astonishing number. It does not take a stats guru or a professor of sociology to figure out that a quota like that will radically change the face of the country before long. Canada’s face has already noticeably changed. We all experience the evidence of this when we can’t understand what the new bureaucrat on the other end of the phone is trying to articulate. If we can’t understand her English, has she been assimilated? Is she not changing the face of Canada? Should she have that job if she can’t speak the language properly? How much money was spent on this woman to get her to the point of getting a government job, the salary for which, by the way, will be forked over by the taxpayer? The figures over at Immigration Watch peg the cost of immigration at over 23 billion dollars annually. That’s a lot of money to spend on people you import to take your jobs! Ask my friend’s son if he can get a job in Calgary. Go and look at your local fast food joint and count the number of visible immigrants you see at the counter there. They are standing in the place of your teenager who can’t find work. They are standing in the place of your college student who needs seasonable or nighttime employment. They are costing us, not only money and jobs, but hope. They are causing many of us, in particular our youth seeking entry level employment, to border on despair. These immigration figures need to be reduced dramatically. When a small country that is not growing much by birth rate imports that many foreigners annually who will not properly assimilate, erosion of whatever Canadian culture we have left inevitably results. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why Muslim ‘honor’ killings are happening here now, which killings are not only dishonorable but deserving of the death penalty. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why the CBC is always wondering and puzzling about what defines Canada. They don’t know what defines it anymore because multiculturalism has made it to mean anything. The Swedes have been puzzling over their new identity as well. Every nation that does not assimilate its immigrants will struggle with an identity crisis. About 375,000 babies are born in Canada yearly. That is not much more than the number of immigrants who are added to our population. And it needs to be noted that many of these babies are the babies of immigrants, for immigrants reproduce at a higher rate than the rest of the population. As our older folks die off, the pace at which immigrants encroach quickens, and the cultural change effected by them increases. If the immigration rate is not cut back, especially in light of the favoritism that our agencies extend to immigrants, more dyed-in-the-wool Canadians will be dismissed at the employment lines, more ‘over-qualified’ Canadian resumes will be regulated to the trash without due consideration, and more turbans and veils will stand in the place of your bright-eyed girls and your earnest boys. It doesn’t matter how skilled and diligent a person is, when, regardless of merit, the job he applies for has already been reserved for a visible minority. 

Visible minorities are favored in this country, which means that others are treated unfairly. Some of us are getting irate about holding the dirty end of that stick. An immigrant does not even have to be seen to be favored. He can be favored by the ear as well as the eye. Back to Cross-Country Check-Up’s coast to coast call-in show. “Should Canada receive more refugees and migrants?” That was the question. I remember beginning to wonder why all the callers were saying ‘yes’ to the question. Then it dawned on me that the callers all sounded alike. They all sounded like first generation immigrants from second and third world countries—countries like Syria, Turkey, and Eritrea. Not surprisingly, such callers wanted no limits put on immigration at all. Then I recalled how Cross-Country Check-Up screens its callers. For example, during their ‘recommend a book’ episode, I called in to recommend a classic Christian tome on the nature of God. Upon the reception of my call, the screener water-boarded me with questions that were more suitable to be posed to a terrorist; then I was put on hold until my line went conveniently dead a couple of minutes later. Is it a coincidence that every single caller during hour one of the refugee/migrant episode sounded like a visible minority? It is not unjust to suppose, given CBC’s treatment of me in the past, that objectors to the question were screened out. Calls from a few objectors were received in hour two; but I think that this was allowed in order for the bias to not be so obvious. People tend to remember what they heard last. So the impression of bias is lessened by this maneuver of letting objectors get through near the end. Not only was CBC biased in the callers they accepted, but they stacked the deck with guests too. It would have been easy to find guests who would take issue with the open door policy that CBC was peddling. But CBC is not our public broadcaster; CBC is our biased broadcaster. It speaks for certain segments of the public; it does not, and will not, speak for all persons equally, even though ‘equality’ is its pretended idol. 

When an objector was permitted to speak, the usual line was thrown at him by the host: “We’re a nation of immigrants.” This line is calculated to silence any opposition to what would amount to open borders for all. It reminds me of how leftist Americans try to silence righteous critics of Obama’s dictatorial ways by crying racism every time that president’s policies and orders are justly criticized. Immigrants are not the same as they once were; and we do not treat them as we once did. Comparing hard-working immigrants of old to newfangled immigrants who are on-the-take is hardly a fair comparison. It is like comparing a basket of good apples with the odd bad one in it, to a basket of spoiled apples with the odd shiny one in it. When you spoil immigrants as soon as they get off the boat or plane, you are more likely to end up with whiners than workers, or users than helpers. I once saw a turban-attired man wheel his shopping cart through the check-out without paying for the jugs of milk that he had stowed underneath. It took me off guard, and the sight of his kids threw me off some more, and by the time I had decided to say something, it was too late. This is what I am talking about. The man was a cold-hearted taker. He was a thief. There is no justification for it. My guess is that had I gone outside, I would have witnessed him getting into a late model car. Immigrants have an aversion to cars that don’t look new. Have you ever noticed that? Try to spot one driving a beater. The beaters are for your sons and daughters who can’t find jobs. Since that incident at the supermarket, I have steeled myself to never overlook theft again. The passivity and hesitation that got the better of me that day still nag me, and I am thankful for it. It means that I’m leaning on the right side even though I don’t always respond in the right way. This immigrant was no doubt helped by government agencies and programs that the rest of us don’t even know exist, and what thanks does he extend? He steals from the citizens of the country that was kind enough to adopt him and to nurture him with all manner of perks and goodness! Because he won’t get his hand cut off for stealing, he reaches forth his hand to steal. 

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of pilgrim descendants, with immigrants thrown in. There is an answer, too, regarding the line that the Indians were here first. If you believe that the Indians have a claim to your land and property on the basis of having been here first, give them all you have, and you, you move to somewhere like Iraq. You don’t like that idea? Then consider the truth: our pilgrim fathers occupied this land that was being used for almost nothing but savages killing each other, which they are still doing on reserves. Almost every Indian who is murdered in Canada is murdered by a fellow Indian. The Indians forfeited this land by their behavior on it.             

The most memorable moment of this episode (the low point for the host) was when an Indian called in and said ‘no’ to more immigrants. “We’re all refugees,” the Indian said, “except Indians.” Her meaning was that no one belongs in Canada except the Indians. This was an uncomfortable moment for the host because the CBC favors both immigrants and Indians. To a CBC host, a choice between an Indian and an immigrant is like choosing between a bag of gold and a big shiny diamond. To reasonable Canadians, however, the choice between the two is like a choice between a trumped up liability and a cooked up debt. To make matters even more pathetic, the Indian went on to say that we should help Indians only, even though her first point was that we should all emigrate! Most callers who were allowed to say their piece could not think beyond the basic fact that Canada is a large country geographically. There is lots of space in Canada. Therefore let everyone in who wants in. That was as far as the analytical part of their minds could go, as if the only criterion to consider in the matter of mass immigration were geography! No talk of all the logistical costs, or of government assistance, or housing, or health care, or lawsuits by pouting, unsatisfied immigrants; no talk of how, when, and for how long the taxpayers will be paying for the placement of all these immigrants across the broad spaces of our great land. Just bring them in; there’s lots of room!   

The truth is that a lot of the immigrants who want to come over have been responsible for changing their own countries into failed states. Is it wise to receive Iraqi men, for instance, who were part of that well-furnished, US-trained military that fled before terrorists who came to town with a few guns on the backs of trucks? What honorable citizens they would make! Will cowards make good citizens? Prospective immigrants to Canada ought to be screened with as much vigor as CBC screened my call. My call was screened in order to deny Christianity; each prospective immigrant needs to be screened in order to deny violent religions like Islam, persons who can’t speak English, those who remain committed to their old countries, those whom we suspect will import violent cultural values, and those whose work ethic is suspicious. Yes, we should be merciful enough to accept some refugees who cannot presently help themselves. But even these must be screened in order to weed out potential offenders, malingerers, and activists. Immigrants fall into several groups: workers, malingerers, agitators, offenders, and terrorists. Some fit into more groups than one, and the importation of each group needs to be scaled back, even the workers group. If we do not begin to slam down the engine break on our multicultural motor, we are going to have Muslim thugs burning cars in Canada, not just France; we are going to have Muslim thugs raping girls in Canada, not just Sweden. The Swedes have been told to integrate into the ‘new’ Sweden because it is contrary to the spirit of political correctness and multiculturalism to ask the immigrants to do the integrating! (See I am Swedish, but I live in ‘Absurdistan’ on YouTube.) Mass importation of persons from the Middle-East and Africa is causing Europe to drink a cup of wrath straight from the uncivilized edicts of the Koran. We do not love our own citizens when we accept persons to live alongside them who are comfortable with Sharia Law and theocracy in the name of Allah. Those who have an ideology of non-negotiable violent totalitarianism in their mind as the ideal society to strive after cannot integrate, assimilate, and live in peace with persons who believe in capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. These people who are mired in civil wars, tribal conflicts, and guerilla warfare must be witnessed to from afar and must be left to their own devices in the hope that revolutions will sort them out or that their share of iniquity will soon be as full as that of the Amorites had to be before their land was taken over (Genesis 15.16.) It may be that the people we import from zones of strife will be the means to our punishment for polluting our land with the blood of babes. But it is better, as David did, to hope for God to judge us by plagues instead of barbarians (2 Samuel 24.)                

The Bible says to love thy neighbor. Is that not proof that we should open our borders to all? Who are our neighbors? Our neighbors begin with those who are nearest. And each Canadian neighbor is in debt. So if we have federal, provincial, and regional debts, we should take care of those debts before we attempt to care for hundreds of thousands of immigrants year after year. By reducing the immigration rate and by reserving immigration for those who are philosophically sound, if not financially secure also, we can more easily climb out of our deficit, begin to pay down the debt, and thereby help our neighbors closest to us. And who are our closest neighbors? Our closest neighbors are our fellow taxpayers who come from the ranks of our relatives, our friends, our next-door chums, and our rising generations. The first thing that a soldier does during a chemical attack is put on his own mask. Then he is fit to help others put on theirs. In the same way, it is by protecting ourselves first that we are better equipped to help others. We will make life better for the immigrants that we let in by first putting our house in order. We love our distant neighbors best when we first become good neighbors locally. Imagine a country that is austere enough to pay down its debt and avoid future deficits; then imagine the good that it can do for its citizens, its carefully selected immigrants, and even those who must remain abroad. If we love ourselves, our neighbors, and the world, that must be our ideal with respect to immigration. We must aim to make this nation a place most longed for by foreigners, not based on the freebies it hands out, but on the basis of its freedom from debt, violence, and dictatorial factions like the Muslim Brotherhood. This can only be accomplished by implementing a sensible, wise, cautious, and what many would falsely label, ‘draconian,’ approach to immigration. Once we plumb the meaning of draconian, we soon learn that it would be most draconian to import Muslims unthinkingly, for the Muslims are the ones who own that religion which is most in line with Draco’s ways: for Draco, as legend has it, prescribed the death penalty for even petty offences, which is precisely the kind of injustice that passes for justice in countries ruled in the name of Allah.    

Friday, December 11, 2015


I heard something on CBC Radio on July 8th, 2015, which demonstrates how dishonest the feminists are. I do not know why the CBC even reported on the story because it brings to light certain embarrassing disparities between the genders. So the CBC reported the following facts about a chess competition that was set to culminate in Greece: 83% of the competitors were boys; and most of the girls who were in the competition were in categories that were less competitive. The following observations ought to be drawn from this news: (1) even though girls are being pushed into domains that they have no desire to be part of, their numbers are low; (2) when they do enter these domains, they do rather poorly. 

The CBC’s rationalizing counterattack came in the words of a girl. This girl said that it’s not that the boys are smarter, it’s about who works at it more. At best, if we are to believe this opinion, we have to admit that girls are lazier, for they do not work at it as much. The truth is, they are not lazier than boys; their interest in chess is just lacking; and it is lacking because girls are less disposed than boys to play at games of an intellectual nature. Another girl was more humble, and did the right thing by saying that we should never mind focusing on boys versus girls. The CBC and radical feminists will never quit stirring up conflict between the genders, though. Even if women ended up excelling men in every arena, the feminists would hammer away against men anyway, for they resent their own hearts for pining after men no matter what they do to convince themselves that men are no longer desirable or necessary. 

Men are more inclined to do brain work. They are better thinkers. It comes down to this: men are smarter. There is no game that puts brain power to the test more than chess does. When it comes to competing in that game, boys and men outclass girls and women. It should be okay to state facts. The CBC is ashamed to do that. Now that girls and women have had a leg up for a few decades and have been given so many more advantages than boys and men, it is becoming obvious that we have little reason to bewail the lack of opportunities that girls and women have had throughout history in fields requiring intellectual brawn. It has always been right to train boys up for pursuits that are mentally demanding, and to reserve girls for the more domestic and supportive pursuits. Eve was created as Adam’s helper, not his leader, not his competitor, not his intellectual equal. We should be thankful that for the better part of history, we have operated according to this part of the Genesis pattern. The best writers have been men; the best painters have been men; the best scientists have been men; the best composers have been men; and not one good preacher has ever been a woman. If we had operated according to a feminist pattern, imagine the dark ages that we would now be living in! 

Now that women have more liberty than ever to compete—now that they are favored for positions of power based on their gender rather than the merits of their work, what do we see? Men are still outpacing women intellectually in virtually every arena that one can think of or check out. Women are weaker; women are not as smart; women are more easily deceived. The Bible has revealed all of this long ago. God is not afraid of the facts. We should imitate his example. Women are better at giving birth, nursing babies, and cleaning house. So it must be admitted that they surpass men in some things. Occasionally, women excel even at writing. When that happens, they write something like this: “Woman was made for man’s delight;/Charm, O woman, be not afraid!/His shadow by day, his moon by night,/Woman was made” (Christina Rossetti, A Helpmeet for Him.) Feminists hate poetry like that, especially when it comes from a woman’s pen, in this case, Christina Rossetti’s 19th century, Victorian quill. 

Why do feminists scorn such truth? Why are they so dishonest about the disparate abilities of boys and girls and men and women? They are dishonest because they are wicked, unsaved sinners. That is the root cause of their bitter, rationalizing ways. What occasions their dishonesty is the large pool of facts that they do not like. They are always avoiding facts, falsifying data, and rationalizing every detail or story that does not support their hope that women are greater, better human beings than men are. They are always pitting men against women, as if the genders ought to be continuously at war with each other. 

The more wicked citizens among us have just elected a Liberal band of debased persons to govern the affairs of this country. The gullible greenhorn at the helm, so submissive to women and fringe groups is he, made sure that his cabinet conformed to gender parity and minority favoritism. That makes him, not a fair man who hires persons based on merit, but a sexist and a racist. Boys and men will continue to be unfairly treated in order to arrive at the perverted feminist vision. Indeed, this unfair treatment will go on overdrive now. 

A lot of damage will be done by the unbiblical Liberal setup, and we will all suffer, not just boys and men. Those who will suffer the most are the boys and girls who are being brainwashed to believe that the differences between the genders ought to be denied and erased. The years of Liberal rule will cost us much more than a Conservative mandate would. It will cost us more money because of the deficits and useless inquiries that are promised. It will cost us more lives because abortion will have less conservatism to curb it and because medical suicide will be legalized and abused. It will cost us more love because only hatred can be promoted by such policies. 

In a feminist-friendly environment, Christians can take comfort in the fact that the Bible has prophesied that, by and large, men will rule over women until the end of time. That’s the teaching of Genesis 3.16: man shall rule over woman. Whatever evil things balky women are devising to do in the name of feminism, no one less than God himself is standing in the way of the fullness of evil that they want to implement. To this fact, a hearty Amen should be stirred up in every Christian heart.