Will you pray? For the fish slappers. Yes, these really are THOSE fish-slappers.. The same people of whom God said, "Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

Avoiding the Final Betrayal
Protecting Iraqi Christians

December 21, 2006

There are duds, and then there's the final report of the Iraq Study Group. Some in Washington had hoped—naively, I believe—that this group of Washington "wise men" (and women) would somehow come up with an instant, Solomonesque solution to the war. Not so.

Both the White House and its critics were cool to the group's recommendations. There was nothing new in the reports. And so last week, the White House postponed a planned nationally televised address, which had originally been intended to follow the release of the report.

These events speak volumes about the difficult choices facing the nation, and they remind us that there's no easy solution.

For example, not even the harshest critics of the war believe we can simply pull our troops out of Iraq. As I have said before on "BreakPoint," this would only embolden and strengthen Iran and put the fate of Israel in grave peril.

There is one thing, however, Christians can bring to this discussion. It is the fate of Iraq's Christians. There are an estimated 600,000 to as many as one million Christians in Iraq. They are called "Assyrians" or "Chaldeans," and as these names suggest, they have lived in Iraq since time immemorial. What's more, they are one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, dating back to at least the second century. If any group has an historical claim to their part of Iraq, it's them.

Yet an increasing number of Iraqi Christians have concluded that "there is no future for Christians" in Iraq. As one Christian put it, "We have no militia to defend us."

That matters because, as the New Republic put it, "Sunni, Shia, and Kurd may agree on little else, but all have made sport of brutalizing their Christian neighbors." Since neither Iraqi nor Americans officials are willing to protect them, Christians are leaving their ancestral home.

The extent of this neglect and indifference is on display in the study group's final report: In its eighty-four pages, the word Christian never appears—not once. The words Assyrians and Chaldeans appear only in passing in the next-to-last recommendation as part of a longer list. Not one paragraph, not one sentence.

In contrast, the report makes multiple references to the fate of the Palestinians whom, last time I checked, don't live in Iraq.

Whatever else it represents, the group's report represents the conventional wisdom about Iraq: Figure out who matters and who needs to be made happy or, at least, less upset. So, while Syria and even Iran are accommodated, the well being of Iraqi Christians doesn't figure into the equation at all.

That's outrageous. It's also, as I've told you before, not surprising. Iraq's Christians have been ignored from the start so, in that sense, nothing has changed. What has changed is that we may leave without securing their future, and there would be a genocide of Christians.

American Christians can't sit by and let this happen. Their blood would be upon our hands. And to abandon our brethren would be grossly immoral and cowardice.

So am I asking you to pray for our leaders and then let them know what you're praying for: the wisdom to find a solution that does justice to all Iraqis, including Christians.

I have been interested in the use of stem cells for healing treatment. And have believed that God has provided ethical ways to obtain them for use. Check this out!

Source: Medical College of Wisconsin
Date: December 20, 2006

Stem Cells Found In Adult Hair Follicles May Provide Alternative To Embryonic Stem Cells

Science Daily — A team from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee has applied for a patent on their work to isolate, grow and identify a new and readily-available type of adult stem cell that is found in the bulge of hair follicles, and appears to have a potential for diversification similar to that of embryonic stem cells.

Having recently identified the molecular signature of these epidermal neural crest stem cells in the mouse, their research resolves conflicting scientific opinions by showing that these cells are distinctly different from other types of skin-resident stem cells/progenitors. Their work provides a valuable resource for future mouse neural crest stem cell research.

A report on the research from Dr. Maya Sieber-Blum's laboratory, co-authored by Yao Fei Hu, Ph.D., and Zhi-Jian Zhang, Ph.D., researchers in cell biology, neurobiology and anatomy at the Medical College, was published in a recent issue of Stem Cells: The International Journal of Cell Differentiation and Proliferation.

Epidermal neural crest stem cells are found in the bulge of hair follicles and have characteristics that combine some advantages of embryonic and adult stem cells, according to lead researcher, Maya Sieber-Blum, Ph.D., professor of cell biology, neurobiology & anatomy. Similar to embryonic stem cells, they have a high degree of plasticity, can be isolated at high levels of purity, and can be expanded in culture. Similar to other types of adult stem cells, they are readily accessible through a minimally invasive procedure and could lead to using a patient's own hair as a source for therapy without the controversy or medical issues of embryonic stem cells.

"We see the potential for cell replacement therapy in which patients can be their own donors, which would avoid ethical issues and reduce the possibility of tissue incompatibility," says Dr. Sieber-Blum.

The Medical College team in collaboration with Prof. Martin Schwab, director of the Brain Research Institute of the University of Zürich, recently injected these cells in mice with spinal cord injuries. According to the study, when grafted into the spine, the cells not only survived, but also demonstrated several desirable characteristics that could lead to local nerve replacement and re-myelination (restoration of nerve pathways and sheaths).

Neural crest stem cells generate a wide array of cell types and tissues and actually give rise to the autonomic and enteric nervous systems along with endocrine cells, bone and smooth muscle cells. The cells can be isolated from the hair follicle bulge as multipotent stem cells, and then expanded in culture into millions of cells without losing stem cell markers.

"We grafted the cells into mice that have spinal cord injuries and were encouraged by the results. The cells survived and integrated into the spinal cord, remaining at the site of transplantation and not forming tumors," Dr. Sieber-Blum says.

According to Dr. Sieber-Blum, subsets of the epidermal neural crest stem cells express markers for oligodendrocytes, the nerve-supporting cells that are essential for proper neuron function. She has been awarded a grant from the Biomedical Technology Alliance, a Milwaukee inter-institutional research group, to determine in collaboration with Brian Schmit, Ph.D., associate professor of biomedical engineering at Marquette University, if the grafts lead to an improvement of spinal reflexes in the injured spinal cord of mice.

Dr. Sieber-Blum points out that the cells may also be useful to treat Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Hirschsprung's disease, stroke, peripheral neuropathies and ALS. Certain defects of the heart, and bone defects (degeneration, craniofacial birth defects) could also be treated through neural crest stem cell replacement therapy. Together, these conditions affect over 11 million people today in the US and are estimated to annually cost more than $170 billion.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Medical College of Wisconsin.

In light of Aaron guest speaking this week, let us hope this following article is not a reality in your lifetime..

Michigan State Program Called 'Thought Control'
by Pete Winn, associate editor

University seminar focuses on changing student beliefs.

Michigan State University is conducting what critics call a "brainwashing" program -- and a free-speech organization is calling for it to be dismantled.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said the university’s Student Accountability in Community Seminar (SAC) forces students whose speech or behavior is deemed unacceptable to undergo ideological reeducation at their own expense

"This is truly one of the most Orwellian re-education programs we've ever seen," he told CitizenLink. "The program isn't satisfied with punishing students who have committed actual offenses. It seems to want to change students from the inside out."

Lukianoff said one 20-year-old woman was forced to attend the seminar for multiple sessions because she got into a fight with her boyfriend and slammed a door.

"For that, she had the honor of sitting down with an administrator who had tried to get her to explain correctly what she had done wrong," Lukianoff said. "Something like that wouldn't even raise to the level of an offense in most circumstances."

The program, he added, came out of the domestic-violence program at Michigan State. Students can be forced to attend the seminar if a university administrator determines they have committed "aggressive" behavior.

"It seems to look at all students with an eye that expressing any anger is unacceptable -- and that students are basically violent, ticking time bombs," he said.

Another example: A male student was "sentenced" to attend the re-education seminar because he had been rude to a dormitory receptionist. When asked what he had done wrong, the student said, "I shouldn't have been rude to the receptionist."

"That answer wasn't good enough," Lukianoff said. "The answer that they really wanted, after giving him 'the power-and-control wheel' and having him circle what kind of 'privilege' he had abused, was that he really felt like he was entitled to be in the dormitories -- and that was wrong."

Failure to submit to the program -- or to confess wrongdoing -- can lead to a student being prevented from taking classes.

This is brainwashing, he said, not too dissimilar from the type that the Russians and Chinese Communists utilized in the 1950s. Lukianoff calls it "compelled speech."

"Compelled speech is completely incompatible with a free society," he said. "Not only do you have to confess what you've done wrong, you have to confess the attitudes you had in the first place -- and say what you did wrong correctly. This is completely invasive."

Political correctness is well-entrenched on college campuses.

"The sad thing is that speech codes are probably more prevalent than they ever have been," Lukianoff said. "But universities tend to be a little better about at least paying lip service to free speech.

"During the 1980s and 1990s, it wouldn't have been too surprising to run into an administrator who didn't really believe in free speech as a concept, if that speech was offensive to the administrator's sensibilities -- or offensive to some students. At least now there is some recognition that speech codes are inappropriate -- and even unconstitutional at a university."

What seems to have gotten worse, Lukianoff said, is the appreciation of the right of private conscience on campus -- the right of free citizens to hold internal beliefs and values.

"This is terrifying because, as bad as it is to tell people what they can't say, it's even worse to tell people what they must say -- and worse, still, to tell them what they must think or believe," he said.

Michigan State says only that it is "reviewing" the program.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the university shouldn't review the program -- it should cancel it and apologize to students and their parents.

But he said the same basic idea behind the Michigan State campus program is one that liberals in Congress would like to impose on society as a whole via the criminal code -- in the form of hate-crimes legislation.

''Hate crimes simply add another layer of punishment based solely on what the perpetrator was thinking," Hausknecht said. "Instead of punishing the actions, we would be punishing people for what they think."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other liberals have promised to reintroduce hate-crimes legislation, which would add homosexuals to a list of protected classes, and call for harsher sentences if a crime was committed against a homosexual.

That's essentially thought control, Hausknecht said.

"When we decide to punish the motive," he noted, "the criminal-justice system will become a simple tool of liberals to further push their ideas of socialism and secularism on civil society."

We just had a very interactive discussion on 'Worldview' and kudos to T for leading it. I am very pleased with the thoughts shared on this topic.. My hope for you is that you begin to analyze your life, experiences, and culture in light of worldview.

Review the following for more insights on this issue, and be prepared for Aaron Hewes this Wed. Sounds like he is coming!

This first article looks at the practical application of worldview. Basically asking the question, "So what..?"

by Del Tackett

When Jimmy Carter became president in 1976 and Charles Colson published his best-selling book that same year, their stories made the phrase "born again" an instant media buzzword.

Originally spoken by Jesus in John 3, the phrase began showing up often. I recall watching a televised golf match in which the announcer declared that the man teeing off had been born again. I was delighted, yet curious to see how he was going to explain this on national TV. He continued, describing how the golfer had merely changed his grip a little and was miraculously "born-again."

We are beginning to see the same thing happen to the term "worldview." I have heard people use it as a synonym for personality, as in "She has such a delightful worldview." You have undoubtedly heard it—maybe even used it. But do you know what it means?
What is a Worldview?

Charles Colson says a worldview is "the sum total of our beliefs about the world," 1 while James Sire says it is our "set of presuppositions … about the basic makeup of our world." 2 Webster defines it as "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world."3 A worldview is something much deeper than your personality or how you hold a golf club. It defines your beliefs about reality and your outlook on life.

In order to better understand the concept, it's important to know that there are two different kinds—or two "levels"—of worldview. Allow me to explain…

Formal Worldviews

A formal worldview is a major system of ideas that orders human hearts and minds. To visualize this, picture a bookshelf with twenty or thirty books on it. Some are old, some are new. Some are thick, others thin. Each book has a title: Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Pagan Mysticism, etc.

If you were to study them, you would find that each builds a case that the things it claims are true (its "truth claims") accurately reflect reality. Some are better defined than others, but each one asserts that it has discovered or crafted the real truth about everything important in life. Marxism, for example, basically claims that the secret of life lies in economics and, as a result, reality consists in the clash between those who control the means of production and those who don't.

A formal worldview is usually comprehensive in scope, offering its proponents a lens they can look through to formulate universal beliefs about life, from philosophy to science, from anthropology to politics, from economics to social order.
Personal Worldviews

If we camp out on this definition, we might begin to think that our personal worldviews are in one-to-one relationship with the established formal worldviews. We would be wrong. There is a huge difference between a systematic set of truth claims and the complex, fragmented, and elusive beliefs of most human beings.

If someone claims to be a Marxist, what does that mean? Can we assume that his personal beliefs exactly match the Marxism book on the shelf? Or what if someone claims to be a witch? It's hard to say what that means in terms of her assumptions about life. Likewise, when someone says, "I am a Christian; therefore, I have a Christian worldview," it's not necessarily true.

Late in 2003, pollster George Barna attempted to determine how many Americans held a "biblical worldview." 4 He asked people questions taken straight from Scripture, to find out if they really believe what is written there. 5 The results were dismal: Only four percent do. When he looked at the born-again6 believers in America, the results inched up to an anemic nine percent. How can this be? Instead of adopting the formal framework of a biblical worldview, it seems that "Christians" have accepted a hodgepodge of individual truth claims that come from everywhere.
Life on a Smorgasbord

Look back at the bookshelf for a moment. On the end, you will find another, very large book titled Miscellaneous. In here we find all of the unconnected truth claims that simply float around our culture. They may be distant cousins or distortions of a formal worldview or unexamined claims that don't at all reflect reality.

For example, if you listen carefully to what people are saying and read between the lines, you will hear this belief: "I am stupid and worthless." Where did that come from? I can think of several "formal" worldviews that give rise to this truth claim, but not directly. People in our culture are perhaps more influenced by these miscellaneous truth claims than by any formal worldview.

So what's wrong with that? To begin with, living with a hodgepodge of unexamined beliefs makes our lives purposeless and fragmented. On top of that, when our beliefs don't accurately represent reality, we end up acting in ways that hurt ourselves and our relationships.

I challenge you to examine your worldview. Do your personal beliefs really come from a biblical framework, or are they collected from various belief systems and your own (perhaps inaccurate) interpretation of reality? If we say that our God, in Jesus, is truth, we would do well to live lives that are based on the truth He has revealed to us in his Word.

Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute. He is also the visionary and teacher for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project—a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
________________________________

1 Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1999, p. 14.
2 James Sire, The Universe Next Door (3rd. Ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997, p. 16.
3 See "weltanschauung," Merriam-Webster online.
4 Barna, George. "A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life." The Barna Update, December 1, 2003.
5 For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings. See Barna Research.
6 In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

This second article does a nice job of restating what exactly worldview is.

by Tracy F. Munsil

The scene: The African plain comes alive with the gathering of zebras, gazelles, giraffes, elephants, all the animals on a majestic pilgrimage to see their future king, the cuddly newborn lion cub, Simba. After receiving the blessing of Rafiki, the lion pride's shaman monkey, the animals big and small all bow on bended knee in worship to the uplifted cub. In the background plays the song, "The Circle of Life" - "It's the circle of life/ And it moves us all/ through despair and hope/ Through faith and love/ Till we find our place/ On the path unwinding/ In the circle, the circle of life."

Any parent with children older than about 8 knows the scene described above well, and most can still sing the song. Disney movies are like that -full of wonderfully creative characters, compelling story lines and memorable music. Millions of families across America watched the popular movie The Lion King when it came out in 1993, delighting in Simba and the antics of his friends Pumbaa and Timon singing "Hakuna Matata." Pure Disney genius. But what worldview was being absorbed by millions of impressionable preschoolers? Is the concept of the "circle of life" true according to God's Word? Do the ideas in the movie square with the Christian worldview?

Like everything we watch, listen to or read, The Lion King contains a worldview. And unless you know what you're looking for, unless you have a strong understanding of your own worldview, it is often difficult to discern.

So what's the worldview in The Lion King? Despite a handful of good moral lessons, it is not biblical Christianity. The notion of the "circle of life," that history is circular and the present is heavily influenced by the spirits of one's ancestors, is closer to Eastern pantheism or native spiritualism than the linear view of history presented in the Bible. But how is the average parent to know and discern the worldview, and how can parents equip their children to evaluate worldview for themselves?

WHAT IS WORLDVIEW?

Worldview is the latest buzzword in Christian circles. We're all told we need one, and whether we know it or not, we all have one. But what is a worldview? Literally, of course, worldview is how a person views the world. A person's worldview consists of the values, ideas or the fundamental belief system that determines his attitudes, beliefs and ultimately, actions. Typically, this includes his view of issues such as the nature of God, man, the meaning of life, nature, death, and right and wrong.

We begin developing our worldview as young children, first through interactions within our family, then in social settings such as school and church, and from our companions and life experiences. Increasingly, our media culture is playing a key role in shaping worldview. We are a culture saturated with powerful media images in movies, television, commercials and music. And like the entertaining and seemingly benign Lion King, what we watch, listen to and read, impacts the way we think. Consistently consuming entertainment with false ideas will inevitably distort our view of the world.

Although the Bible never uses the word "worldview," in Colossians 2: 6-8, we are commanded to be able to discern and discard false philosophy-which is essentially worldview. "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him, rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ."

Jeff Baldwin, a fellow at the Texas-based Worldview Academy, says worldview "is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses-glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world. ... But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may find yourself in a worse plight than the blind man - thinking you see clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted." To choose the "right" glasses, you have to first understand and embrace the true worldview.

WORLDVIEW FOR ADULTS

As an adult, you already have a worldview. The challenge is to formalize it by asking probing questions to help you understand what you believe and why you believe it. During this process, if your thinking is inconsistent with biblical teaching, you can discard the false ideas and replace them with truth. A number of worldview resources are available to help you through this formalizing process. Different resources employ somewhat different approaches, but they all provide foundational answers to the big questions of life.

In my teaching of worldview and Great Books to homeschool students ages 12 to 18, I've used a series of seven questions to help them formalize their own worldview and to help them evaluate competing worldviews. These seven questions are common to many worldview resources and provide an effective tool for adults, as well as teenagers, particularly to evaluate the worldview of books, music and movies:
Is there a god and what is he like?
What is the nature and origin of the universe?
What is the nature and origin of man?
What happens to man after death?
Where does knowledge come from?
What is the basis of ethics and morality?
What is the meaning of human history?

A similar seven-question approach is found in the excellent worldview resource, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog by James W Sire, and also in Worldviews of the Western World, a three-year worldview and Great Books curriculum for homeschoolers written by David Quine. Chuck Colson's How Now Shall We Live uses a four-question approach. It doesn't matter how many questions you use, just that you begin asking the big questions of life in four key areas-deity, origin, nature and rules- and then answer them based on Scripture.

Finding answers using the Bible provides the foundation of the Christian or biblical worldview. For example, someone who holds the biblical worldview would answer the question, "Is there a god and what is he like?" using what he knows to be true about the character of God according to Scripture. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign, personal, infinite, transcendent, just, omniscient, immanent, and good. These attributes are not exhaustive by any means, but do establish the basic character of God. This checklist provides a starting point for identifying false or competing worldviews. Answers to the other questions can be derived from Scripture as well, and are presented in numerous worldview books or works of Christian apologetics.

Once you can answer those questions clearly for yourself based on Scripture, you then can apply them to everything you watch, read or listen to. For example, the Academy Award for Best Picture went to the film, Gladiator. In answer to "Is there a god in the movie and what is he like? "-there was not only a god, but many gods, which was the prevailing religious view in ancient Rome. In addition, early in the movie, the lead character Maximus sets up a shrine in his tent, and prays to these gods daily to watch over his wife and child. Yet these gods could not offer the true hope of salvation or deliverance through Jesus Christ.

What about the basis of ethics and morality in the movie? It does portray virtue in Maximus' loyalty and devotion to the dying emperor of Rome. Yet his morality and code of ethics is driven by his iron will to survive to avenge the murders of his wife and son. We see that, like Maximus, each character has his or her own set of moral guidelines or ethical agenda, depending on their individual situation. The morality of Maximus' trainer is guided by his greed and desire for notoriety based on his gladiators' performance. He has no ethical problem sending innocent men to a gory, violent death to turn a profit or increase his social standing. Likewise, the Emperor Commodius' sister takes Maximus into her confidence in a plot to avenge his family's slaying, only to betray him later to save her own son. The morality and ethics in the movie are not based on the belief in transcendent truth, as in the biblical worldview, but on what is expedient for each character's circumstances--utilitarianism, or moral relativism. Similarly, the other questions can also be applied to the movie, then compared to the biblical worldview. Despite portions of the movie that uphold virtue and self-sacrifice, the worldview of Gladiator as a whole is not consistent with the biblical worldview. The powerful images, attractive packaging of false ideas, and emotional manipulation pervasive throughout the entertainment industry demonstrate the need for Christians to have a clear worldview understanding.


Tracy F. Munsil, Director of Research and Publications for the Center For Arizona Policy, has taught worldview to high school students and currently teaches Great Books in a home school cooperative setting. She and her husband, Len, home educate their eight children, ages 14 to 5.

Great read about war heros. Heros from a long time ago. A bit long, but very good.

General Differences
by Gary Schneeberger

A new book takes an insightful look at Revolutionary War icons George Washington and Benedict Arnold -- and concludes character made all the difference in their destinies.

For all the remembrances of and memorials to those who fought to found the United States, you probably won't find today's historical anniversary on any calendar. But it was exactly 226 years ago -- Friday, Sept. 22, 1780 -- that one of the more famous events of the Revolutionary War took place.

It was the day Benedict Arnold betrayed his country, turning his name into one of the more unsavory epithets you can hurl at someone who has less than your best interests at heart.

But if you think of "Benedict Arnold" only as an insulting adjective, you'll learn a lot from George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots, a new book by retired Army Lt. Gen. Dave R. Palmer, who once held the same post as Arnold: superintendent of West Point.

You might be surprised to learn, for instance, that Washington and Arnold faced similar challenges growing up in essentially single-parent households; that both had pretty nasty tempers; and that they were considered, during the pivotal early years of the War for Independence, the top two military men in the Continental Army -- without whom we in the States might still be singing "God Save the Queen" before soccer matches and not "The Star-Spangled Banner" before baseball games.

"The tale of the two patriots, who left such diametrically opposed legacies despite life trajectories that were at one time so parallel, is only partly told by addressing what happened," Palmer writes. "To be complete it must address the why. Why did one man stay on the road to historical immortality while the other plunged over the cliff in infamy?

"The easy answer is to say one had strength of character while the other did not. But what exactly does that mean? And how did it shape such an extraordinary outcome?"

That's the focus of Palmer's book -- part historical narrative, part biography, all quite revealing. CitizenLink talked with him recently about what prompted him to spotlight what has been a largely dark corner of history.

Q. I'm the product of public schools and I didn't know anything about Benedict Arnold except that his name was synonymous with "traitor" and that there was an episode of The Brady Bunch once when Peter had to play him in a school play and didn't want to.

Well, you've hit just about what 99 percent of Americans know. I went to public high school, too, and I don't think I really knew anything about him until I was out of college.

You show how Washington and Arnold were similar in many ways. And you talk about their childhoods, and neither one of them had childhoods that were easy. And the first real difference I noticed was that Washington kind of rolled with the ups and downs experienced by his family, but Arnold really didn't, did he?

No, he fought it all along.

And how did that manifest itself?

Well, their personalities, although they've got tremendous similarities in their youth, their upbringing, their ability in the battlefield and so forth -- but Arnold was always combative, pugnacious; fought duels all his life. Even after the revolution, while he was in England, there was at least one more that I know of.

And Washington, who probably had as many reasons back in that era when men did that, never fought one.

But both of these guys had tempers. Washington kept his in check, and Arnold didn't. How was he able to do that?

Well, he didn't always. There are examples where he really flew off the handle, but he brought himself under control. I don't think he ever did it publicly; the only times I've been able to find anyone recording him losing his temper was, occasionally, one of his aides would record it, or someone who saw him in a behind-the-scenes situation. But he always quickly recovered and publicly was able to keep a very, very cool demeanor.

One of the lines that really struck me early in the book, when you're talking about Arnold, you say, "Worst of all, he was ashamed by his family's poverty and mortified by a derelict father who had become the town joke. The boy reacted by rebelling and becoming increasingly rowdy." Washington didn't have it easy, either.

There was a little bit of a difference there. They both lost their father. And were both raised essentially by single mothers. The big difference is, Washington's father died, and so there was no indignity to be suffered from that. But in Arnold's case, his father lived to be the town drunk and was sort of a laughingstock. The best you can tell, that always grated on him and probably shaped his personality to make him more personally combative.

One of the overall impressions I got from the book was that both Washington and Arnold were praised for their accomplishments, but it seems Washington was the one who was more liked. Is that a fair read?

Well, yes and no. In the large picture it is. (Arnold) was much more irascible, much more prone to chew people out for letting him down and so forth. But at the same time he was obviously a charming person. The people who liked him really liked him; and the people who didn't like him really didn't like him.

No middle ground.

Exactly. And I think with Washington there was more of a middle ground. There were people who actually liked him as a person, to include fellow Virginians, who by '76 or so had concluded that he was not up to the job (of commanding the Continental Army). So, while they liked him, they began to believe he was not competent.

Who was, in your estimation, more important to America winning the Revolutionary War? Take away one or the other and we lose. Who would that be?

Every historian who's ever dealt with it and addressed that question has come up with the conclusion that Washington was the indispensable man. With him out of the equation, with the revolution, it would have ended very differently -- probably not to our liking. Later, if you pull him out of the equation of being the first president and writing the Constitution, it would not have happened. The Constitution would not have been written, would not have been ratified, and he wouldn't have been there to set the tone. So, over that whole period, the revolutionary era, he is.

However, Arnold had something to do with the revolution for only three years: 1775, 1776 and 1777. And then he was seriously wounded at Saratoga in October of '77. And from that point on he has no positive impact on the revolution. You can get rid of him -- if he had been killed at that moment, if that musket ball, instead of shattering his left thigh, had gone into his heart, the rest of the revolution would not have been changed one whit. However, he'd be remembered today as one of our great heroes. There'd be a state named Arnold. There'd be lots of towns and cities. Anybody with a last name of Arnold would be happy to name their boys "Benedict." His treason erased all that.

I found it very interesting in the end when you talk about how many books are written about Washington versus how many books are written about Arnold. I went to amazon.com to the book section and typed George Washington's name in, it shows up in 48,826 references. I typed "Benedict Arnold" in, he shows up in 3,482. That's 14 times more mentions of Washington than Arnold.

What I find interesting about that is that actors will always tell you the most robust roles to play are villains. But it seems like historians don't agree.

Certainly that's the case with these two. Part of that, though, is that they went to great extremes to "erase from the register" -- a quote from the Congress -- references of Arnold. He became a non-person. And that was done consciously.

Just being a loyalist, or just changing your loyalty, would not have been such an unusual or horrible thing except that he was seen by the British and by the Americans as the premier battle commander. If you go to World War II, it was much the way George Patton was viewed in Europe. You have Eisenhower filling the Washington role, and Patton filling the role of Arnold. You have a rough comparison. Maybe even the Civil War -- Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

Jackson or Patton, they were the go-to guys when the senior commander had to have something done that was critical, and particularly by someone who could operate away from immediate control.

So, when you have someone who is such a noted celebrity who switches sides -- it would be almost as if George Patton had said in, oh, January of '45, "You know, after all, I think I am a Nazi. And I am going to go over and join Hitler." That would have been something incredible; you couldn't even imagine that happening. And that was sort of the way it was with Arnold.

What's more, he didn't just switch sides. He decided that -- for money -- he would take the Revolution down when he switched sides by selling West Point. So, you combine those two, and you get a feel for how terrible, what a great transgression this was for him to switch sides. You can't find a modern-day parallel.

As I was reading the book, I thought of Hebrews Chapter 12, Verse 15: "See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many." What I see here is that the bitterness of Arnold -- to Congress, to Washington eventually, to his circumstances -- really was what led to his downfall.

Yeah, I think it's implicit. I didn't spell it out precisely this way in the book, but he went through four entirely different personalities; Washington was the same man from beginning to end. Arnold in those first three years that I mentioned, I'd call him the consummate patriot. He sacrificed, risked his life over and over, sacrificed his own personal fortune and so forth. You couldn't find a more ideal patriot than he was during those first three years.

And then he becomes what I call an embittered soldier. This starts in early '77 when he's not promoted by Congress after all he's done, when in merit and seniority he's clearly the No. 1 in both. And then when they do promote him they don't backdate it so he retains his seniority. And all along, Washington is in his camp; he fumes at that himself. So as an embittered soldier he is looking for vindication. And I think that happens throughout 1777 and throughout his appointment as military governor.

But then, by May of '78, when he's recuperated from his wounding, he's what I call then a physically and emotionally scarred veteran. Physically, he's a cripple, and will be for the rest of his life. Emotionally as well. And he sets out to restore his personal fortune. He says, "OK, if that's all they think of what I've done, I'm going to look out for No. 1." And avarice comes in to play -- and that's when he starts his illicit and unethical money-making scheme. And that puts him on a really steep slope that gets him more and more in trouble.

And his final phase is when he becomes what I call a crook who's bent on revenge. He's looking for vengeance. So he goes from being a consummate patriot to being a criminal who's looking for vengeance.

Quite a biblical story in the end.

It is. It really is.

It's really a cautionary tale too, isn't it? Clear evidence of the dangers of bitterness, not just for you but for the country and your loved ones.

There again, pairing him with Washington was part of my scheme -- except that Washington was never wounded. He exposed himself as much as Arnold did; he had no business living through the war, either, doing the things on the battlefield that he did. But he also had people who were antithetical to him, people who were enemies. And he had a lot of reasons to be bitter, to be angry. But he was able to keep his bearing and keep his eye on the whole aim of the cause -- and that was to win the war.

And that's the beauty of the book. It gives you an object lesson to follow and one to avoid.

Actually, the genesis of the book was about 18 years ago, when I was still on active duty in the Army, and a private boys school in New York, across the Hudson from West Point, asked me to give the graduation speech to eighth-graders. And they asked me to talk on character. Well, if there are two talks that will be forgotten, it's a graduation address for 13-year-old boys and it's a talk on character. So I decided I had to tell them a story.

Without telling them it was Washington and Arnold, I just told them about these two men -- and traced what the book traces: their youth, how they grew up, how they were similar in so many ways, how they had to overcome similar obstacles, how they were both very successful and how they were both good leaders. And then they both had all these highs and lows, great successes and great defeats, and people who were against them. And never told (the kids) who the two were.

So when I got to the end, I said one became the father of our country, George Washington. And the other became a man without a country, Benedict Arnold.

And then I was able to make the point why: One was a leader of character; one was a man who had a huge character flaw. So character is very important in determining the destiny of a person. Well, those kids were rapt -- sitting on the edge of their seats. And anytime you get a group of 40 eighth-graders to hang on every word you're saying …

You're doing pretty well …

… and you've got a moral at the end, I said, "Well, I know that's a good story." So I thought when I retired I'd write it for young people, but I found among the many talents I don't have, writing for young people is one of them. That's an art form in itself.

Not sure if you have time to go to this, but it may be worth your while.

Case for a Creator

http://www.biola.edu/apologetics

December 7, 2006, 7:30-9:30 p.m., "The Case for a Creator" at Biola University with Lee Strobel, Steve Meyer, Jay Richards, JP Moreland, Jonathan Wells, Mike Behe, and others. Witness the launch of a much-anticipated DVD product based on Lee Strobel's best selling book. Hear from scholars who are helping to win the debate over Darwinism in our time. Join us at this exclusive free event and receive a free copy of the DVD "The Case for a Creator." Call 888 332-4652 or click the link above and click special events to register.

If you have ever thought much about prophecy..

Why Iran Matters
Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi

December 5, 2006

Yesterday, I told you about the difficult choices facing us in Iraq: The most popular option, an expedited withdrawal, would be disastrous for both our national security and the Iraqi people. "Cutting and running" would leave Iran as the regional superpower and threaten the safety of our only reliable and democratic ally in the region: Israel.

To understand why leaving Iran as the regional power would be such a disaster, you need to understand the nature and worldview of the Iranian regime, and especially Iran's president: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Like the rest of Iran's elite, Ahmadinejad, who was elected president in 2005, is a Shiite, but no ordinary Shiite. He is what is sometimes called a "Mahdite," which takes its name from the descendant of Mohammed known as the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi.

Devotees of the Mahdi believe that he didn't die back in the ninth century but, instead, was hidden by God. They believe that in a time of "terrible and unprecedented calamities" in which "persecution and injustice . . . engulf the earth," the Mahdi will return with Jesus at his side and "establish peace and justice on this earth."

If all this were just bad eschatology, it would not be our problem. But there's more—a lot more. It's clear from Ahmadinejad's words and actions that he sees himself and Iran as playing a pivotal role in establishing "peace and justice on this earth."

For instance, there was his bizarre appearance at the United Nations (UN) in which he prayed that God would "bestow upon humanity . . . the perfect being," that is, the Mahdi. Since the Mahdi's return must be preceded by "terrible and unprecedented calamities," Ahmadinejad's prayer can only be answered at the cost of great suffering. And the crowds at the UN applauded.

Nobody knows the danger better than Israel. In an October 2005 speech Ahmadinejad called the Jewish state a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world," that it must be "eliminated from the pages of history."

While the Iranians and some Western commentators tried to spin away this obvious threat, former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin saw through the fog. He said that "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."

And ignoring it would be insane when you recall Ahmadinejad's role during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s: He commanded the Basiji, teenage "volunteers" who "cleared [Iraqi] mines with their own bodies." Children!

But Europe will ignore it. Pro-Palestinian sympathies are rising along with anti-Semitism. If the Iranian-backed Hezbollah attacked Israel, or if Ahmadinejad releases his missiles, Israel could be wiped off the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not squeamish, especially when he believes that God has willed something. Now, imagine him with nuclear weapons, in effective control of most of the world's oil, the United States having cut and run, abandoning the region, and Europe unconcerned.

Could Ahmadinejad bring about an Armageddon of sorts? I never have speculated about end times prophecy because no man knows the time and the place. But I have read Genesis 12:2-3, and that's why I am praying fervently for godly wisdom for our leaders.

This is unique advice. Some need to be healed and need to find this in themselves. Some are well enough to help heal others.

REAL STRENGTH
Written by Dr. Joel Wade
Friday, 01 December 2006

When I was a young psychology student I was fortunate to find a mentor in Nathaniel Branden. One day I asked him, "What do you think is the single most important thing that you do with your clients, the one thing that forms the foundation for everything else?"

His answer was simple, but it had a tremendous impact on me. It resonated deeply with core beliefs and values that I held, but didn't have the words for yet:

"I look for the best within people," he said, "and I try to speak directly to that part of them. Even if they do not see it themselves, I look for it, and speak to it, and I don't get thrown off by their negative beliefs about themselves."

To actually do this is one of the most profound acts of taking purposeful command of your perspective on others and yourself that you can engage in.

This reflects the real state of our country's leadership.. Stalemate.

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT IN THE SENATE
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Friday, 01 December 2006

Over a beer earlier this week with a Republican Senator, I couldn't help but asking how he was doing. Had the GOP retained its majority, he would have been the chairman of one of the Senate's most powerful committees. Starting next month, he would be just another minority schmuck.

"Sure, it's a disappointment," he said. "It's the dream of your life for a guy like me. So I have a choice. I can be bitter - or I can have fun. I choose fun."

I frowned. "How are you going to have fun?" I asked skeptically.

He smiled. "Come on, Jack, you know how the Senate works. It's not like the House, where the minority is lower than dirt, and treated like subhuman Moslem Dhimmis. Harry (Harry Reid, incoming Senate Majority Leader) has no majority at all. Hell, it's 51-49, with the 51st being Joe Lieberman and we've got Cheney as a tie-breaker. We can screw them any time we want and Harry knows it."

Last Updated ( Friday, 01 December 2006 )