What Could Have Been Iran...

Polling booths throughout cities and villages of Iran were crowded on June 12 for a closely- contested presidential election. The weeks preceding the election were covered extensively by news agencies across the United States and Europe. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was being challenged by a familiar name in Iranian politics, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. Much of the West was hopeful for a regime change in favor of Mr. Mousavi. To the surprise of very few people, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government announced his victory shortly after polls had closed. Simultaneously, Mousavi was announcing that he had captured the majority of the votes. Many streets of Tehran were in chaos over the next week as Mousavi supporters and Mousavi himself claimed that voting irregularities had falsely given Ahmadinejad another presidential term. The issue has since been taken up by the Guardian Council and they have confirmed some irregularities, but they will not be sufficient to overturn the decision.

With all that has recently taken place inside Iran, there is much dreaming about what the country would have looked like under Mousavi’s presidency. Mousavi is not a hard-line conservative like his rival, and advocates a more free society in Iran. He has stated that the police and security forces managing the streets would be pulled back and held within the confines of the law. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed to have the backing of the Iranian youth, an overwhelmingly high percentage of the population, and he appeared to have the unofficial support of the Western nations.

While the Iranian citizens that chose Mousavi as their candidate may have received what they wanted if he won, the watching West may have been disappointed with his policies. Despite his reformist and moderate stance, Mousavi would have continued to tow the line in the majority of Iranian politics and foreign relations. Among the reasons for this are Mousavi’s personal statements about high interest policies and the intricacies of the Iranian system.

The former Prime Minister held office from 1981 until 1989 when the constitution was amended to remove the post of Prime Minister. He has made it known that he fully supports the Islamic Republic and the ideals of the Revolution. His rise during the early years of the Republic took place at the side of Ayatollah Khomeini, as Mousavi was a loyal follower. Although the relationship between Mousavi and Ayatollah Khamenei is one of conflict, it is not likely that Mousavi would challenge the Ayatollah or The Guardian Council on the Islamic nature of the law and society. Mousavi stated in an interview with Al-Jazeera that he disagreed with the phrase, “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” Yet, he was appointed to the leadership council of Hizballah when they were created and he does not recognize Israel. With regard to the issue of uranium enrichment, Mousavi has made it clear that no changes would take place during his presidency, under any circumstances. Mousavi’s track record of relations with Western nations is also not very impressive. He voiced his support for the seizure of American’s at the embassy in Tehran in 1979. At the time, he referred to the hostage taking as “the finalization and culmination of Iran realizing its identity during the Revolution.” While serving as Prime Minister, Mousavi severed diplomatic ties with Great Britain due to a British author, Salman Rushdie, whose novel in 1988 earned him a death threat from Iran, which Mousavi supported.

Mir Hossein Mousavi’s presidency would not have brought forth any drastic changes like the days of the Revolution. The current system would have remained fully intact under Khamenei, perhaps stronger than under Ahmadinejad’s constant annoyance to the ruling clerics. Perhaps the only impact that could have been felt in the West would have been some aftershocks of a mildly more free Iranian society.

Sacrificing America's Security

Today I heard Jesse Ventura make a comment today about all of the torture debate and water-boarding that's flying around the news lately. He very strongly opposes water-boarding and torture, and said that we should be above the type of people that use torture and that the United States is better than that, we are at a higher level than other countries.
I'm just wondering what the moral ethic or code is that people are using to claim that the US is above all other countries in our morality that we do not use advanced interrogations or torture against terrorist. I love my country, because it is my country, but I am under no perception that the US lives by some higher moral code than other countries. We are a culture of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll (and I'm not thrilled about that, I prefer the Christian principles we were built on). But, our country surpasses many others when it comes to greed, crime, hate, sexual promiscuity, drugs, divorce, gay marriage and the list goes on. This is the sad truth of what much of America has become. Taking these characteristics into consideration, we fall pretty far down the list as far as our morality and ethics compared to many countries. As the years go on, these flaws of our culture are growing and spreading.
We could take some initiative in our country to change some of these problems in order for our country to be at the level of morality that some believe us to be. Instead, some people would rather have us forsake our national security in order to save face. I would rather have our country restrict what is allowed on T.V. and make divorce and affairs more difficult, and allow children to pray in school and support churches. Instead, they want us to make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorism so we can claim to live by a higher standard.
Also, these terrorist have made their decision to spend their lives killing as many innocent (non-combatant) lives as possible. In my opinion they have forsaken any claim to be treated as decent human beings with any rights. Do what we need to gather the intell that we need and then be done with them. I would not expect any mercies given to me if I chose the life of a terrorist. They are also not American citizens, and why do we need to follow international law and Geneva Convention in how we deal with men that were associated with an attack that killed nearly 3000 US citizens, these were our people.

A New Conservative Angle on the DHS Report

I recently received an email calling for Christians to be up in arms about the new DHS report. I'm not going to go into much detail about the report, it is available on the web. What follows is my response to the email I received.

I just wanted to respond to this email real quick and throw my 2 cents on the table. I wasn't offended by this report when I first heard about it and I am still not offended after looking at ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) website. The reason that I'm not offended even though I am a christian conservative who is pro-life, is that I don't see where I fall into this report.

First off, this report is just a warning for law enforcement to be aware of a possibility. Which I think is very good, they should be aware of a possible threat no matter where it could come from. I think if the Bush admin would have put out a report like this after his second election pertaining to the extreme leftest, it would have been good, if they felt the threat was possible.

Second, the report says, as ACLJ quotes, that a right-wing extremist that could be dangerous is someone who is hate-orientated and opposed to the authority of the elected government. So you would need to meet that criteria first in order to be counted in this definition, most christian conservatives are not hate-orientated and opposed to the rightful ruling of government, so I don't believe they have anything to worry about under this report and I don't think that DHS has them in mind. I think this includes the type of people who blow up abortion clinics or attend rallies to raise support to overthrow the government. What the report then says is that someone that falls under the first criteria may come from a group that is extreme about a particular issue, such as abortion or immigration. Not everyone who has a strong belief against one these issues is to be considered a possible terrorist threat, it is the extreme, hate-orientates, over-throw the government type.

However, there is one thing that did (at first) bother me in this report, the mentioning of US war veterans. I thought it showed a lack of respect for our veterans and the sacrifices that they make. I know that some veterans come home and are unable to cope with life outside of war and can have breakdowns that are violent. When reading the report I did take note that the emphasis is not so much on the veterans themselves as it is on the desire of terrorist groups desire to exploit veterans and there training. Also, this report does list much historical support for the possible dangers they are concerned about. It seems that veterans that are upset about this report, could find it helpful to see this report has a helpful warning to them to be aware of domestic terror groups wanting to exploit them and their training.

This is just my opinion, as you shared yours. Maybe there is an underlying evilness that I'm not seeing, but I don't see this as threatening to me.

Ode to The Hard Working Extras in Hilary Swank's New Film (including me)

I spent Monday and Thursday of this week at the Jackson State Prison. It appears that standing in sub-zero temperatures for 4 blistering hours for a casting call finally paid off. Unfortunately it hasn't paid off yet for my loyal wife who faced the cold with me for those dreadful hours.

The film is "Betty Anne Waters", based on a true story. It stars Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell. I am playing an inmate in cell block 5. I decided that I was in for armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

The days on set were very, very long. Fifty of us extras were stuffed in a room with tables and folding chairs for 14 hours on Monday and 12 hours on Thursday. I think they wanted to make it as much like prison as possible. But, they fed us well and often and the pay isn't to shabby considering all the over time. Monday was the only day that I was supposed to be part of the film, but all of the footage was ruined by x-ray, so Thursday was a bad case of groundhog day from Monday.

Overall, a very interesting experience. I met some great guys while we were held up in that room for long hours and played many games of euchre. I was lucky enough to be close to Hilary and the action in both scenes that I shot. Hopefully at least a second of the scene will make it past editing and the movie itself will do well.

Attempting the Iraq Blueprint in Afghanistan

I’ve been listening and reading about a new plan the Obama Administration is bringing to the Afghanistan table. In light of the progress that the US military has had in Iraq in the last couple of years, the administration is attempting to transfer much of that blueprint to the front against the Taliban.

President Obama expressed throughout his campaign that the US took its eyes off the war in Afghanistan too soon and gazed upon new possibilities in Iraq. He stated that we have lost much ground to the active and re-emerging Taliban, and reports show that violence against US-led coalition forces has steadily increased since focus has shifted towards the war front in Iraq.

Obama does not have much support for the war in Iraq and challenged it numerous times while in the Senate, but obviously supports the operations in Afghanistan that began after September 11. Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq, Obama has admitted that success has followed a couple main Bush strategies. One strategy that Obama believes can be credited for success is the US military negotiations and truces with some Sunni militant groups and tribes that had been part of the insurgency alongside Al Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ). The second successful strategy that the Obama administration is copying is the troop surge that so many democrats voted against, but have since then admitted to its success.

I commend the new administration for recognizing these successes in Iraq and now taking this blueprint to Afghanistan to see if it can work there. But, (of course there’s a “but”) many deep and essential differences may cause failure. First off, negotiating with moderate factions of the Taliban is not very comparable to the groups that we negotiated with in Iraq. The insurgents that we were able to bring to the side of Iraqi freedom and sovereignty were part of Al Qaeda and had not shown open aggression to the US prior to the Iraq invasion. The fact that they were AIQ sympathizers that occasionally partnered with them as opposed to loyal followers of a specific regime and network makes a significant difference to our ability to negotiate with them. In Afghanistan however, the fractions that the administration is considering for negotiations are active, albeit moderate, officers of the Taliban regime, which is a regime that we have been engaged with in war since 2001. This is a regime that by partnering with and supporting Al Qaeda openly attacked civilians on US soil and killed nearly 3,000 of them. Anyone that believes that Obama’s rhetoric of open talks with leaders of Syria and Iran is playing with fire should be far more alarmed by this. I am not familiar with any attack on US soil by either of these two countries or their supported Hizballah.

Our likelihood of successful negotiations capable of turning these moderate Taliban members against Mullah Omar and his Taliban fighters is more comparable to turning Al Qaeda against itself, than the insurgent groups in Iraq. In addition to this, we must consider where the upper hand was in Iraq during these negotiations and where it is in Afghanistan at the current time. He had not won the war in Iraq when we began seeking insurgents to join us and fight against the oppressive AIQ, but we were gain strong ground and had the upper hand. In Afghanistan the Taliban is spreading their influence, building their arsenal, and we do not have the upper hand against them as we did in the past. For this reason, our offer of negotiations may bear no weight in their eyes, but if we offer bargaining after the troop surge has put the Taliban on the run we may at least be taken seriously.

So, let’s take a look at that troop surge or “increase” that President Obama is planning. The most obvious and possibly important question is “will it work?” I can not think of any reason why not, after all as the administration has noted, it worked to reduce violence in Iraq. Though it’s likely to bring success, what’s the sacrifice?

Obama has pointed out that we were so close to completing our mission in Afghanistan and then walked away before the job was done. I wonder if the same mistake is going to be repeated with Iraq. Are we going to move the bulk of soldiers back to Afghanistan as we are seeing the tide turn in Iraq and watch in horror as the advancements in democracy are lost and Iraq falls back into peril? I don’t want this to become a cycle of sending troops back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq because we can’t commit long enough in either country to witness lasting security and stability established.

We Are All Criminals Hanging On A Cross

The event is explained by John, the disciple that Jesus loved, in this way:

The Messiah, the Christ, is mounted on a wooden cross with sharp stone nails pounded through his hands and feet. In His company are distraught and devoted followers, including John and Mary. Also present at Golgotha are Roman soldiers and two criminals being crucified on either side of the Messiah.

Also present for this epic moment is all of humanity; every man, woman, and child that has ever or will ever live. We are all present and all represented by the two men on the left and right side of Jesus.

These two men were guilty, as Luke reveals in his Gospel. They deserved their punishment, as do all of us. We are all guilty of our crimes and all of us have committed numerous crimes that would rightfully bring judgment on us. Our guiltiness is even more evident when shown next to the innocent man nailed on the middle cross.

Luke goes into the greatest detail about these two men, but all of the Gospel writers mention them. The men crucified with Jesus had the same opportunity in His presence. One was not better than the other in Jesus’ eyes, but one choose to believe while the other choose to deny. All of mankind falls under the example of these two criminals that are at the edge of death and they have absolutely no power to save themselves.

Luke tells us that one of them denies and mocks Jesus to his own death, but the other recognizes the Messiah and his unique authority. He asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus enters His Kingdom in Heaven. Jesus assures the criminal that because of his faith that he will be in Paradise with Jesus that very day. It is because of the man’s faith in the Messiah, not because of the deeds of his life or because he was truly innocent of the crime he is charged with. These two men had lived the same lives, possibly guilty of the same crime that they committed as partners, but one spends eternity in hell and the other is in paradise. This is not fair justice; this is the mystery and beauty of grace.

We are all guilty criminals that when hung next to the pure and innocent Messiah have the choice to embrace or reject His freedom from our sentence.

President Obama's plan for Iraq

I was listening to NPR this morning between 10:30 and 11:00, while I was on my way to an interview with Belle Tire. They had a Democratic Congressman on and some other professors and anti-war folk. The majority of them were voicing disappointment in Obama's three year plan for withdrawal. I guess this is following the time-line and policy that Bush had agreed on with Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi authority.

I haven't read or heard any Obama's speech yet, but I hear it boils down to a portion of troops back home in one and two years with the remainder coming home in three years. FOX News website gives these numbers "Now the president announced his plan today to end combat operations in Iraq on August 31, 2010, but he will leave 30 to 50,000 troops on the ground until the end of 2011."

So, many people are up in arms about The President changing the course from what he campaigned on with respect to an immediate withdrawal of US Forces. I believe that his tone about how and when we leave Iraq (still leaving behind security/peace keeping forces) has changed because he is being forced to look at the conflict through new lenses. As a Senator, Obama, did have access to much information and testimonies of what is going on in Iraq, but it didn't include the security and intelligence briefings that he now reads with his morning coffee.

I believe that he is looking at a different story than he knew before Jan. 2009 and I believe that the new information that he needs to account for includes Iraqi stability and possible power vacuums and regional or civil war. Congressman, journalists, and the average American all seem to forget that the President's decisions come in light of very crucial information.

I also believe that Obama is wise to listen to the Generals and Commanders that are responsible for the American soldiers in Iraq, and responsible for the end result to this war. General Petraeus' opinion should be one of the top opinions that Obama considers when writing up a plan to leave Iraq in the hands of its people.

Included in the discussion on NPR was a Democratic Congressman who repeatedly call Operation Iraq Freedom a "war of lies" and he strongly attacked the reasoning for the war. That is honestly something that I am sick of hearing about. Whether or not the war was justified should bear no weight on how we leave it in the future. This needs to move from a historical study of the Bush administration to an effective strategy to build Iraq to stand on its own two feet once again. We should not leave until those two feet are able to defend themselves and rule with a strong and just government.

The Arab/Israeli Conflict and the Western Church

The Arab/Israeli Conflict and the Western Church

This study is meant to take the Western Church into a deep look at the lives of their brothers and sisters in the Middle East, especially in Israel and Palestine. I believe that we are not sacrificing our Jewish ancestry or the ancestry of Jesus by standing beside Arabs. I do not by any means condone the violent acts of any religious extremist group, nor do I support the use of violence by the Israeli government. It may prove beneficial for readers to view the contents of this study as neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, but pro-Peace. I believe, as Brother Andrew has stated, that the only path to peace in this part of the world or anywhere is Jesus, The Prince of Peace.

Where should the conviction and the dedication of the Christian Church lie? Where should the deep concern and heart of the body of believers be moved toward? Should it be concerned with prophecy and the past of thousands of years and traditions before the life and death of our Savior? Or, should the heart of the Church be yearning to see the current condition of the world changed, should it be concerned over the now and more importantly the condition of its members in the world? Should its greatest allegiance lie with its fellow brothers or with the ties of Jewish tradition?

The answers to these questions may seem easy to some, but to others perhaps they pull at the very core of important scriptures. The Bible says that Israel is God’s land and the Jews are His children and the recipients of His covenants. If we, as followers of the Messiah, want to hold to this scripture then what does it mean to our lives and what does it mean the relationship between God and a bunch of Gentiles who call themselves Christians. In the Gospel, Jesus called his followers to work for the least and to proclaim His Word to all the nations. Jesus said that he came for the Jews, but they rejected Him and His gift of life was then given to the Gentiles, all those who are not Jews. “Gentile” means every person on earth who is not Jewish. Christians are called to stand by those who are under injustice, oppression, and unfair government. We are called to defend the defenseless, the orphans, the widows, the hungry, and the naked. How much greater a call if these that we encourage are also followers of Christ.

We often picture these people, the ones we are called to release from captivity, in war-torn places, places of oppression. Do we ever picture that Arabs need our help and our support and words of encouragement? Or do we only picture them as Muslim or only ruthless murders and terrorists? Do we only consider them to be enemies of Christ and enemies of Israel? What if you were to find out that when you draw your stance on the Arab/Israeli conflict that you may very well be turning your back on brothers and sisters in Christ. This is where the important question needs to be considered, “Should the Church’s greatest allegiance lie with its fellow brothers or with the ties of Jewish tradition?”

The population landscape in Israel is divided into many categories, mainly Israeli and Palestinian. The western church has traditionally had a strong stance behind the Israeli nation. Much of this has to do with prophecy and Biblical tradition concerning Abraham’s seed and Israeli’s position at end times. Some of it also has to do with guilt over the Nazi Holocaust, in which many Christians stood by silently. Looking a little further into Israel’s population, there are basically three more groups that the people are divided into: Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. Within Israel and the Palestinian Territories the majority of Christians are Palestinian and expanding beyond to the greater Arab World we find vast numbers of Arab believers in comparison to Jewish believers. Traditionally, Christians have supported, with great fervor, other Christians in most conflicts for over 2000 years. Why then is there contradiction between our current support for Israel and our historical support for fellow believers?

This is, perhaps, one of the most important conflicts of all history for the Christian Church and yet the majority of believers in the United States have chosen to stand against their brothers just because they are Arab brothers. Meanwhile, a predominately secular Israeli government enforces strict law and builds a wall to keep all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza in their desolate circumstances. Christians in Bethlehem are facing very dire and heartbreaking times, and the Israeli government does not seem to take the time to ask whether an Arab is Christian or Muslim.

Members of the Church body in Palestine have been leaving the Holy Land in great numbers since 1948. Christian’s homes have been taken away by Israeli settlers coming from areas of the West. The Believers that do remain in Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza are in need of support and prayer just for the strength to hold onto their faith. They read the same words of Jesus that we read from his sermon on the mount. “Love your enemies.” But, their enemy is also supported by millions of there brothers and sisters in the West. To these many people who fight to follow their Messiah, a Jew, Islam offers an explanation for their situation by naming Israel as a wicked, occupying enemy. We cannot afford to lose this fragile part of the body to Islam and vengeful Arab mindset. They need to be encouraged and loved by the Church so that they can be a light in their neighborhoods and communities. That being said, can we expect them to accept any type of outreach by the western Church if we do not change our support and affiliation for Israel’s government?

The answer is no, and we would be the same if we were living in that contradicted society. We feel that we are superior as American Christians in comparison to Arab Christians, we are sadly mistaken. The Apostle Paul said that in The Body of Christ there is no distinction between us, whether slave or free, Jew or Gentile, man or woman. Therefore, they are equal to us in the eyes of God, which is the most important judgment that one can ever face. If the judge of all creation and our Father looks at them with the same eyes that he looks at us, who are we to know better than God. None the less, some of us, being human as we are, still look at the world in class, race, and a separation of people. In that train of thought, and within Biblical context, the Arab race would be the highest of all Gentiles with regard to Jews as the pinnacle. Their blood line is a direct descendant of the family of Abraham. In the lineage of Biblical history the Arabs are of more right to the promises of Jewish Patriarch then are all other Gentiles. This notoriety, I think, should warrant the Arab follower’s of Jesus a special place among the Church in the way that some respect Jewish followers.

Please understand that I am not putting loving arms around the entirety of the Palestinian people, especially their leaders who often exploit the situation for their own means. But names like Hanna Massad and Bashar are names that need to be spoken in our churches and in our prayers. Ministries like the Gaza Baptist Church, Bethlehem Bible College, Musalaha Reconciliation Ministry deserve our support and will not survive without it. You need to know that as much disgust as you feel toward Hamas and Hizb-allah, our brothers living in Gaza and Bethlehem are losing their lives in a war where they stand on neither side. They pray for a future without terror groups running their cities, but their children are not immune to stray bullets and their homes are not invincible to rockets fired from either those waving the flag of the Crescent or those with the Star of David around their neck. Neither side of this war is looking for their interest or concerned with their future. Their hope is in the church, whose power and strength is truly unmatched by any regime, terror group, or government that ever will be.

This is why I encourage my brothers and sisters to stand beside their fellow believers, even though they may be Arab and even though there may be Jews standing on the other side. The Arab believers in Palestine need to know that the Body of Christ stands behind them and encourages them toward peace and understanding in their land. We should not allow them to believe that we have forsaken them because of their heritage and have instead decided to stand on the other side of the wall and shoot at them. We need to be found on neither side of the wall, but we need to be found tearing down the wall.

First post

I've decided to start a blog, but chances are that this will soon become another blank page that once had ambition to use. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I will become a frequent blogger and maybe people will actually read what I have to say. Only time will tell where this will go from here. Wish me luck!