Friday, October 31, 2008

God's Chosen People in the Promised Land

In March 2002, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stood against world opinion and offered seven reasons why Israel alone is entitled to possess the Holy Land:

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.

I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 1967 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel.

I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace.

When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process.

If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East — that is us — all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door.

I have some observations to make about that. But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land.

The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it.

Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years.

It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have.

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology.

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem.

The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.

The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917.

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.''

In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally.

It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world.

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today.

We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks.

We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.

No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ..... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''

That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,'' — the West Bank.

This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land.

Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, "Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.

He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting?

A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion.

Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details.

They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived.

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, "No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us...... They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered. These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Scripture and World Events

I have been reading this book called "Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences on Dividing Israel" by William Koenig. I first heard about this book from a guest preacher at our church, David Reagan, almost a year and half ago. I've had it on my Amazon wish list since then. And I finally broke down and ordered it.

Many of you know my fascination with End Times prophecy, and the premise of the book sorta relates. But before I get into the book, we'll start with some Scripture.

Genesis 12: 1-8 (This passage is when God sends Abram (Abraham) and the Jews to the Promised Land (present day Israel). Most important verse here is 3.)

1-Now the LORD said to Abram,
"Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father's house,
To the land which I will show you;
2-And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3-And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

4-So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

5-Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

6-Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land.

7-The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land " So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

8-Then he proceeded from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.

More tomorrow on why Israel belongs to the Jews and the Jews alone.

Thursday, October 23, 2008


Sorry readers--all three of you--but in these days leading up to the U.S. elections, there's a lot to be concerned about. I feel compelled to share information with you all so that when you vote you can do so with as much information form both sides as possible.

If you don't believe the American media is ostentatiously liberal to the point of extremism, then you've got a problem. I won't lie and say I'm not biased, I am. But I'm also a patriot. I love this country--and if Obama ends up in the big white house, our country never be the same again. The things that make our nation great will cease to be. Obama does not love our country. John McCain loves our country.

Anywho, that was not the original direction of this post, so we'll take a right turn... Here's another editorial on what could happen if Obama is elected... (from

There's nothing 'fair' about it
James L. Lambert - Guest Columnist - 10/22/2008 10:40:00 AM

There is a real possibility that if Democrats obtain firm control of all three branches of government after this November's election, the "Fairness Doctrine" will be enacted -- and talk radio will be inexorably altered. Democratic leaders Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have strongly indicated that they would support legislation to bring back the oppressive policy. (See related article)

The Fairness Doctrine is the government's attempt to mandate that media outlets provide an outlet for opposing views in political discussions, no matter what the argument. But what about the U.S. Constitution, the document at the heart of our federal government? The First Amendment specifies that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of...speech, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I submit to you that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid would not commit their fellow Democrats to this legislation if talk radio were not dominated by conservative hosts.

For the last 15 years, talk radio has been dominated by conservative thought. Liberals have attempted to invade this medium, but their format and discussion have simply not been popular with the public. The top-tier national radio shows in America have been one of the few places conservative political talk can be articulated.

Despite the commercial success of modern-day conservative talk radio, this type of political discourse is noticeably absent from any of the three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). Conservative thought is rarely articulated in the vast majority of our major news periodicals and magazines (e.g., TIME, Newsweek, USA Today). Conservative thought is conspicuously absent from the editorial boards of most major newspapers in metropolitan areas across the country. Yet Congress, if dominated by Democrats after the November 4 election, will be hell bent on enacting the Fairness Doctrine, which will ultimately stifle free speech.

In comments provided exclusively to OneNewsNow, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Medved explains that the Fairness Doctrine would reduce and largely eliminate political discussion on the radio -- not expand it.

"Any conservative station that [is] forced to provide liberal talkers for 'balance' would go out of business, just like any liberal station forced to include conservative talkers on an equal time basis would go out of business," says Medved. "The idea is similar to requiring every classical station to balance Mozart with Hip Hop and Country."

Medved continues: "When the Fairness Doctrine was in force before, station owners and managers just avoided political talk shows altogether....It is interesting that advocates for this horrible idea always talk about 'balancing' conservative talk radio and FOX News, but never discuss balancing Air America and MSNBC."

The talk-show host offers this dire prediction if the "unholy trinity" of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid jointly assume power come January: "Free political discourse in mass media faces an uncertain future."

Medved shares this concern with other conservative commentators -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Roger Hedgecock, and Hugh Hewitt among them.

One of the major tenants of the U.S. Constitution is the First Amendment. And millions of American soldiers throughout our nation's history have fought to preserve this most precious right: political free speech. Remember that on November 4.

James L. Lambert, a frequent contributor to and author of Porn in America, is a licensed nationwide real-estate mortgage loan sales agent and can be contacted through his website.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

I've discovered...

...that I can't just sit down and write anymore. What I mean is, I can't sit down and start banging out a story based on a random plot thought. I used to be able to--and even produce something halfway decent. (Okay, it was fan fiction, so what??)

Now, I have too much information in my head--not just rules and formulas for writing the perfect novel, but national news, world events, my personal faith and walk with God (mainly, how short I fall each and every day of what He desires of me), and on and on and on.

Writing must now be a more deliberate task. Ideas for plots or visions of a hero come at any time--even in church while pastor sits at the piano and sings to the congregation. But now I must sit and ask, who is this character? What's his past, why is he here, what does he want and how will he get it? Who is his heroine? What is the relationship barrier and how do they overcome it?

I must write notes, character sketches, plot outlines, jot down questions to research later.

I finally have a new story to roll around in my brain, although it does compete with my virtual love affair with Robin Hood (yes, that's still going strong). I'm even thinking short story trilogy. Hmm...

I did work on both today, trying to apply lessons learned in my last NT meeting workshop to this short story. Kinda hard without twenty other people in the room to brainstorm with. I did spend some time with emotionally wrenched Robin who brooded while his beloved Marian almost married someone else.

Back to writing--our chapter's annual Writers Roundup is actually a writing retreat with plenty of time for actually writing. I'm looking forward to hanging out with fellow writers and getting some help with this new story idea. (And maybe the third story plot, too, while we're at it.)

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Is 143 days experience enough...

An article from by James L. Lambert

Help wanted: President - no experience required

As a young college graduate, I began my career as a management trainee in banking some 35 years ago. My first job was working for a large regional bank, where I quickly discovered how much I needed to learn. Just as other young management trainee peers, I was energetic and I wanted to advance. Five years later, I was gratified to be promoted from an operations officer to the consumer lending department. I was on my way.

Such is life. We all have varied professional career goals. We are anxious to succeed in life, whatever our particular venue. We all have different aspirations. Yet when the rubber meets the road, the same formula applies to all of us: it takes time and experience to attain our professional objectives.

However, in American politics today, experience doesn't seem to matter. It appears that, in the eyes of many, experience isn't required for someone vying for the highest position of power in the land: the presidency of the United States.

From the day Barack Obama was sworn into office as a United States senator until the day he announced his formation of an exploratory committee to run for the U.S. presidency, he served 143 days in the U.S. Senate. This figure includes all the days he actually worked in the capacity of a standing senator (not including time off or weekends.)

Is this a strong enough resume for someone who is seeking what some argue is the most powerful position on Earth, no matter how honed their speaking skills and attractive their appearance? Consider these scenarios comparing the presidency with other occupations.

  • Imagine an entry-level lawyer who expects to become head of that legal firm in 143 days.
  • Or perhaps a sales person of a department store such as Nordstroms believing he's earned the right to become CEO in just 143 days?
  • Even in the progressive environment on our college campuses, an untenured college professor would lack the experience required to become college president in just 143 days.
  • How about a postal carrier? Would they believe they are qualified to run the U.S. Postal Service in their city after just 143 days of work without any prior experience? (Even if they went to Harvard).

These examples are telling. Experience matters. It matters in every occupation. It lays the foundation for important decision-making in the future. People gain wisdom from their mistakes, and grow in knowledge as they discern different approaches to a problem.

Yet for some reason that doesn't seem to matter for many people as they compare the two major party candidates running for the highest position in the land -- the office of United States president. They figure that as long as the candidate speaks well and is good looking, that seems to be the major criteria for the job.

The president of the United States is, perhaps singularly, the most powerful office in the world. The person sitting behind the desk of the Oval Office runs the executive branch of government. He sets the tone for the whole country. He is the commander-in-chief of the greatest military in the world. He also has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who could be in office for a generation. His judgment will determine how the country will navigate the dangerous and treacherous waters of the future.

Everyone needs to seriously ask themselves: Is 143 days in the Senate enough experience for anyone to take over the reigns of the presidency? Especially someone the American people have not been allowed to know. Obama's college and medical records hidden, his associations questionable at best, his voting record the most liberal of any senator (that is, when he wasn't voting "present," as he did 130 times), and his failure to spearhead any legislation whatsoever. Not to mention his close-to-trillion-dollar spending plan. Make no mistake; you will be affected by his decisions if he reaches the Oval Office.

Senator John McCain, in sharp contrast, has an outstanding record of service to America. His military service included commander of a large ship squadron. He has been a U.S. senator for 22 years, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and has a record promoting cutting government waste; spearheaded the line-item veto bill, was pivotal in the change in the Iraq strategy that has been so successful, and was influential in the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court; spearheaded legislation to stop torture of POWs, as well as legislation regarding HMO reform, gun legislation, reduction of spending, and stopping earmarks. He has voted with his party only 63 percent of the time (as compared to Obama's 97 percent). John McCain has demonstrated time and time again that his country comes first -- before political parties and before his own self interests.

I hope our country doesn't have to suffer for Barack Obama's "on the job training," not to mention his ill-advised spending plans and socialist agenda for the U.S. The world is at a dangerous point in history. We cannot afford to make a mistake when we select the next president of the United States.

James L. Lambert, a frequent contributor to and author of Porn in America, is a licensed nationwide real-estate mortgage loan sales agent and can be contacted through his website.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

If you agree, pass it on, please...

Friday, October 10, 2008

Snapshot--moments in time...

Fellow NT member and blogger, Sandra posted a great writing exercise on her blog the other day. I thought it interesting and the words for it have been rolling around in my head ever since. Not only that, but as a writer when I come upon a scene in real life, I always tell myself I need to sit down and try to capture it with the written word. Well, I'm finally doing it...

So my snapshot is of my morning walk... The house is mostly dark, only the small lamp in the living room giving any light as the dogs make a disturbance as they vie to be chosen for the morning's walk. The snap of the collar around a neck.

Outside the mornings are cool, and at five-thirty, still dark. The neighbor across the street leaves for work about that time, so his house and yard lights are on, illuminating across the street.

I hear the distant roar of East Loop 820, less than a mile from my house. I hear the click, click, scrape of the dogs toe nails on the asphalt. I hear the snap, crackle, pop of my own left knee as I walk.

I move out of the light from the neighbor's house to the section of street darkened by the large mature trees.

I see the blue-tinted fluorescent light of the streetlight, and hear it's high pitched buzzing.

The lonesome wail of the train whistle as it approaches to cross Handley Drive.

I hear the occasional dog barking when it sees my dog and I from it's backyard vantage point.

And every once in a while, I smell the sweet scent of fabric softener wafting in the air.

As I return home, the the neighbor's lights, except the dim porch light, have turned off. The dog I left behind barks in excitement as we return.

The house, by comparison to the fresh crisp cool outdoors, is warm and stuffy.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Just finished reading...

Dead Heat by Joel Rosenberg. It's the last in a five book series based on End Times Prophesy. Another edge-of-your-seat read. Started it late yesterday afternoon, and finished it this morning around ten. And no, I didn't stay up all night. I was in bed by ten and didn't pick the book back up until almost seven. (And yes, I should have been in church this Sunday am, but wasn' excuse.)

What strikes me whenever I read a book that is not a romance... but wait--a small detour, if you don't mind...

Romances take a lot of bashing. Mostly because of the bodice-ripper covers that were all the rage back in the seventies, and which seem to be, if you've recently perused the romance section at your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, making a comeback.

Also from those who believe that a romance novel is A) full of sex {and called porn by some}, B) worthless drivel that has no place on the book store shelves and is so easy to write that anyone could crank one out, or C) Romance novels are read by women whose lives lack romance.

Just FYI, in 2007, romance was the biggest fiction category, selling more than $1.375 BILLION in sales from approximately 8,090 releases. In 2004, romances comprised 55% of all paperback books sold and 39% of all fiction sold. Also, more romance novels are read by professional women who are happily married.

As an avid reader, and aspiring romance writer, it is my personal humble opinion that romance novels are by far the genre held to the highest standard--despite its detractors--and held there by its authors and would be authors. I've been a member of Romance Writers of America and my local chapter of RWA for six years now, and in that time I've learned a tremendous amount about writing in general, and about writing romance specifically (it stands to reason, being part of romance writing organization and all...).

So back to my original point: no matter how exciting a non-romance fiction book
(as the above mentioned book certainly was), no matter what genre it is, the thing I'm always struck by more than anything else is the lack of point-of-view purity, or author intrusion. What do I mean by this? Most of my romance writer friends will probably know...

So I'm reading this morning, and we're in a bad guy's point of view, and I read that the bad guy is doing something or watching something and his eyes are glittering in excitement about whatever it is. If we're in his point of view, his perspective, he can't see or realize that his own eyes are glittering. This is a visual that only another person could see...

Example two: we're in the good guy's point of view and he gets a phone call. It's not good; according to the caller, catastrophic things are going to happen that no one can stop. The caller says more bad things are supposed to happen but they can be stopped. Then we get a sentence like: He (the good guy, 'cause we're supposed to be in his POV) just didn't know how bad things were going to get. This is almost like hindsight, which there is no way the point of view character could know. This is author intrusion--and a big no-no in romance writing.

So for my fellow romance authors (or readers), what other things do you find in non-romances that are frowned upon in romances?

Friday, October 3, 2008

Soap Box Topic: To be American or Not to Be American

When are Americans, other than white Americans, going to be JUST Americans?

In my personal, humble opinion, if your family has been here two generations or more--and especially if you were born here, then you are an American. Nothing more nothing less.

And I'm certainly not saying you should't be proud of your heritage, but come on...

Case in point: My mother was born in Denmark. Her family moved here when she was nine. I was born here. I am an American. I don't go around telling people "I'm a Danish American." That's ridiculous. And to be honest, I don't think my mother does either, even though she was actually born in Denmark.

So why is it that to be PC, black people are referred to as African Americans? Did they just come over on the boat? Nooo.....
I'm guessing the majority of blacks in this county, their families have probably been here since the Civil War or before. So why do we still refer to them as African Americans? But what if they came to America from England? Will we need to call them British African Americans????

Let's move on to Mexicans. We have a lot of those here in Texas. Why are we calling them Mexican Americans? If they are citizens, and especially if they were born here, they are Americans. If they want to continue to be Mexicans, then I think they need to go back to Mexico.

And before you think I'm racist, I'm not, but I sure do think that if you're a citizen or a guest of this country, you ought to respect it, respect its laws, its flag, and speak its language (and speak it properly, too, if you're a citizen!).