Interesting line of thought, Joe, and I guess I don't understand why you believe a "silent majority" in favor of the wat is in existence, but I for one would rather have had the $500 Billion spent on jobs, education, health care, and housing.

And Jim, as a Catholic, thanks for once again referring to "best kept secret" of our faith tradition in your response - the Catholic Social teachings!

Posted by: Scott | June 12, 2008 2:01 PM

You'd have to be hopelessly confused to buy a book with a title like "How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative".

David Klinghoffer says, "Let's Clarify the Politics of the Bible."
He then quotes passages in the Bible to support a conclusion that "Low taxes mean a minimal state, which, in turn, clears an arena for free moral action."
Grover Norquist with Bible references.

Klinghoffer is also ...a proponent of intelligent design who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute,...

Debating a member of the Discovery Institute is a futile intellectual exercise in absurdity.
I've been there and I greatly admire Jim Wallis' patience.

Posted by: justintime | June 12, 2008 2:36 PM

I would say that Jim is right on with this one, at least with his opening paragraph anyway. If the Bible were anything less than a fulfillment of all of the above liberal, conservative, libertarium, and the many more levels we've yet to create labels for - it couldn't be the inspired word of God, now could it.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 12, 2008 3:34 PM

It's neither conservative nor liberal...it's socialist!

Posted by: Tyson | June 12, 2008 4:00 PM

"Let's take the issue of taxes that you raise. We cannot simply use historical texts from the Egyptian or Hebrew monarchies of 3,000 years ago as a policy prescription for the 21st-century United States. But, as a preacher, I couldn't resist looking at the texts. "

This is a nice piece of jujitsu. You can't use the texts, but... While, we're at it, I will feel free to use them.

That said, there is little to disagree with here. Suddenly, and for the first time on this blog, Wallis is interested in the contributions of the private sector, which he bundles together with government.

But the question is not whether the private sector and government should be involved. The question is to what degree we accord responsibility to each. The division between Klinghoffer (who, IMO, offers a mediocre opening salvo here) and Wallis resides in the answer to this question.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 4:48 PM

I've come to the conclusion that the Bible is liberal AND conservative. It contains both social gospel and personal salvation. To proclaim the whole gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaim both the social and the personal gospels: they are two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: daren | June 12, 2008 5:10 PM

I agree with Kevin, Klinghoffer definitely overplays his hand here, but that doesn't mean the doesn't give him some cards to play with.

First off, I don't think that the Bible prohibits any tax level higher than 10% -- that's the kind of hyperliteralism that fundamentalists are prone to and it opens up a lot of cans of worms.

But there's a larger principle behind these passages that Wallis himself is forced to acknowledge: there is such a thing as a too-high tax rate, and those subject to a tax are in their moral rights to object, especially when the state misuses the proceeds: "the king will give it to his 'eunuchs and courtiers' rather than benefiting the society."

Furthermore the case of Egypt shows that high tax rates -- even if meant for good -- can render people into serfs. That the people of Egypt were desperate at the time doesn't make that any less true or any less regrettable.

As for Jim Wallis' poll: we already have elections in this country, and our elected officials, somehow, managed to approve the initial invasion of Iraq, then doubled down with the surge. The reason for this is complicated and has as much to do with the weaknesses of the Democratic Party as it does with popular support for the war. I wouldn't say for sure that Jim's side would lose on a straight-up referendum, but the record is what it is and it doesn't support this level of cockiness.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 12, 2008 5:24 PM

First off, Kevin's bit about jiu-jitsu wasn't whiny. Snarky perhaps, but not whiny. And Jim Wallis has played that proof-text game in the past.

But that aside, let me take a second to give credit where its due: I'm glad to see Jim Wallis engage a religious conservative with a solid background in public policy, rather than the (all-too-often buffoonish) Pat Robertson or a straw-man of his own making.

Okay, I'm done with the non-ideological gesture of good will. All parties: resume snarking!

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 12, 2008 6:30 PM

Jim's groupings leave out one important element. He includes government, business and faith-based organisations, but these are all institutions or social organisations.
What he doesn't include are individuals and individual action and there is surely a biblical mandate for Christians to be individually caring for the poor etc (and to do so in such a way that no-one knows you're about it).
Even when we are part of groups, perhaps in some way responsible for churches, business and government, we still have an individual obligation as well.
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | June 12, 2008 7:37 PM

I'm on the Bonhoeffer, Hauerwas, Yoder, Mises, Friedman, Mill, Hayek, Smith, Piper, Driscoll, Zacharias, McDowell, etc. bus.
I read. Then I think. Then I write. Ron Paul would have been great. But Obama, Clinton, or McCain are fine, too. In the end very little will get done, so I'm hopeful.
The Bible is not Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, or Moderate. It is Peculiar. It makes outlandish claims, and requires ridiculous adherence to seemingly meaningless behavioral patterns. It says that God actually lives inside of believers and that they are capable of honest altruism and denial of self-interestedness. It says the best way to demonstrate the gospel is to live according to the Christian ethic and in so doing show that we are not of this world.
When Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, or Moderates try to use the state to accomplish what is only possible through the Spirit, they will always muck things up. The best we can do is not use the state, but instead use the Spirit. We alone are responsible for charity and care of the least of these. We ought not to advocate any policy that gives power to a pagan religion - the state. That includes standing armies, welfare, corporate subsidies, or even public schools. None. It is our job, not the state's.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 12, 2008 9:18 PM

I agree with your comments that the Bible is neither conservative or liberal. This is man's definition. In my book, "Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord!" I talk about God's ways not man's ways. In the Bible days, there were Saduccees and Pharisees. They had their own way of religion. Jesus often pointed out their hypocrisy. They always wanted to trick but of course of wisdom was greater.

Thanks keeping the word of God fair and balanced.

Take a look at
www.praybeforeyouvote.org
www.praybeforeyouvote.blogspot.com

Freya S. Williams
Author of Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord!

Posted by: Freya S. Williams | June 12, 2008 11:18 PM

"But that aside, let me take a second to give credit where its due: I'm glad to see Jim Wallis engage a religious conservative with a solid background in public policy, rather than the (all-too-often buffoonish) Pat Robertson or a straw-man of his own making.

Okay, I'm done with the non-ideological gesture of good will. All parties: resume snarking!" Wolverine

Amen!!!!

But, what happened to Kevin's idea of a moratorium on the word "snarky" and it's derivatives? :-)

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 13, 2008 7:55 AM

The Israelites ask for a king, and they are warned that he will take their wages to dispense among his own interests. There is an eminently reasonable argument to be made that this is the case with government.

Not even close, especially when you consider the immediate context from a specifically theological perspective. The Israelites asked for a king so that they could be like the other nations that they saw -- to "lead them into battle." That could only be interpreted as their rejection of God's ultimate rule and reign over Israel, in large part because He formed that nation precisely to be unlike any other. To equate that passage generally with all government -- especially in light of the Apostle Paul's commandment to respect civil government (and, in this case, one his audience likely deeply resented) in Romans 13 -- just doesn't fly.

If we are to take the Gospel perspective on the issue of Christian-politics, we still see the Democrats as the pagans and tax collectors. That is (even and still) "after" trying to deal with them to get right.

This doesn't make any sense, especially considering that the majority of conservative Republicans aren't even evangelical Christians. When Jerry Falwell praised Karl Rove -- whom I've heard is an agnostic -- as a "fine Christian man," I knew he'd lost whatever discernment he had.

Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2008 10:26 AM

"It is traditional or conservative on issues of family values"

It is? Tell that to the many men who had multiple wives and concubines without censure.

"see what the Bible says abuot [sic] the homosexuals and Sodom and Gomorah"

It doesn't say much at all about "the homosexuals", that word having only been invented about a hundred years ago. And as for Sodom and gomorrah, Ezekiel tells us what the "sin of Sodom" was, and it sure as heck wsn't homosexuality. You could look it up, proudnascarfan!

Posted by: Truth be told | June 13, 2008 12:48 PM

With the exception of his views of marriage, Jesus seems to me a bleeding heart liberal. To get treasure in heaven, we cannot enjoy it here on earth. Paul in Galatians 5:24 says "And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." This says to me that indulging too much in material pleasures will always stand between you and God.

Posted by: Oak | June 13, 2008 4:23 PM

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government ...

But justice certainly is.

Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2008 5:11 PM

Chris, what was Madison's theological basis for that quote?

Something that so many of you Americans don't seem to understand is that people can _agree_ to provide mutual support to each other as part of the democratic process - so that what some of you view as the oppressive intrusion of the state is in fact an arm of the state facilitating the working out of covenants that people have made with each other on a national scale. I grew up in Britain with the understanding that we look out for each other, and that one of the ways we do that is by paying taxes that go into a National Health Service that is free at the point of need to everyone. That is by mutual agreement of (virtually) the whole country (no politician dare oppose the principle of the NHS even though both Tories and New Labour have policies that quietly undermine its foundations). If consent to that arrangement were to evaporate, the British people could then, through the democratic process, make the free choice of returning to an inefficient and unjust free-market system such as is in place in the USA. For now, they are making the free choice of staying with a system of national mutual aid.

meurig

Posted by: meurig | June 13, 2008 5:38 PM

"...If we were to try to crystallize the lesson from ancestral wisdom that underlies all the seemingly unrelated political questions dividing Right from Left, I would say it has to do with moral responsibility and agency, whether human beings are captives of Nature or whether they are free...".

I would hope that spiritual persons of all persuasions would endorse the obligation to provide care for "thirsty", "hungry", "naked" persons that is contained in Christian scripture.

That is a concept of moral responsibility.

In our world today, where a substantial fraction of our fellow human beings live on less than $2 per person per day, I think that constitutes the primary moral obligation.

I hope we all support that priority.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | June 13, 2008 9:06 PM

Let is thank the Lord we never receive what we deserve. To expect more from the United States is political, not Bibical.

But there's still such a thing as right and wrong, and even sin must be addressed -- or else the cross was of no value. You steal, you kill, you pay the penalty.

Posted by: Rick | June 14, 2008 3:40 PM

"He seems to be allowing for a lot more nuance than I normally see from him."

Jim Wallis has consistently used nuance. Maybe you're just realizing that for the first time.

"This is a nice piece of jujitsu. You can't use the texts, but... While, we're at it, I will feel free to use them."

He is using exegesis. It's called dialog and debate. You can argue that his point is legitimate or not, but it is unfair to take issue with him elaborating on the meaning. Maybe it is just that you're angry about his exposing the conservative's one dimensional analysis of the issue.

"Isn't that a useful tact? To pretend that any disagreement constitutes whining? I'll borrow from it going forward."

This is a nice piece of jujitsu. You can't use this tactic, but... While, we're at it, I will feel free to use it.

Posted by: JamesMartin | June 14, 2008 5:26 PM

I wonder how many want the state to provide the charity through increased taxation and socialization because they are too lazy and self-centered to commit to Christ's commands? Perhaps the socialization of our society eases their pricked consciences?

Juris had it right:

"Christians should never ask, what is the government going to do? We need to assume full responsibility and get out there and do what needs to be done ourselves."

"When Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, or Moderates try to use the state to accomplish what is only possible through the Spirit, they will always muck things up. The best we can do is not use the state, but instead use the Spirit. We alone are responsible for charity and care of the least of these. We ought not to advocate any policy that gives power to a pagan religion - the state. That includes standing armies, welfare, corporate subsidies, or even public schools. None. It is our job, not the state's."

Amen Juris! AMEN....

Posted by: Armed2Win | June 14, 2008 8:01 PM

and therefore cannot and should not use Religion as a tool and the Bible as a weapon.

Posted by: Armed2Win

Amen . Most of the Christians I know vote republican . Most are not politically active .
Saying the republican party is a tool of Christ is just wrong . As was the gentleman above who assumes the democratic party can even understand God's Justice .

I wonder which political party Job would belong to ? I bet he would say it did not matter in the long run .

Posted by: Ron | June 14, 2008 8:24 PM

meurig wrote:

Something that so many of you Americans don't seem to understand is that people can _agree_ to provide mutual support to each other as part of the democratic process - so that what some of you view as the oppressive intrusion of the state is in fact an arm of the state facilitating the working out of covenants that people have made with each other on a national scale.

With all due respect, most conservatives do understand that we can agree to provide mutual support through government programs. The question is, is this the best way to provide for that support? We have a democratic government and that is a tremendous achievment, but it is possible to romanticize the state and give it credit for virtues and competencies it simply does not have.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 14, 2008 9:24 PM

Are we talking vengeance or justice?

Justice, at least in human terms, always has limits to punishment. Vengeance may not.

With all due respect, most conservatives do understand that we can agree to provide mutual support through government programs. The question is, is this the best way to provide for that support?

It depends on the particular issue. If you're dealing with structural issues, such as dealing with banks who won't give loans or companies that won't hire from certain neighborhoods, the government should step in. Recently my pastor mentioned during a sermon that an African-American memeber of the congregation was interviewing for a job and the interviewer said, "You're from [that part of town] and you managed to stay out of jail?" This is why the issue of "charity" is often moot.

Posted by: Rick | June 14, 2008 11:27 PM

Correction:
Granted they are not mutually exclusive but sometimes it would be easier if we just fed the people, developed relationship and then shared the gospel with them, just a thought.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 15, 2008 12:55 AM

"We have a democratic government and that is a tremendous achievment, but it is possible to romanticize the state and give it credit for virtues and competencies it simply does not have."

Yeah, like it's ability to arrive at a just decision as to whether or not to wage war, for example.

Posted by: JamesMartin | June 15, 2008 9:36 AM

But I'd be willing to do a test. Let's ask the people if they'd rather have spent more than $500 billion over the last five years on jobs, education, health care, and housing, or on the war in Iraq. I'd be willing to accept the result, would you?

Since the money would be borrowed either way, why isn't NOT SPENDING $500 billion not an option?

Posted by: aaron | June 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Spending 500 billion on health care and domestic needs ill not help if the Islamic fundementalists have their way. Do not forget how the Iranians took over our embassy or that their "religious" goverment desires nothing more than to herald in their messianic era by killing all the infidels, the "nation of satan" as they call us. Lets not let them get the bomb at all costs. They are not jocking when they say "wipe off the map". Also know Chamas is not only in Azza, they are all over the world. One of their most respected clerics openly state their plan is to Kill all the Jews in Isreal and then force Islam on Europe and then the U.S. don't forget what Hezballah did to the marines in Lebanon.
For the sake of our children
For God's sake
If not now when

Posted by: God'ssecret | June 16, 2008 4:22 AM

To "God's secret":

We always need to carefully look at the sources of our information. You made many claims in defence of war which, I think, are based on very biased and simplified information, e.g. about how islamic terrorists and terror states want to impose their religion on us, etc.
Just one example: You wrote "think about what Hezbollah did to the marines." I want to counter that by saying: Do you know what the Israeli army did to the Lebanese people? Do you know that in total, 43 Israeli civilians were killed by Hezbollah rockets while over a thousand Lebanese civilians, a third of them children, died, making 25 Lebanese civilians for every Israeli civilian who died?
And do you know that in contrast to Israeli claims (which they have dropped now due to a lack of evidence), according to Human Rights Watch researchers, rescue workers and dozens of journalists, there is no evidence at all that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians (villages etc.) as human shields (meaning no military equipment nor bodies of Hezbollah fighters were found at all in the bombed parts of Lebanon)?

Well, I did not know that before I made some investigation myself, as none of our (British) mainstream media reported on any of this. By this I do not want to say that my information sources are no in any way "better" or more "objective" than yours. All I want to say is that we have to be aware, constantly, that all the information we get is written from a certain angle and therefore very biased. It's usually good to look for counter-information to get a fuller picture of what's actually happening in the world around us.

Posted by: Doerthe | June 16, 2008 11:06 AM

I do find it curious that all these years after Rome decided to make Christianity a state religion and picked and chose what they'd include or exclude, translating from Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew into Latin versions that aided in the subjugation of the people to state run religion, that so many care more for dogma than Christ.

Once the state hijacked Christ' message and made it into a religion, they made war time and again against the followers who would not conform.

The King James version was translated from the Latin, which was written with a heavy yoke and clouded mind.

Jesus said we were all to be the sons of God. Hear that? Not wretches like we're made to feel, but sons of God!

Imagine if we believed we were God's own rather than wretched? What could be acheived? Perhaps we'd even be godly to each other and nations.

To not love, but advocate: Thou SHALL kill sounds like pharasees & saducees if not pharsicle and sad, you see?

Posted by: Barbara | June 16, 2008 11:53 AM

Yes, David, it's that cursed representative government.

Carl: Your line of thought is linked to my prior post regarding the advantages of the state as a representative of the people to help alleviate poverty. You would think that the free market Darwinians would acknowledge the natural evolution of the state as the preferable, natural development of the effort to relieve poverty. There are economies of scale, efficiencies and the means for accountability which are inconceivable to the local congregations. Heck, we can't even agree in a local congregation about what color the front door should be.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 16, 2008 6:34 PM

Well said, Wolverine.

The power inherent in government presents a tantalizing temptation. When I was young--50 years ago--a popular phrase was, "There ought to be a law". It drew a laugh, generally, because the object was usually a pet pieve of the speaker. Increasingly, since when, 1934?, there are those who want to wield governmental power to "solve" social and economic "problems". Sadly, far too many politicians have found their easiest route to office has been to cater to those voices. Worse yet, many who possess that viewpoint have run for office and been elected.

Lessons abound, but few take heed.

The Soviet Union was brought down because of its socialist economy. The democratic socialist governments of Europe have struggling economies and high unemployment. The samplings of socialist structures in our own country, notably our public schools and union labor, are dependent on the fact that the rest of the economy approximates a free market.

Market forces cannot be controlled or eliminated. There is always a market, and it will bring any plans to thwart it to nought.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 17, 2008 8:58 AM

Please pardon the serial posts.

There are two points to my comments:

1. Socialism is not a good way to organize a nation's economy. It does not do good in the long term, but leads to further economic problems. This is easy to demonstrate in rational argument, and numerous examples exist, if we but look.

2. Christians err--or worse, much worse--when they carry the banner of Christ into the campaign to institute socialist programs. They have no Scripture to support them. "We're doing it for the poor," doesn't justify theft. Loyola was wrong.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 17, 2008 9:33 AM

"The democratic socialist governments of Europe have struggling economies and high unemployment."

I see, unlike the U.S.

"The samplings of socialist structures in our own country, notably our public schools and union labor, are dependent on the fact that the rest of the economy approximates a free market."

Free public education is "socialist"? That's funny, I thought it was "democratic." You've so badly twisted the meaning of "socialism" it's unrecognizable.

"If government doesn't support the poor, then it will only support the already wealthy and powerful, usually against the poor."

A pithy summation of the issue.

Posted by: carl copas | June 17, 2008 11:15 AM

I love it when liberals and progressive quote texts that support their agenda, but then throw out the rest of scripture when it does not.

Nice try "I and I". How about some of the more morally based texts that liberals and progressives tend to throw out, specifically in regards to morality? I know that is not this discussion, so I only barely reference this for the sake of illustration...

What if rendering unto Cesar also meant you should support a war?????

Posted by: Armed2Win | June 17, 2008 11:32 AM

Carl:

The unemployment rates in Europe have been 3x what they are here. BTW, 5% unemployment is reasonably considered "full employment". When I took economics, in the 60s, I was told that 7% was full employment, "because that was the best Pres. Kennedy had achieved." I thought that an interesting way to set a standard at the time--and still do.

I did not mean to confuse you with my comment about our public school system being a socialist structure. I was not referring to the pupils, but to the employees. Teachers, in particular, are nearly immune to market forces. If you're not familiar with how the system works, I can provide details, and contrast it with private sector employment.

There may always be "large government", but the struggle to keep it limited is worth the effort, because it is the key to our survival as a nation.

We can separately argue whether any good purpose is served by the survival of the US, but that is a separate question, entirely, from what is required to keep it around.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 17, 2008 1:00 PM

Carl:

My comments were neither ignorant, nor mean-spirited. I served on a local school board for 12 years, where I had ample opportunity to compare the career conditions of teachers and administrators with what I and my colleagues faced in private industry.

The facts you cite require that I modify my statement a little, but do not weaken its main thrust.

Teachers in Illinois have a cushy ride compared with their counterparts in industry: guaranteed raises, help with tuition, and guaranteed raises for completed hours, not to mention the 75% pension at the end of their careers. While there can be cuts in programs, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of teachers only suffer the inconveniences you cite, not actual loss of job.

There's more, but I think I have substantiated my point: it is a socialist system of employment. The market value of the services rendered, the quality of teaching, do not, within wide latitude, affect the personal economic situation of the individual teacher.

As I said, the system can only exist in this form, because it is supported by an exterior economic system that does not operate on the same principles.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 17, 2008 1:46 PM

"The King James version was translated from the Latin, which was written with a heavy yoke and clouded mind."
Barbara,
Check your facts, the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Greek.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 17, 2008 2:53 PM

"Market forces cannot be controlled or eliminated. There is always a market, and it will bring any plans to thwart it to nought."- David

Jesus is Lord of all but the market.

Free market capitalism is dehumanizing and mechanistic idolatry. It is no different than communism in it's assessment of human beings as capital and consuming units. It is as morally empty as any other human explanation of social behavior. Jesus talked of the Kingdom (or the Dream of God, if you will) which is more human than "capital" oriented.

Wolvie: Thanks for the feedback. I respect your input because I know that you practice what you preach. I am questioning the feasibility of the fractured Church of Jesus agreeing to help the poor on the scale in which poverty exists in our land. For example: Would fornicating or gay or divorced persons be eligible for rental assistance from a faith based fund? Would there be birth control for teens if the church ran the program? Would we give WIC to unwed mothers? I could go on but you get my drift.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 17, 2008 11:02 PM

Carl:

One issue at a time, for now.

In a socialist economy, not necessarily a centrally planned one, as the USSR attempted, personal economic outcomes are determined according to a set of regulations that do not directly consider individual contributions to society or quality of performance. That is the sense in which I refer to the employment environment of public school teachers as socialist.

To expand and clarify further, consider the salary schedule, which does not usually differentiate between a pre-school teacher and a math teacher, for example. Salary is determined by two things, only: years of service and level of education. It is not widely discussed, but is well-known, that some people are in teaching because it offers them the best economic opportunity, given their skill sets and abilities, while for others, teaching offers security and a predictable future, but not as much economic return as a private sector job could.

A private sector enterprise could never operate that way. Even looking at entry level jobs in a single field, engineering, the hiring manager has to be able to adjust salary offers to match the potential a candidate presents. And that's just at hiring. Once an employee is on-board, raises and promotions have to be justified by performance. A company cannot afford to "treat everyone the same".

I hope that clears up the "socialist" question, but I'd be happy to discuss it further.

As to the "inconvenience" comment. It was not my intention to minimize the difficulties faced by classroom teachers in districts that are under-funded or poorly managed. Nor to was it in my mind to ignore the incredible set of issues that have come our way with the decline in student deportment. The issues of class size, availability of supplies, and bad student behavior are quite a burden for the teachers, who have to endure them.

One of the wonders to me, a child of the 50s, from a middle-class community, was the discovery, when my own son started school in the 90s, of just how much of a problem discipline was. Where my grade school classes were always about 36 students, and in a school of 400 (K-6) there was scarcely 1 problem a YEAR that had to come to the principal, now--ohmygosh! What a difference a few decades can make.

Blessings,

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 7:24 AM

Christians,
I am currently putting together a group of christians to assist me with
a national news story. A publishing organization affiliated with Salem
communications has recently published their official press release which
openly declares my biblical discovery to the public.
www.eternaltruth.net

This web sight can provide enough evidence for you to investigate the
validity of my claim. I recently published this discovery which opens up
a chain of clues dealing with King Nebuchadnezzar's repentance
process as recorded in Daniel chapter four. This recorded event resulted
in God blessing Nebuchadnezzar and his ancient land located today in
Iraq. That particular blessing involved future promises of freedom in the
end times through great eagle's wings. The eagle today is certainly
the symbol of the United states currently bringing this freedom to Iraq
as predicted in the Bible.

I am contacting people who represent different denominations who can
understand and explain type and shadow prophecies.. I am confident
that a common continuity of opinion by such persons can validate my
discovery to media sources as a worthy news story. This requires a non
denominational approach to succeed.

The interest factor for the media would be common agreement upon a
specific biblical interpretation coming from differing faiths who agree
upon a sound interpretation concerning one of the most important issues
for this coming election about Iraq. As you know religion has become a
central issue for presidential candidates opening up a rare opportunity
to promote the importance of God and moral issues.

Some of the top conservative sights in America currently have my video
presentation posted and available for public view. You may view my video on
the Rush Limbaugh's official myspace page. You may view it on Laura
Ingrams page as well as numerous other conservative sights and blogs.

President Bush also has a sight on myspace. Each individual submission
into the sight must be examined and carefully qualified before being posted
publically on the sight. My video was approved yesterday and is posted
where it can now be seen on the President Bush sight.

The Iraq war will be of major political interest during the election. This is
rather timely and important. This may be a way for you and others to gain
national recognition by helping us unite christian denominations during a
critical election year. This is also a chance for people of faith to show our
troops a united support for their mission as one christian voice. If you are
interested please feel free to view our video and test my biblical claims.
Please call concerning any and all questions. Looking forward to hearing
from you soon.

Author Paul Gregersen
208-251-3519

www.eternaltruth.net

Posted by: Paul Gregersen | August 30, 2008 8:18 PM