The Eagle and the Cross was a Christian web site from Huston Texas, the Web Mter was a man named Charlie Clements. I can not find the web site any more but I will include on this page some of the articles Charlie had written. Please enjoy!
Yellow Stripes And Dead Skunks
By Charley Clements
“There ain’t nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead skunks.”
I have been waiting patiently for some time now for someone to step up to the plate, cut to the chase, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the fundamental problems with the suggestions of “reaching out” to the liberals, or trying to cooperate with them by “meeting them half-way.”
Since no one else seems
willing to do so, I’ll say it.
Not all of the members of the Democratic Party are evil people, and not all of their agenda is evil, dangerous and detrimental to the security, well being and future of our nation.
However, many of them are, and much of it is.
We have had eight long years of example after example of the Democratic Party’s sneering contempt for legalities, constitutionality, and even plain old common decency– and God only knows the true extent of the damage they have done to our nation.
I personally see no reason whatsoever to “reach out” to them or cooperate in helping them to continue their legacy of traitorous and destructive legislation and policies destined to destroy America.
Furthermore, President Bush and the leaders of the Republican Party would be deluding themselves and betraying their nation if they seriously believed that caving in to the shrill demands and threats of the Democrats and their media lapdogs on every controversial issue is in the best interests of the nation, or even in the best interests of the GOP or their future candidates.
This may be hard for some of the more befuddled leaders of the GOP to grasp, but it matters not how much you cave, and how much you cater. Come 2004 the homosexuals, the baby-killers, the hairy-legged feminists, and all the whining hyphenated Americans who still insist on blaming every bad thing that ever happened to them or their ancestors on racism will vote for Hillary Clinton for President. And they will vote for the Democrat candidate for every other office-from Senator to dogcatcher–regardless of that candidate’s qualifications, or lack thereof.
The Democrats have no plans to “reach out to” or cooperate with the GOP. In fact, they have already launched an all-out assault against the Bush presidency-and Bush hasn’t even been sworn in yet. And the Democrats and their media lapdogs will continue to do everything within their power to destroy President Bush and undermine any and all efforts of the GOP congress.
So from a political standpoint, there is nothing to gain and much to lose–the remainder of the dwindling GOP loyalists, for example–by “reaching out” and catering to the Democrats.
But there is a much larger issue here, and far more at stake than the future of the GOP.
What is at stake is the future of the United States of America.
The GOP needs to put aside all of the starry-eyed, touch-feely, let’s all be friends nonsense and take a cold hard look at the agenda of the liberals before they decide to cuddle with them.
First of all, today’s Democratic Party should be more appropriately named the Socialist Party, because Socialism is what the liberals are all about. They envision a bigger, stronger, more powerful federal government whose primary purpose is “taking care of us” through redistribution of wealth (taking from those who have and giving to those who have not) and restricting our thoughts, actions, and activities to those deemed to be politically correct and guaranteed not to offend anyone.
For example, the liberal agenda is not about economic opportunities for all, but rather economic guarantees for all. It is not about guaranteeing special homosexual rights, unrestricted abortion rights, special minority rights or gun control–they already have all of that–but rather about restricting or eliminating my right and your right to speak out against or attempt to lobby against these things.
The liberal agenda is about restricting our churches to government-approved activities, using our public schools to promote acceptance of homosexuality and adolescent sexual promiscuity, and gutting our military in order to pay for their social programs.
In short, the liberal agenda is about transforming America into a weak, defenseless, bankrupt and Godless nation–and it is beyond me why any sane conservative would even suggest that the GOP would entertain notions of cooperating with them in doing so.
Finally, non-partisanship is simply non-workable in a political arena totally dominated by two major parties with diametrically opposed philosophies and agendas. In this situation, no vote or legislative proposal can be evaluated strictly on its merits because of the political ramifications of allowing the “other side” a victory.
As long as our political system continues to be a two-party system, the business of governing will continue to be conducted in an atmosphere of “the good guys against the bad guys”-the bad guys, of course, being the other side.
I submit that when the good guys get in bed with the bad guys, it doesn’t make the bad guys better–it make the good guys worse.
G.W. and the GOP need to do what they were elected to do. Roll up their sleeves, get to work and try to restore this nation to some semblance of what it used to be.
They can’t do that standing in the middle of the road.
“A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME…”
by Charley Clements
A rose by any other name is still a rose, but the same holds true for a pile of horse manure.
The recently proposed “non-amnesty” amnesty programs suggested by President Bush, and now being worked on by Democrats and Republicans in both houses of Congress, all have a distinct aroma — and it ain’t rosy.
Our government is now telling us that our borders are out of control (big surprise), illegal entry into our country is unstoppable, the huge number of illegals already here is impossible for immigration authorities to deal with, and the only way to solve the problem of all those illegals is to –believe it or not– just legalize them.
At a time when millions of American workers are either unemployed or under-employed, our government has just guaranteed that the flood of illegals pouring across our borders seeking jobs will increase exponentially before any of the proposed legislation is even voted on. In the three week period following President Bush’s initial announcement, the number of illegals crossing the border was reported to have increased by 15 percent, and you can bet your boots that the numbers are not going to decrease while congress fiddles around trying to make the eventual legislation smell better.
With all due respect to President Bush, some of the statements that he made in his announcement are a living testimony to the absolute disconnect between the average citizen and the political elites in government.
The president said that new immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country, and if an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job.
First of all, you need to understand that when politicians talk about the economic needs of our country, they are referring to the economic needs of big business and the corporate fat cats — not the economic needs of Joe Citizen. There was a time when it really was true that “what was good for General Motors was good for the country” — but that time is long past. The big corporations of today save millions of dollars by exporting American jobs to third-world countries whenever possible, and importing low cost foreign workers to fill the jobs that have to be performed here. Welcoming into our country foreigners who will take jobs at lower wages artificially depresses wages and results in unfair competition for the American workers who might be more than willing to take any job. To add insult to injury, out of work engineers, programmers, skilled craftsmen and other American workers desperate for some kind of paycheck to feed their families are repeatedly rejected for low paying jobs because they are over qualified.
Exporting American jobs overseas and importing foreign workers –illegal or otherwise– to fill what jobs are left is good for the economy of big business and foreign nations, but it does nothing to help unemployed Joe Citizen feed his kids.
By the way — did I mention that more than a few of those millions of dollars that the large corporations are saving go for campaign contributions to both of the major political parties? Do you reckon that might have something to do with why Joe can’t find a job?
Aside from the fact that middle class America is doomed to extinction within a few short years unless drastic steps are taken to protect American jobs, there are other serious issues related to our government’s new proposed “come on in, y’all” policies, including protecting the safety of our citizens and preserving American values and our way of life.
At a time when we are still reeling from the shock of terrorist attacks against our citizens on our sovereign soil by foreigners who shouldn’t have been allowed here in the first place, and at a time when we still live in daily fear of another such attack, wouldn’t it stand to reason that our absolute highest priority would be to secure our borders and severely limit entry into our country? For those who would say ” that wouldn’t be the American way” or “such drastic measures are uncalled for” I would simply reply “Tell that to the families of the 911 victims.” Our borders should have been locked down the day after 911. Testifying before the Congress in 2002, Immigration Commissioner Joseph Greene said: “Information available to the INS indicates terrorist organizations often use human smuggling operations to move around the globe.” And Mexican national security adviser Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said in May 2001 that “Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.” I would suggest that our “war on terrorism” has no credibility what so ever until and unless we secure our borders.
Life in America has changed since 911, but even if the events of 911 had not happened, and even if terrorists no longer existed, life in America is changing. Defenders of “open doors” policies and “open borders” are fond of saying that America is a nation of immigrants, and that America still needs immigrants. Both of those statements are only partially true. As of the moment, the majority of Americans are actually descendants of immigrants rather than immigrants, and there is a real question as to the number of new immigrants that we actually “need” — or can even tolerate. And there are also real questions as to the definition of “immigrants” and what we as a nation should be able to expect from them.
To begin with, illegal immigrants are not immigrants at all — they are criminal trespassers, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
Immigrants are the people who come to our country legally, with our permission and our blessings, and we have every right to expect that they come here with the intentions of becoming Americans — eager to learn our language, our history, our customs, our morals, our values and our American way of life, and eager to fit in and make their contribution to our society.
We have absolutely no reason to welcome or even tolerate those who come here to colonize our cities, bankrupt our health care, welfare and education systems, and can’t even be bothered to learn to speak our language.
President Bush is right about one thing — we do need immigration reform. But that needs to begin with a lock-down of our borders and the deportation or incarceration of every single criminal trespasser in our country. Then and only then should we proceed with putting into place a new immigration program that will allow us to selectively invite and welcome immigrants as our needs dictate and our means allow.
Unfortunately, our government is poised to do none of the above. President Bush has outlined his suggested policy, and the Republicans and Democrats in congress are working on their version, and somewhere down the road some sort of new legislation will be voted on.
Whether it will benefit the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, big business and the corporate fat cats, or Joe Citizen, and whether it will be good for India, Pakistan, China and Mexico, or America, is a foregone conclusion — unless all the Joe Citizens across this nation stand up now and scream like a stuck hog. And I do mean now, and I do mean scream.
Write, call, fax and email your congress critters and while you’re at it, write President Bush and tell him you would like to see some of that “compassionate conservatism” directed at us for a change.
And let them all know that we don’t expect life in America to always be a bed of roses, but we are getting pretty fed up with that constant smell of horse manure.
Go Ye Therefore And
by Charley Clements
January 1, 2000
Go ye therefore and disguise yourselves; infiltrate the camps of the unbelievers; adapt to their customs and adopt their ways, and if you get a chance, teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Were these the words of the Great Commission? Of course not, but some of America’s Christians today seem to think so, or so it would appear. Having apparently lost confidence in the effectiveness of the Gospel, many churches and Christian organizations are now focusing on “relevancy” rather than revelation, and form over substance. All in the interest of “reaching those whom we could otherwise not reach.” The question gets to be, however, who’s reaching who–and to what end? Who is the seducer, and who is the seduced?
Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ so weak, so ineffectual, and so meaningless that we have to disguise it or embellish it in order to attract an audience?
I’ve heard all the arguments that say that the Church has to change in order to reach today’s generations. I’ve heard that we have to “speak their language” and play their music, and show an interest in the things that interest them. I’ve heard that by doing so, we can reach those whom we could otherwise never reach. And I’ve heard the argument that we have to reach them in order to teach them. Sounds logical, doesn’t it?
The problem is that we need to be mindful of just exactly what it is that we are supposed to be teaching, and the manner in which we are to teach. “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”
Commending ourselves to every man’s conscience by manifestation of the truth.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 2 Corinthians Chapter 4 eloquently makes the point: “Ministers are servants to the souls of men; they must avoid becoming servants to the humours or the lusts of men.”
The great revivalist Charles G. Finney said it even better in his sermon entitled “Victory Over The World Through Faith.”
What is a religion good for that does not overcome the world? What is the benefit of being born into such a religion if it leave the world still swaying its dominion over our hearts? What avails a new birth which after all fails to bring us into a likeness to God, into the sympathies of His family and of His kingdom; which leaves us still in bondage to the world and to Satan?
What can there be of such a religion more than the name? With what reason can any man suppose that such a religion fits his heart for heaven, supposing it leaves him earthly-minded, sensual, and selfish?
We see why it is that infidels have proclaimed the Gospel of Christ to be a failure. They maintain that it professes to bring men out from the world, but fails to do so; and hence is manifestly a failure. Now you must observe that the Bible does indeed affirm, as infidels say, that those who are truly born of God do overcome the world. This we cannot deny, and should not wish to deny it. Now, if the infidel can show that the new birth fails to produce this result, he has carried his point, and we must yield ours. This is perfectly plain, and there can be no escape for us.
Let the searching inquiry run through this congregation — What are those things that set your soul on fire — that stir up your warmest emotions and deeply agitate your nervous system? Are these the things of earth, or the things of heaven? the things of time, or the things of eternity? the things of self, or the things of God?
Finney was perhaps the greatest revivalist of his time, and his life and writings influenced more people toward revival and social reform than any other preacher of the last century. Today, he would probably be labeled an extremist and a fanatic, and ostracized by mainstream Christian leaders because of his controversial preaching.
Sadly, too many of today’s pastors seem to have read another Finney sermon entitled “How To Preach Without Converting Anybody” and taken it literally. This sermon facetiously describes how to preach with no danger of offending or upsetting anyone, and is embarrassingly similar to the Christianity-Lite sermons that we hear from too many pulpits today.
Christianity-Lite may sell well here on earth, but I submit that God’s Holy Word tastes better and is more filling. Perhaps we need a few radical fanatical extremists like Charles Finney today.
What we don’t need is any further corruption, dilution, or disguising of God’s Word in order to make it “more appealing.”
“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”-1 John 5:4.
Will the Church please stand?