By Dr. Tom Snyder and Dr. Ted Baehr

In recent years, it has become clear that the idea of an accurate, truthful, constitutional ruling from America’s judicial system is an oxymoron, an incongruous, absurd phrase that contradicts itself and is therefore false.

Two court rulings in the last two months have reinforced this conclusion – the California Supreme Court’s ruling that two men and two women can “marry” and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that Osama Bin-Laden, the brutal Saudi Arabian terrorist leader behind 9/11 and countless murders of innocent men, women and children, has the same “equal rights” to “habeus corpus” as an American citizen born in this country.

In effect, these two courts have declared that Two Plus Two Equals Five, not Four. Even worse, America’s “elected” representatives, including California Gov. Arnold Swarzeneggar, have agreed to enforce these two oxymoronic rulings that stretch the truth, and the United States Constitution, to the breaking point.

This brings to mind another court ruling recently where a judge ruled that a pregnant woman is really a pregnant “man,” when clearly the “man” still has nearly all of the biological equipment, including the DNA and the genes, to be classified by law and by science as a woman.

The mass media has accepted these stupid, oxymoronic rulings as if they were “facts” as well as fait accomplish. No less a media and entertainment figure than Oprah Winfrey, who earns more money than any other individual celebrity, entertainment figure, journalist, or pundit in the media, accepted the phony scam of the pregnant “man.” And, chances are, Oprah accepts the two court rulings about same-sex “marriage” and “civil rights” for foreign terrorists and foreign “enemy combatants” as well.

The question arises, however, if a state Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court do indeed rule that “Two Plus Two Equals Five,” is the governor of that state and is the president of the United States required to enforce it? Also, is the public obligated to accept such an obviously false, nonsensical, illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral, ruling?

The obvious answer to both questions is No.

It stands to reason, therefore, that Gov. Swarzeneggar, President Bush, the mass media, and the people of the United States (including the various legislative bodies supposedly representing the people) are obligated to reject and overturn these recent absurd, oxymoronic decisions by the judicial branch.

In fact, as the U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article III, the United States Congress has the right, and even the obligation, to:

1) Create and/or disband any inferior federal courts under the U.S. Supreme Court, such as the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals; and,

2) Establish “Exceptions” to and “Regulations” on the jurisdiction and the power of the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts under the Supreme Court.

Once passed, these laws, exceptions and regulations can be signed or vetoed by the president of the United States, and, if the president vetoes one of them, the U.S. Congress can override that veto by a two-thirds vote.

In the same way, the California state legislature has the power to make state laws that affect moral issues, subject to vetoes from the California governor and the vote of the people in a referendum. Thus, the California Supreme Court has no constitutional jurisdiction or power to make and enforce such laws, certainly in cases that re-define traditional terms like marriage, wife, husband, family, and religion.

President George Bush, the U.S. Congress, Gov. Swarzeneggar, and the California legislature should have the guts to reject these recent oxymoronic ruling from these tyrannical judges, who have clearly overstepped their bounds.

Two Plus Two Equals Four, not Five; marriage is something that occurs only between a man and a woman; and, non-citizen terrorists and soldiers captured overseas during battle and wartime do not have the same civil rights as American citizens do within the official borders of the United States and its territories.

The mass media should report the truth about these matters. The mass media, especially the so-called “news” media, is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the oxy-morons who run the American Civil Liberties Union and the oxy-morons who run Islam, the so-called “religion of peace,” much less oxy-morons like Osama Bin Laden and his fellow evildoers in Al Qaeda.

Please reject the nonsense being foisted on America by these tyrannical oxy-morons.

Listening this morning to Sen. John McCain outlining his plans as president, should he win the November election, I wanted to shout things like, “Drill in Anwar, you moron!” and “Liberals are liars – we don’t want you to work with these leftist lunatics!”

It has become clear that, like President George W. Bush, instead of leading the country into true conservative policies, Sen. McCain is another wimpy Republican who tries to combine radical social engineering politics from the left with a few watered-down Republican, conservative principles.

Some Republicans have been calling people like Bush and McCain RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. I would like to suggest another name – Mutant Republicans.

These people are not just Republicans In Name Only; they are mutant hybrids. These Mutant Republicans have been indoctrinated by the Crypto Communist rhetoric of the mass media, the journalism and legal professions, judicial activists, America’s labor unions, and socialist activists in the business community and even the Church and the Synagogue. All of these American institutions, to one extent or another, have been taken over by radical Marxists, atheists, feminists, homosexual perverts, pagan hedonists, and other anti-Christian, anti-Semitic bigots ignorant of history and biblical theology, especially the principles of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Conservative Christians like James Dobson have been fighting these radical leftist loons for decades, but Republicans like President Bush and Senator McCain have been surrendering territory inch by bloody inch. It’s sickening how wimpy they have become!

It wouldn’t matter if only a few of the issues that McCain touched upon today had only a minor effect on life in America. The problem is, however, that McCain and his liberal cronies in the Congress and the institutions mentioned above are directly responsible for the high gas prices, the home foreclosures, the violent illegal alien gangs, drug lords and criminals, the homosexual pornification of our schoolchildren, the high taxes, the high food prices, the leftist dumbing down of our schools and universities, and the loss of religious liberty that Americans and their families have been suffering from so acutely recently.

What is perhaps even more galling is that Republicans like Bush and McCain for years have been warning us about the dangers of Iran’s Islamofascist government, but all they do is talk and propose wimpy military action while America’s soldiers and citizens continue to be killed and murdered by bombs and weapons supplied by Iran and its nutty Islamic lackeys.

By Dr. Tom Snyder, Editor of MOVIEGUIDE®

By Tom Snyder, Ph.D.

Date: April 8, 2008

The national press is full of talk about a possible recession. Even the Federal Reserve chairman says the first six months of 2008 may show negative growth, which is the official definition of a recession.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barrack “Barry” Obama have been quick to blame President George Bush for this possible economic downturn.

As usual, their arguments are outrageously ignorant.

Sure, George Bush is still president for one more year, but he also was president when the economy was booming from 2002 through 2006.

So, the question arises, what has changed since 2006?

Obvious Answer – The Democrat Party took over the United States Congress!!!

President Bush has tried for two years or more to get these liberal loons to make his tax cuts permanent, and even to consider cutting corporate taxes, so that more Americans can get good jobs from the business community. He has also tried to get them to approve drilling for more oil in Alaska to ease the nation’s energy problems.

At every turn, the Democrats have resisted, led by their willfully ignorant Neo-Marxist leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.

And, Hillary and Barry have gone along with this economic stupidity!

What has been the result?

Gas prices have gone through the roof. Corn prices, a major food staple, have followed. The housing market has gone through painful contortions. And, last Friday, unemployment jumped three percentage points.

Thanks for nothing, Hillary! Thanks for nothing, Barry “I Will Not Disown My Kooky Racist Pastor” Obama!

It was an economic disaster for many American families when the Democrat Party took over the U.S. Congress in 2007. It will be an even bigger blunder if America’s voters hand them the White House and elect them again to Congress in 2008 for 2009.

The current leaders of the Democrat Party have veered dramatically to the left. Their policies would lead to a powerful socialist tyranny in North America and throughout the rest of the world. Their presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, are virtual atheists when it comes to true religion and morality. They are virtual Marxists when it comes to the American economy. And, they are virtual cowards when it comes to dealing with the threats of radical Islam and other anti-Christian, anti-American evildoers.

By Tom Snyder, Ph.D.

Can you trust what the Bible says about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Passover, Good Friday and Easter stories in the Bible?

In the opening to the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke in the New Testament, the Greek physician Luke, a close friend of the Apostle Paul, writes, "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning."

How can we know if this is true? How can we find out if the books of the New Testament are accurate, reliable records of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

In a court of law, the burden of proof for denying the credibility of an eyewitness falls on those who wish to undermine that credibility. An eyewitness should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt "unless we have clear evidence to the contrary."1 Since, however, the New Testament books make great demands on people and their lifestyles, it seems fair to ask what is the evidence to support the historical reliability of these ancient documents.

Historians use two standard tests for determining the reliability of an ancient document like the New Testament. The first test is the bibliographic test. This test asks three questions: 1) How many copies and fragments of copies do we have? 2) Are the copies basically the same, or do they show a wide variety of differences, indicating they have undergone an extensive amount of editing or redaction? 3) What is the time gap between the dates of the copies we have and the approximate date on which the document was probably written? The more copies we have, the more accurate they seem to be, and the closer the time gap, the more reliable the text of the document is.

Using this test, how does the New Testament stack up?

As biblical scholar John A.T. Robinson and other scholars attest, the New Testament books were probably written between 40 A.D. and 70 A.D., although some scholars believe the Apostle John wrote John and Revelation about 95 A.D. or so. The earliest complete copies we have, excluding small fragments, some of which are dated from about 44 A.D. to 130 A.D., can be dated between 300 and 400 A.D., or 260-360 years later. In total, however, we have more than 5,000 Greek copies and fragments, 10,000 Latin Vulgate copies and fragments, and 9,000 other versions of the New Testament dated between 40 and 1200 A.D.. In comparison, we have only 643 manuscripts (copies and fragments) of Homer's Iliad, written about 900 BC, with the earliest extant copy dated 400 BC, 500 years later. Also, we have only ten copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, written 58 to 50 BC, with the earliest copy dated 900 A.D., a gap of almost 1,000 years, and only 21 copies or fragments of the works of Tacitus, written about 100 A.D., with the earliest copy or fragment dated 1000 A.D., a span of 900 years.

According to New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, only 40 lines, or about 400 words, of the 20,000 lines in the New Testament are in doubt. In contrast, Homer's Iliad contains approximately 15,600 lines, but 764 lines have been questioned by scholars. Christian scholar and philosopher Norman L. Geisler writes:

“This would mean that Homer's text is only 95 percent pure or accurate compared to over 99.5 percent accuracy for the New Testament copies. The national epic of India [the Mahabharata] has suffered even more textual corruption....The Mahabharata is some eight times the size of the Iliad, of which some 26,000 lines are in doubt. This would be roughly 10 percent textual corruption or a 90 percent accuracy copy of the original. From this documentary standpoint, the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text.”2

Copies of manuscripts are not the only source of our knowledge about the New Testament documents. Before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers contain about 32,000 citations of the New Testament text. "Virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers," says Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland.3 Furthermore, although every church father does not quote every book of the New Testament, every book is quoted as authoritative and authentic by some church father. This indicates that the New Testament writings were "recognized as apostolic [originating from Jesus Christ's own appointed church leaders] from the very beginning."4

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament. The bibliographic test clearly shows that the text of the New Testament has not been significantly altered by the Christian church. We can trust that the translations we now have are as close to the original writings as possible.

The second test historians use to determine the reliability of an ancient document is the external test. In this test, historians look at what external sources say about the document.

I have already mentioned the testimony of the early church fathers with regard to the bibliographic test. Their testimony also satisfies the external test.

For instance, several second century fathers affirm that the book of John in the New Testament was written by the Apostle John. These writers include Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian of Carthage.

The testimony of Irenaeus is important "because he had. been a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (martyred in 156 A.D. after being a Christian for 86 years), and Polycarp in turn had. been a disciple of the Apostle John himself."5 Not only does Irenaeus affirm the authorship of John's gospel, he also reports that Matthew produced his gospel for the Jews, perhaps in Aramaic, while Peter and Paul were founding the Christian church in Rome (about 55 A.D.). Irenaeus also writes that Mark, Peter's disciple, set down his gospel after Peter's death, around 65 A.D., and that Paul's friend Luke wrote his gospel sometime thereafter. In a letter to his colleague Florinus, quoted by church historian Eusebius, Irenaeus mentions how both he and Florinus had. heard Polycarp talk about what John and other witnesses had. told Polycarp about Jesus.

According to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, writing between 130 and 140 A.D., the Apostle Matthew compiled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic, which Papias says many people later translated into Greek. Papias also testifies that the Apostle John told Papias that Mark composed his gospel on the basis of information supplied by the Apostle Peter himself.

Finally, we have the Apostle Paul's testimony in his own letters, which are the earliest of all New Testament writings. Paul's letter to the Galatians has been dated as early as 48 A.D. The dates of his other letters may be established as follows: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 A.D.; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 54-56 A.D.; Romans, 57 A.D.; and Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, around 60 A.D... Many scholars, including more liberal ones, believe that Paul's description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 can be traced back to an ancient catechism from the early to middle 30s A.D.! There are many other early creedal passages in the New Testament documents like this one from 1 Corinthians, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and John 1:1-18.

The New Testament documents are also consistent with the external evidence from ancient non-Christian sources. Even the Jewish Talmud contains references to Jesus Christ and five of the disciples. These references say Jesus was a sorcerer who led the people astray and who came to add things to the Jewish law. Eventually, they say, Jesus was executed on the eve of Passover for heresy and for misleading the Jewish people. Following his death, his disciples healed the sick in his name.6

Although portions of his text are in doubt, Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about 90 A.D., mentions John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James, the brother of Jesus. According to New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce, we have "very good reason for believing"7 that Josephus confirms the dates of Christ's ministry, his reputation for practicing "wonders" of some kind, his kinship to James, his crucifixion by Pilate, his messianic claim, and the fact that his disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead.

Cornelius Tacitus, the "greatest Roman historian in the days of the Empire,"8 refers to Jesus Christ's execution under Pilate and relates Roman Emperor Nero's persecution of Christians after the great fire ravaged Rome in 64 A.D. Also, writing in 112 A.D., C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to Emperor Trajan asking for advice about how to deal with troublesome Christians. In his letter, Pliny reports that the Christians meet on a fixed day to pray to Christ as God and promise each other to follow certain moral standards. He also says they refuse to curse the name of Jesus. The evidence from Pliny, and others, shows that Dan Brown’s claim that the Early Christians did not worship Jesus Christ as God is false.

The New Testament writings are themselves full of references to secular history in the first century. Archeological evidence confirms many of these references to historical events and persons and to political factions, geographical areas, social differences, etc. For instance, the Apostle John in his gospel displays accurate knowledge about buildings and landscapes in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside before 70 A.D. Luke, the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts, has been especially cited for his sense of the historical context in the first century A.D. His books contain many references to the imperial history of Rome and a detailed chronicle of the Herod family. Luke is also very accurate in his use of various official titles in the Roman Empire, no mean feat considering the fact they sometimes changed in a short period of time during switchovers in administrations. Luke's description of the founding and rise of the Christian church in Acts matches what we know from other historical writings and archeology. Acts itself contains several instances where the apostles and various local churches receive reports from other Christians about efforts to spread the message of Jesus Christ. This habit of giving reports adds to the historical credibility of the New Testament accounts. Thus, as St. Paul notes in chapter twenty-six of Acts, all these things were not done in a corner, they were common knowledge.

The writers of the New Testament, most of whom knew Jesus personally, had a strong motive to obey the warnings of the Roman and Jewish authorities to stop preaching about Jesus. Instead, these men did the opposite and risked their lives to preach the good news of Jesus Christ's resurrection. They preached repeatedly and openly in the Jewish synagogues, leaving themselves vulnerable to the hostile Jewish religious leadership.

"The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies," says historian John Warwick Montgomery, "which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so."9 Yet they never hesitated to confront Jewish leaders, hostile pagan forces, and even the Roman authorities. They endured rejection, persecution, torture, and even death. If their testimony was full of holes, how could they have gotten away with such bad testimony? If the resurrection did not occur, how do we account for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances by Jesus?

The Jews and pagans who opposed the apostles had the means, motive, and opportunity to completely refute the evidence for Jesus Christ's resurrection, yet they never could shake the eyewitness testimony of the first Christian evangelists. These hostile witnesses failed to produce the kind of solid evidence that would overturn the first Christians' testimony about the resurrection, as well as the meaning of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Thus, the eyewitnesses among Christ’s disciples passed the test of their own cross-examination with flying colors!

According to the New Testament documents, Jesus Christ proved his claim to be God by his bodily resurrection from the dead and gave his disciples "many convincing proofs that he was alive (Acts 1:3)." He appeared to more than 500 people at one time, most of whom were still living over 15 years later, when the Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-6). He also appeared to nonbelievers and hostile skeptics like his brother James, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Thomas. He also gave special authority and power to all of his apostles, who themselves performed public miracles.

The New Testament writings are internally consistent. None of the documents deny the resurrection and most of them explicitly proclaim it. Although the documents contain passages that are difficult to interpret or create questions about the text, many books have been written which clear up these textual problems. Among the best ones are John W. Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House) and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

Even if someone could prove there are unresolvable problems in the New Testament text, however, "they cannot be used as evidence to prove that the resurrection did not take place."10 Neither would they necessarily affect essential Christian teachings. For example, Greek historian Polybius and Roman historian Livy disagree over what route Hannibal took when he crossed the Alps, but both agree that he arrived in Italy.

The fact is, the New Testament documents do agree with one another. They do not contradict each other. All of them teach the following: Jesus underwent a public execution. His death was certified by the Roman authorities. He was placed in a private tomb, the location of which was known. Jesus then appeared to his female disciples and to the male apostles. He commanded them to lead all people into repentance, belief and forgiveness of sins in the name of the Triune God (Matthew 28:18-20). The internal consistency of these documents in these matters is beyond reproach.

When all is said and done, the evidence for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ is in fact better than the evidence for the actions of Julius Caesar or any other historical figure in the ancient world. "We are confronted with a hard core of historical fact," writes F. F. Bruce: "(a) the tomb was really empty; (b) the Lord appeared to various individuals and groups of disciples both in Judea and Galilee; (c) the Jewish authorities could not disprove the disciples' claim that He had risen from the dead."11 Adds Bruce Metzger:

“The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”12

Christianity is the only religion that can be objectively verified by historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus Christ does not violate the basic laws of logic. The resurrection of Jesus Christ fits the facts. Turn away from sin and evil. Submit your heart, mind and strength to the Triune God, by the power of Jesus Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross.

You can trust the Easter story. Tell your family and friends that they can trust it too. Jesus Christ died for your sins. Confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will indeed receive eternal life. As Jesus says in John 11:25,26, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.”

This is the Easter message. Now, “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I [Jesus] have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19,20).

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth – 1 Cor. 13:6.

###

Endnotes

             1. Bob Passantino, "Contend Earnestly for the Faith: How Far Can We Trust the Bible?" (Costa Mesa, CA: Answers in Action).

             2. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 308.

             3. J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 136.

             4. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 108.

             5. John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1969), 48.

             6. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Madison, Wisconsin: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 100-102.

             7. Bruce, 112.

             8. Bruce, 117.

             9. Montgomery, 51.

            10. Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 2nd edition (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), 127f.

            11. Bruce, 65.

            12. Metzger, 126.

For more information about the New Testament, see also the following:

Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.

Habermas, Gary. The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of

Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: 

            Moody Press, 1985.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Origin of Paul's Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1947.

McDowell, Josh, and Bill Wilson. He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the

            Historical Jesus. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1988.

Montgomery, John Warwick. Human Rights & Human Dignity. Grand Rapids:

            Zondervan, 1986. 131-160.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1 and 2.

            New York: Doubleday, 1991 and 1994.

Nash, Ronald H. Christianity and the Hellenistic World. Grand Rapids: 

Zondervan, 1984.

Nash, Ronald H. Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids: 

Zondervan, 1988.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the

            Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew D’Ancona. Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing

            New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels. New York: 

Doubleday, 1996.

Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke. Downers Grove, IL: 

            InterVarsity Press, 1992.

            Zondervan, 1995.

By Tom Snyder, Ph.D.

Everybody’s crying about the high price of gasoline these days, including me, but who’s doing anything about it? And, who’s responsible for these high prices in the first place?

For years I’ve been contacting the Democratic Party leaders in Congress about drilling for more oil here at home – in Alaska and offshore. I’ve also been complaining about the lack of new refineries being built because of the wacko environmentalist morons on the left holding the American economy hostage.

Despite this, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic senators like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (the senators from my state, California), Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama keep voting against drilling in Alaska and do nothing to encourage drilling for oil offshore or building new oil refineries.

Making matters worse, liberal Republican senators like John McCain have agreed with these idiots, despite pressure from President George Bush, the leader of the GOP!!!

Thanks, John! How else are you stabbing the American people in the back?

The facts are clear. The people to blame for the high gas prices we’re now facing are Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama and their Democratic cronies in the Senate, and RINO moderates like Sen. John McCain.

In other words, the victory of the Democrats in the 2006 elections, supported by the neo-fascist socialist “journalists” at the New York Times and other socialist minions of the national “news” media, has spelled DISASTER FOR AMERICA!

And, Sen. John McCain, holding his fingers to the wind, has signed onto these failed policies of the Democratic Congress, so that he can stay in power and get into the Oval Office.

I urge my fellow Americans, therefore, to put drilling for oil in the United States, building oil refineries in the United States, and defeating the left-wing environmentalist wackos as major campaign issues this fall.

The welfare and prosperity of your family, and of America, is at stake. Stop believing the liberal lies being told by Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, McCain, and the Democratic Congress!

Thank you all very much for stabbing Jesus Christ and the Conservative Movement in the back this primary season.

www.movieguide.org

www.answers.org