Professor Jon Fea may not be a Christian

Jon Fea is a professor at Messiah College, who claims to be a Christian. His quote below is typical of many secularists' lack of discernment that have convictions God the Holy Spirit could never have. Thus, his comment below--if it is accurate--calling Professor Warren Throckmorton a Christian, is biblically inaccurate. Throckmorton is a secularist, who, honestly, has a somewhat correct understanding of the founding. However, Throckmorton condones homosexuality, which Jesus Christ and the Bible condemn (Mat 5:17-18, etc.), meaning God convicts Christians, that are born again, from involvment in that sin. The question is what about Fea? Does not God convict him that homosexuality is sin? Here he writes from Throckmorton's blog:

*Getting Jefferson Right* is an intellectual and historical take down of David Barton’s pseudo-history of Thomas Jefferson by two Christian professors who teach at a conservative Christian college. Michael Coulter and Warren Throckmorton have done their homework. Anyone who reads this book must come to grips with the untruths and suspect historical interpretations that Barton regularly peddles in his books, speaking engagements, and on his radio program. I have yet to read a more thorough refutation of Barton’s claims.

–John Fea, Chair of the History Department, Messiah College and author of *Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction*

More Evidence of George Washington's Orthodoxy

More evidence supporting Washington's orthodoxy comes from his friend and speechwriter James Madison. Not to say JM was GW's closest friend, but, they served in government together at the exact same time. JM was in congress the entire term of GW's presidency; 1789-1796. Madison writes in Paul Leicester Ford's book, GW did "not form definite opinions on it [Christianity], but he took these things as he found them existing, and was constant in his observances of worship according to the received forms of the Episcopal Church, in which he was brought up."

This is quite interesting as JM had to have known GW skipped out of Communion in the Episcopal Church for years. Obviously JM understood GW to believe in what the sacrament represents even though he would not take part in Communion.
Many of the testimonies of GW taking communion come from Episcopalians; Jonathan Mitchell Sewall, Alexander Hamilton's wife, and GW's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis. After the revolution, GW shied away from communion in the Episcopal Church. The evidence supporting GW taking communion is at least 80-20, probably 90-10 in favor.

Obama's War on Women

Here is some evidence of Obama's war on Christianity and women:

President Obama would have us believe that there is some kind of war on women, just in time for his re-election effort. But he is the one who made sure that China's monstrous population effort would be fully supported by the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy of the previous administration. He forces us to fund international Planned Barrenhood.

That means that the worldwide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S. taxpayers footing part of the bill. President Obama says that attempts to cut off taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are part of a campaign against women.

Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been killed. Demographer Nick Eberstadt has carefully documented this "gendercide." This world-wide "war against baby girls" is a major result of Planned Parenthood's population control ideology and its aggressive marketing of abortion-on-demand.

While Dr. Eberstadt demonstrates that this war on baby girls is having disastrous consequences now, it can have even more terrible implications in the future. We are looking at the collapse of whole nations.

Nor is this war on women limited to China, India, and third-world countries. Britain's respected daily Telegraph has reported on abortionists working for the United Kingdom's national health service. The Telegraph captured on tape evidence of these abortionists agreeing to kill unborn children because they tested female.

So next time you hear a liberal or a reporter going on about a "war on women," make sure to ask if this commentator favors legal protection of unborn baby girls. If he or she does, then we can take the rest of his or her comments seriously. If such people say that that's a matter of "choice," remind them that millions of unborn baby girls never got to choose life.

Dividing the country by race, religion, and sex may be good campaign politics, but it's terrible social policy. If we really want to be a kinder, gentler country, one where civility is respected, then let's start by protecting women in the womb.

Obama spends our tax dollars on promoting homosexuality and abortion. And he calls himself a Christian.

Throckmorton Contradicts Himself

I found a contradiction among Warren Throckmorton's posts over at his blog. The below post contradicts most of his other posts and one which I responded to about his claim for modern separation of church and state. He claimed Jefferson did not subvert separation doctrine by meddling with religious affairs of the Indians, but he does here:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814

More Evidence the Founding Fathers Were Evangelicals

I found this information on John .Eidsmore's blog. Not only were the framers Evangelicals, "The Continental Congress adopted as the official song of the American Revolution, not “Yankee Doodle,” but “Chester.” Here are the words:

Let tyrants shake their iron rods. And slavery clank her galling chains. We fear them not, We trust in God. New England's God forever reigns.

The foe comes on with haughty stride, our troops advance with martial noise, Their veterans flee before our youth, and generals yield to beardless boys.

What grateful offerings shall we bring, what shall we render to the Lord,
Loud Hallelujahs let us sing, and praise His name on every chord.

"Chester" was the anthem for the Continental Army. Being head of the Army, did George Washington have a hand in this?

The Religion of Founding Father Stephen Hopkins

Hopkins was a great founding father--established the committee of correspondence in Rhode Island, post office, etc. and was highly respected in the Second Continental Congress, because he was the second oldest member.

Governor Hopkins himself, later in life, identified himself very completely with that body of Christians, even to the extent, to quote from Moses Brown, his constant co-laborer, (and himself a Friend), of his having the Friends' meetings sometimes held in the winter at his dwelling-house.

U.S. to use foreign aid to promote gay rights

Here is another reason Obama will lose re-election. And he calls himself a Christian.

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is announcing a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad, including combating attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.


In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.

Another Tebow Victory

Jonathan Mayhew's Weird Philosophy

 On page 389, of Mayhew's memoir, he writes this footnote:

The scriptures make use of no such language as Christ's satisfying divine justice. But I am not disposed to dispute about words. If they who use the phrase, mean no more by the satisfaction of Christ, than is implied in his sacrifice or atonement, I make no objection to it: but I have asserted the doctrine in my sermons, which have been so outrageously attacked.

When I first read it, I thought "can this guy be a divine?" What does the New and Old Testament say takes away sin? Did he not read Mat 24, 25, and 26? Why would Jesus affirm eternal punishment if not for perfect justice?

Matthew 25:41,46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels..And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. [bold face mine]

A human being can only be righteous unto God by having his sins atoned for by blood. Incidently, verse 14 claims the Holy Spirit is eternal, which Mayhew ignored--his own blood is upon him:

Hebrews 9:12,14
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us..How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? [bold face mine]

Pelagians have the problem of ignoring God's Word, and instead, quote other people, which is what Mayhew does trying to defend himself against an orthodox divine who has him by the...In seminary, when you study the Book of Romans, it becomes evident Paul is explaining reconciliation, satisfaction, justification, etc. Yes, satisfaction satisfies God's wrath, but the entire Bible explains God is Holy, and perfect--so He has to be perfect justice. No way to get around it:

Romans 5:9-11
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [bold face mine]

18th century unitarians ignored parts of scripture they didn't believe, under the guise of adhering to biblical inerrancy--how could you not see it? They would have had empty churches by rejecting biblical inerrancy, and Mayhew's cohorts couldn't yet change the meaning of biblical terms--this didn't happen until Channing established unitarianism on a more broad footing in a broader area. Satisfying God's justice because He is Holy, is in almost every book of the New Testament. If God doesn't eternally punish sin, He approves the sin and takes part in it. A thousand years of punishment isn't enough! God is eternal, and man's spirit is immortal, therefore, the punishment is eternal. Morever, God wouldn't be Holy or perfect justice.

All of these problems start when people depart from the CLEAR teaching of God's Word.

The President of Congress Affirming The DOI Was Ratified

John Jay believed in the principles of the Declaration:

On the 4th of July, 1776, your representatives in Congress, perceiving that nothing less than unconditional submission would satisfy our enemies, did, in the name of the people of the Thirteen United Colonies, declare them to be free and independent States; and “for the support of that declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, did mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour.” Was ever confederation more formal, more solemn, or explicit? It has been expressly assented to, and ratified by every State in the Union. Accordingly, for the direct support of this declaration, that is, for the support of the independence of these States, armies have been raised, and bills of credit emitted, and loans made to pay and supply them. The redemption, therefore, of these bills, the payment of these debts, and the settlement of the accounts of the several States, for expenditures or services for the common benefit, and in this common cause, are among the objects of this Confederation; and, consequently, while all or any of its objects remain unattained, it cannot, so far as it may respect such objects, be dissolved consistently with the laws of God or man.

--John Jay, Sept. 13, 1779

Another Secularist Argument

I wanted to post Secularist Jon Rowe's argument on World Net Daily from the other day, which shows some of the errors secularists are known for--if he is representative of them:

JG [me] has no evidence for his assertion. He (wrongly) assumes if you can't prove with smoking guns like there are with Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin (all three of whom btw had nominal connections to orthodox churches) the Founders were fundamentalists like him. He also uses his own abitrary standards to exclude folks as not Founders. Yes, in addition to the unitarian "key Founder" (Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin) there were DEISTS Founders -- Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer. Likewise, there may not be "smoking guns" with Washington and Madison, but on balance, they seem closer to Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin than the "orthodox."

This blog is filled with evidence supporting my assertions. Moreover, I never called all the framers fundamentalists like me. Arbitrary standards? Is someone who helped draft, ratify, or exert significant influence in the founding of our country arbitrary standards? A pastor must exert significant influence, such as Samuel Cooper to be considered a founder. Was Elihu Palmer a Founding Father?

This blog has been quite cordial in showing the blatant mis-representations Jon Rowe has made pigeon-holing our founding fathers. For years, he claimed William Livingston was a unitarian--this blog refuted that. He claimed Samuel West was a unitarian--wrong again. He claimed Samuel Cooper was not orthodox--same story. Add to the others, claiming John Lathrop was likely a unitarian, refuted earlier on this blog. There are many other gaffes, including his claim there is no fundamental difference in The Laws of Nature and The Laws of Nature's God in the Declaration, when James Wilson, et al. specifically differentiated God and Nature, posted on this blog. Most of these incorrect assumptions happened because he didn't check the sources well enough.

But Elihu Palmer takes the cake. Palmer was born in 1764, graduated Dartmouth in 1787--the same year the Constitution was written! He never even pastored a church. Yet this guy was a "founder?" Did he help found the nation, some govt. dept. in some way I don't know about? He did nothing of significance to influence the founding. If influencing the founding was the criteria, then every senior pastor of every church was a founder, since they influenced entire churches that shaped religion, where Palmer, was blind by 30, dead at 42 years old.

James Madison is closer to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin than to GW? These statements are mind-boggling. James Madison affirmed the Deity of Jesus Christ:

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."

"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

--Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779.

In light of the above quotes, how is JM closer to TJ?

The King's Death Sentence to Samuel Adams and John Hancock

I do hereby, in his majesty's name, offer and promise his most gracious pardon to all persons, who shall forthwith lay down their arms, and return to the duties of peaceable subjects: excepting only from the benefits of such pardon, SAMUEL ADAMS and JOHN HANCOCK, whose offenses are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration but that of condign punishment. 

--General Gage
 

Another Orthodox Patriot Preacher

Rev. John Lathrop

John Lathrop was born in 1740, graduated from Princeton in 1763, and was Pastor of the Second Church of Boston. This preacher was a prolific writer throughout his life. Unitarians wish to claim him as their own, but his words portray a different result. He was an early Calvinist. Here is some evidence supporting Lathrop's Calvinism:

To mention that you hear that the Convention of Ministers in the Province have actually voted to lay aside all creeds and confessions. I wish there was not too much occasion for such a report. They did not actually vote to lay aside creeds and confessions. They have been pretty generally laid aside; and the motion was to revive them, and that candidates should be examined and introduced in the manner they are in Connecticut. This was urged by Dr. Sewall and Mr. Pemberton; it was also opposed by others; but, the forenoon being spent, a vote was desired whether the matter should be considered again after dinner, and passed quite full that it should not..You mention my being fixed in the midst of a crooked, fkc. generation. I assure you, it is a matter of wonder with me that the clergy are not farther from the character of Gospel ministers; and I apprehend, if some reform is not come into a few genrations, if salaries being small should not prevent it, the pulpits will frequently be filled not only with Arminians, but professed Arians, Socinians, and even Deists themselves.

--January 20th, 1769

Only God can be perfect, unless he became what he denounced--an arian, or idolator, believing Christ divine, yet having a different nature than the father. Unitarians did not believe Christ was perfect:

Jesus Christ also, with the perfect feelings of a perfect man, loved his country..

--A Discourse Delivered Appointed by the President.. April 13, 1815

No hint of arminianism in the below quote:

I can but think good Van Mastrich is right in his sentiments about Regeneration — it is a subject of great importance: I wish to understand it well, and constantly to feel that Divine power which alone is sufficient to produce the change, operating on my heart.

--Boston, 1 August, 1771.

Lathrop used orthodox Christian terms and quoted biblical verses clearly promoting Original Sin and Christ's Deity. Since when did unitarians believe God indwelt Christ?

While discoursing on the blessings of peace, our thoughts, as it is highly proper, will be first turned to the gospel, where we have a view of the foundation, which the mercy of God prepared for peace between heaven and earth ; peace between the Sovereign of the universe and his revolted subjects...Christ is our peace :—He came and preached peace to those who were afar off."—Thus wrote the Apostle Paul: "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God [2 Cor 5:19]...Let us endeavour, therefore, to do good unto all. And finally, may we unite with the general assembly and church of the Most High, in offering praise and thanksgiving to God, our heavenly Father, and to his son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer. [bold face mine]

--A Discourse Delivered in Boston on the Day of Public Thanksgiving in the State of Massachusetts Nov 21, 1811.

Below is a first hand account of orthodoxy:

I never saw him after this, but when I became associated in the ministry with his relative, the Rev. Dr. Lathrop, [Calvinist] of West Springfield, I often heard him speak of him in terms of affectionate regard, and he was never willing to admit that he had departed much, if at all, from the accredited standard of orthodoxy.

--FROM THE REV. CHARLES LOWELL, D. D.
Cambridge, February 28, 1853

Warren Throckmorton's Post on David Barton's New Book

I have yet to get an answer to my latest post on his blog. Here it is:

Article 3 Kaskaskia Treaty

the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

Above is a clear violation of modern separation doctrine, and along with my previous quote, TJ contadicts it, and he believed a State could form whatever religion they wanted:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority..Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands..But I have ever believed, that..what might be a right in a State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.
–to Rev. Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Ultimately, TJ is violating the Indian’s rights even if the tribe was all catholic, which they weren’t. Your rebuttal that the tribes are a sovereign nation does not refute the plain language in the Article, given TJ founded his justification on Natural Rights–that applied to everyone.

Putnam and the "Great Spirit" Part Deux

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Jon Rowe wrote this in response to my previous post about Rufus Putnam and the Great Spirit:

Goswick seems to suggest that unconverted Natives really DIDN'T worship the God of the Bible with men like Washington and Putnam in knowledge of this. What would that make them then? Manipulative hypocrites when dealing with Natives. Suggesting unconverted Natives worship the same God Christians do, while not believing it, reeks of the same charge of hypocrisy that some secular nationalist scholars make when they claim the early Presidents were cold deists (or atheists) who may have publicly spoken as though they believed in Providence or something closer to Christianity to placate the masses over whom they ruled.

I don't see any hypocrisy at all considering Putnam started and was the President of the original Ohio Bible Society, and perhaps a member of the Society For Propagating the Gospel To The Indians. They weren't missionaries preaching the Gospel--this was diplomacy. If Rowe is correct, Putnam--and all of the Bible societies and missionary organizations--had his people go to the Indians and say, "The Great Spirit so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Great Spirit that whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life...he that believes on the Great Spirit has life, he that has not the Great Spirit has not life?" Don't think so. None of the framers, minus Thomas Jefferson, were ecumenists.

I am confident I can find other evangelicals using that term--most likely members of the societies to promote the Gospel, as Putnam did. I'm fairly certain Congress supported The society for propogating the Gospel to the Indians. That means it was everyone.

In 1798, he was the prime mover in establishing in Marietta the first academy of learning; in 1807, he planned and superintended the building of the church still used by the Congregational Society there; in 1812, he organized there the first Bible Society west of the mountains; in 1817, the first Sunday school and he was the largest subscriber to the funds of each.

--Putnam's Journal

"The Great Spirit" of the Indians

Gen. Rufus Putnam

I thank Jon Rowe, blogging at American Creation, for posting some interesting words by orthodox Christian Founding Father, Rufus Putnam. By reading Putnam's will, he was most likely an Evangelical in the mold of myself or Roger Sherman. You see there is a difference in the terms: orthodox and evangelical. Yes, the word Evangelical was in use in the 18th Century. An orthodox Christian is someone that generally adheres to all the Creeds of the Historic Christian Church without labeling that person part of a particular sect, such as Greek Orthodox. An Evangelical is someone that believes in Biblical Inerrancy over any man-made creed. A Creed is not Inspired as the Bible is.

Rowe quotes Gen. Putnam:

I thank the great Spirit who has inclined our Hearts to do good; and to establish a Peace between You and the United States — Brothers...I propose to send one Speech more requesting them to open a Road to some place or other, where we may meet and Speak to one another; And I trust with Your assistance, that the great Spirit will cause this good Work to succeed--

His point is most likely to link Putnam with the other infidel framers: George Washington, and James Madison, who used the same term referring to the Indian "Great Spirit." I call them infidels because that is what they would be if they considered the Indian god--or any god--the same as the Biblical God. The Bible says at least one thousand times, He is the Only God, the God of the Israel.

Not only is Rowe's implication far-fetched, it would make George Washington a very ignorant man, given a Christian high schooler understands the difference. That Putnam and Washington are placating diplomatically to the Indians by referring to God in their terms is obvious--however Putnam was an Evangelical. The only reason an Evangelical would link the Indian Great Spirit with the God of the Bible is to be diplomatic and accomodating. Here is Putnam:

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53]

--Will of Rufus Putnam

 My point is supported by GW changing the word "God", to "Great Spirit" while writing to the Indians. He wanted to make sure he was as diplomatic as possible. Moreover, Joseph Story--deceived about the person of Christ--affirmed Biblical Inerrancy, used "The Great Spirit" when referring to the Indians.

My Life Before I met Jesus Christ

Not to give my life story away before its time, but growing up, perhaps my biggest musical influence was Kiss--particularly Ace Frehley. I was in the Kiss Army, my room was smeared with Kiss Posters--the one on top of Empire State Bldg, the 1776 Revolution poster, and the Love Gun album cover poster. I had each member's picture in my wallet. But as a ten year old, I was too busy to pick up a guitar, but had I...


Ace with an Ibanez copy of a Gibson Explorer

  Ace has his book coming out Nov. 1. It's already making waves in the rock n roll community. Ace and Bassist Gene Simmons have a strained relationship. Read the book to find out all the details. I found chapter 1 before the release date. You can click the link to read the entire chapter:

A BRONX TALE

When I was a kid I used to carry around this awful image in my head—a picture of three men tangled awkwardly in high-tension wires, fifty feet in the air, their lifeless bodies crisping in the midday sun.

The horror they endured was shared with me by my father, an electrical engineer who worked, among other places, at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, helping with the installation of a new power plant in the 1950s. Carl Frehley was a man of his times. He worked long hours, multiple jobs, did the best he could to provide a home for his wife and kids. Sometimes, on Sunday afternoons after church, he'd pile the whole family into a car and we'd drive north through the Bronx, into Westchester County, and eventually find ourselves on the banks of the Hudson River. Dad would take us on a tour of the West Point campus and grounds, introduce us to people, even take us into the control room of the electrical plant. I'm still not sure how he pulled that one off—getting security clearance for his whole family—but he did.

Dad would walk around, pointing out various sights, explaining the rhythm of his day and the work that he did, sometimes talking in the language of an engineer, a language that might as well have been Latin to me. Work was important, and I guess in some way he just wanted his kids to understand that; he wanted us to see this other part of his life..
The Carl Frehley I knew (and it's important to note that I didn't know him all that well) was quiet and reserved, a model of middle-class decorum, maybe because he was so f.....g tired all the time. My father was forty-seven years old by the time I came into this world, and I sometimes think he was actually deep into a second life at that point. The son of German and Dutch immigrants, he'd grown up in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, finished three years of college, and had to leave school and go to work. Later on he moved to New York and married Esther Hecht, a pretty young girl seventeen years his junior. My mom had been raised on a farm in Norlina, North Carolina. My grandfather was from northern Germany—the island RÜgen, to be precise. My grandmother was also German, but I'd always heard whispers of there being some American Indian blood in our family. It was boredom, more than anything else, that brought my mom to New York. Tired of life on the farm, she followed her older sister Ida north and lived with her for a while in Brooklyn.

Dad, meanwhile, came for the work.

There was always a little bit of mystery surrounding my dad, things he never shared; nooks and crannies of his past were always a taboo subject. He married late, started a family late, and settled into a comfortable domestic and professional routine. Every so often, though, there were glimpses of a different man, a different life.

My dad was an awesome bowler, for example. He never talked about being part of a bowling league or even how he learned the game. God knows he only bowled occasionally while I was growing up, but when he did, he nailed it. He had his own ball, his own shoes, and textbook form that helped him throw a couple of perfect games. He was also an amazing pool player, a fact I discovered while still in elementary school, when he taught me how to shoot. Dad could do things with a pool cue that only the pros could do, and when I look back on it now I realize he may have spent some time in a few shady places. He once told me that he had beaten the champion of West Virginia in a game of pool. I guess you have to be pretty good to beat the state champion of any sport.

"Hey, Dad. What's your high run?" I once asked him while we were shooting pool.

"One forty-nine," he said, without even looking up..
I grew up just off Mosholu Parkway in the Bronx, not far from the New York Botanical Garden and Bronx Zoo. It was a middle-class neighborhood of mixed ethnic backgrounds, consisting of mostly German, Irish, Jewish, and Italian families. Ours was pretty normal and loving, a fact I came to appreciate even more after I began hanging out with some serious badasses who were always trying to escape their violent and abusive home lives. Conversely, my dad never hit or abused me as a child, but I often wondered how much he really cared about me since we never did anything together one-on-one. Now as I think back, I realize more and more that he loved me, and that he did the best he could under the circumstances.

It's pretty hard to look at the Frehleys and suggest that my upbringing contributed in any way to my wild and crazy lifestyle and the insanity that was to ensue. Sure, my dad was a workaholic and never home, but there was always food on the table, and we all felt secure. My parents enjoyed a happy and affectionate marriage—I can still see them holding hands as they walked down the street, or kissing when Dad came home from work. They always seemed happy together, and there was very little fighting at home. We had relatives in Brooklyn and North Carolina, all on my mother's side, but I knew very little about my dad's side of the family. There were no photo albums or letters, no interesting stories or visits from aunts and uncles. Nothing. I knew he had a brother who had tragically drowned at age eight, but the rest was sketchy at best. When I tried to ask him for more details, my mom would intervene.

"Don't push your father," she'd say. "It's too painful for him."

So I'd let it go.

People who know me only as the Spaceman probably find this hard to believe, but I was raised in a family that stressed education and religion. My parents also understood the value of the arts and sciences. The way I'm fascinated with computers and guitars, my dad was fascinated with motors and electrical circuits, and he used to build his own batteries in the basement as a child. I know he was very good at what he did because in addition to his work at West Point, he also serviced the elevator motors in the Empire State Building, and was involved in designing the backup ignition system for the Apollo spacecraft for NASA. He had notebooks filled with formulas and sketches, projects he worked on until the wee hours of the morning.

So my parents emphasized learning, and two of their three children got the message. My sister, Nancy, who is eight years my senior, was a straight-A student who went on to get a master's degree in chemistry; she taught high school chemistry for a while before getting married to start a family. My brother, Charles, was an honors student as well. He studied classical guitar at New York University, where he finished tenth in his class.

Then there was me, Paul Frehley, the youngest of three kids and the black sheep to boot.

In the beginning I enjoyed school and team sports, but as I got older, my social life and music began taking precedence over my studies. I remember coming home with B's, C's, and D's on my report card and hearing my parents complain.

"Why can't you be more like Charlie and Nancy?"

I'd just throw up my hands. Between bands and girlfriends, who had time to study?

"You're wasting your life, Paul," my dad would say, shaking his head.

Once, just to prove a point, I told my parents that I'd study hard for a semester and prove I was just as bright as my brother and sister. And you know what? I got all A's and B's on the next report card. (Much later, it was the same sort of "I told you so" attitude that would compel me to challenge the other guys in KISS to an IQ test. Just for the record, I scored highest: 163, which is considered "genius.") Now, I know I drove my parents crazy, but God had other plans for me. It all stemmed from something I sensed at an early age: the desire to become a rock star and follow my dreams. Crazy as that sounds, I really believed it would happen.

You can partially credit my blind ambition to Mom and Dad! You see, if there was a common thread within our family, it was music. Thanks to the influence of our parents, all the Frehley kids played instruments. My father was an accomplished concert pianist: he could perform Chopin and Mozart effortlessly. My mom played the piano, too, and she enjoyed banging out a few tunes at family gatherings. Charlie and Nancy took piano lessons and performed at recitals as well. They eventually started fooling around with the guitar and formed a folk group, but that was never my cup of tea. From the beginning, I was drawn to rock 'n' roll and started figuring out songs by the Beatles and the Stones on my brother's acoustic guitar. One day, by chance, I picked up my friend's new electric guitar and checked it out. I plugged it in, turned the amp up to ten, and strummed a power chord.

I immediately fell in love. It was a life-changing event! I was only twelve, but I was totally hooked. Within a couple of years I had a Fender Tele and a Marshall amp in my bedroom, and I'd sold my soul to rock 'n' roll. There was no turning back.

My parents were not entirely unsupportive of my obsession (Dad even bought me my first electric guitar as a Christmas present), probably because it beat the alternative. There were worse vices, worse behavior, as I'd already demonstrated. See, at the same time that I was teaching myself guitar and forming my first band, I was also running with a pretty tough crowd. So while it may be true that the rock 'n' roll lifestyle nearly killed me as an adult, it's also true that without music, I might never have made it to adulthood in the first place.

© 2011 Ace Frehley

In light of Mitt Romney, here is the low-down on Mormonism

The founder of Mormonism was Joseph Smith, called "Joe" by the residents of Palmyra, New York, was convicted on March 26, 1826, for his involvement in the Occult, called "glass looking" to find buried treasure, in court case, New York v Joseph Smith. Joe Smith paid the $2.68 cent fine. The court bill can be found in the New York Public Library. Not surprisingly, his conviction happened six years after he claimed the angel Gabriel appeared to him--some conversion right? Smith would put stones in a hat to somehow find buried treasure. I'm clueless how glass could have shown him where treasure was, unless by demonic guidance. There are craters all over Northern New York and Vermont from his digging expeditions.

Joe Smith's mom and dad both write, their son was in the Occult. Mr. "Stoal came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain means by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Lucy Smith, History of Joseph Smith by his Mother. Likewise, his father claimed Joe was a peep-stone addict in the Historical Magazine May, 1870. Joe Smith could not get his revelations straight either. In the Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, he claimed his angelic messenger was Moroni, but in the Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition, which Smith compiled himself, he wrote the messenger was Nephi. To Mormons, this contradiction--among many others--is their perverbial thorn in the side.

As to the theology of Mormonism, here is proof of their twisted belief that God the Father was once Adam, and Michael the Archangel:

When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do.

--Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50.

Along with their view Jesus was a Polygamist, who was married to Mary, Martha and Mary of Cana, Mormon theology says God the Father was Adam, who had sex with Mary, to form Jesus, the Blood brother of Lucifer! As if that wasn't enough, Joe Smith claimed Mormons were gods:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345, 349.

The evidence suggests Joe Smith started as a unitarian, and was influenced by Greek Mythology, thus, you have Polygamy instituted to make vast families for "Celestial Marriage" as with Greek gods impregnating human women in order to populate different planets in the universe. Mormon theology teaches polytheism--even though they deny it now--that the universe is inhabited by human gods "who proceate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets." Brigham Young actually believed suicide atoned for one's sins:

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come; and if they had their eyes open to their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins; whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit-world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them. . . . yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves cannot remit,but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.

--Brigham Young, Tabernacle, September 21, 1856

Walter Martin, the expert on Mormonism, gives this synopsis of this cult:
Pastor Jeffries should proclaim these truths to the country to back up his assertion Mormonism is a Christian Cult. What then of Mitt Romney's Presidential candidacy?

After carefully perusing hundreds of volumes on Mormon theology and scores of pamphlets dealing with this subject, the author can quite candidly state that never has he seen such misappropriation of terminology, disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic principles demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced in the attempts of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the same time undermine the foundations of historic Christianity. The intricacies of their complex system of polytheism causes the careful researcher to ponder again and again the ethical standard that these Mormon writers practice and the blatant attempts to rewrite history, biblical theology, and the laws of scriptural interpretation that they might support the theologies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Without fear of contradiction, I am certain that Mormonism cannot stand investigation and wants no part of it unless the results can be controlled under the guise of “broad-mindedness” and “tolerance."

Was Rev. Samuel West Orthodox? Part Deux

Continuing from my previous post on Rev. West, he left no smoking gun about his faith--his friends were not certain either, but he did comment on free will. This is puzzling given the unitarians were a tight group who communicated with each other, no doubt feeling the heat from the Orthodox majority. Although my earlier post clearly shows West affirmed Calvin's total depravity, this early primary source, claims the opposite:

That is, he [West] asserted free will for man in opposition to Calvin's doctrine of fore-ordination and irreparable election, and man's ability of moral choice in opposition to the doctrine of "total depravity."

Should we not take a person's own words over another's testimony? Where are the smoking guns affirming unitarianism from his contemporaries? Reading his Ordination he was an Orthodox Christian:

This..Christ..as our high priest who offered himself up to God a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the world.. he is to be preached up as the only Mediator between God and man..that he came to redeem us both from the penal consequences of Adam's first transgression..to increase our knowledge of the doctrines of, the gospel..that through his atoning blood and perfect righteousness..Can anyone imagine faithfully that he preaches Christ, who very seldom in his discourses mentions his name; and who never insists on the doctrine of atonement, with which the new testament so much abounds? Shall gospel ministers leave out the principle end of Christ's coming..?

Where is West's words to refute this? I have read Christians who claim West was a unitarian, however, affirming Arminianism is not synonymous with heterodoxy--at least in the 18th century. Moreover, Timothy Dwight was a sort of Arminian. The fact is, none of these unitarian preachers: Jonathan Mayhew, or Ebenezer Gay, et al., were rationalists in the mold of Thomas Jefferson. Any attempt to label a system of rationalism to any "group" of founding fathers, or founding preachers contradicts the evidence. If Thomas Jefferson truly denied the supernatural, West had a stiff rebuke for him:

[C]an anyone think, that he has faithfully discharge the trust reposed in him, who insists altogether in what is called natural religion, without ever mentioning the pecularly doctrines of revelation? Why should we separate what God has joined together?..Where the doctrines of meer natural religion are insisted on to the neglect of the pecular doctrines of revelation; we can at most expect to find a few fashionable, civil, gentlemen, but destitute of real piety.  

However, there is evidence as to West's heterodoxy:

With reference to Dr. West's position on the doctrine of the Trinity, his granddaughter, Mary C. West, of Tiverton, (recently deceased,) wrote in a communication printed in the Evening Standard of this city in March, 1883, as follows: "If his children were competent witnesses (my father and aunt) I can say that they have often told me that their father was an Arminian Unitarian. * * * I have heard my aunt many times tell this story. When she was a little girl her teacher set her to learning a catechism, — I think it was the Westminster, but at any rate it had the Trinitarian formula in it: 'The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' She was at home studying her lesson in a loud voice, and her father heard her repeating the above formula and called her to him and held up three of his fingers (as she always did when she told the story), and asked her how three could be one, took the book from her and put it in his pocket, and told her to tell her teacher that he would get her another catechism, which he did. I think the one he got her was called 'The Franklin Catechism,' or 'The Franklin Primer."

Who do we believe? Do we believe West's own words, or this statement years after the fact?

Tax Breaks to Corporations Do Not Create Jobs

Tax breaks to large corporations do not create jobs! It is a lie promoted by conservatives like Sean Hannity, who think with their pocket-books and not with the mind of Christ:

Ten major U.S. corporations, including big banks Citigroup and Bank of America, laid off workers after enjoying a tax holiday in 2004-2005 that had been billed as a form of economic stimulus, said a report released on Tuesday..Fifty-eight corporations that accounted for 70 percent of overseas profits repatriated under the 2004-2005 tax break collectively saved $64 billion in taxes, then cut 600,000 jobs through layoffs, the report said..Legislation in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives would let them repatriate those profits at 5.25 percent, the same tax rate given to them under a similar tax holiday during the Bush administration.


Just as they are doing now, companies six years ago said that the repatriation tax break would boost jobs and the economy. But the institute said this did not happen, as earlier academic studies have also found.


"History shows that many 'tax holiday' companies use repatriated profits to reward executives and other shareholders, then lay off workers," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report from the left-leaning institute. "Corporate tax holidays have resulted in precious few U.S. jobs."

At a time of soaring government deficits, the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan congressional research arm, has estimated that a tax holiday, like the one proposed in the House and favored by WIN America, would eventually cost taxpayers about $78.7 billion over the next decade.

I would assume the 600,000 layoffs were the net result in the study.