Mediaboss Marketing

by Todd Wilken

When a thing grows weak and out of date, it is obviously soon going to disappear. That's also true of churches. If a church cannot change, it will eventually die.

Clearly change in both liturgy and structure is inevitable, and this change will probably be radical, if not total. the forms the Church assumed in the past inevitably must die.

One of these statements comes from a famous Christian liberal; the other comes from a famous Christian conservative.Without peeking at the footnotes, which statement belongs to the conservative and which belongs to the liberal?

You cant tell, can you?

One is against abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and gay marriage and against removing the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust from the currency. The other is in favor of all these things. One calls himself Bible-believing. The other thinks the Bible is a myth. Yet both say that the church must change or die.

Full-blown liberal Christians are easy to spot. They will tell you up front that they dont believe what the Bible says. But what about liberals who think that they are conservative? What about the liberals who claim to be Bible-believing Christians?

Many Christians today think of themselves as conservative. They are pro-life, pro-family. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They watch FOX News. They vote traditional values. But can you be politically, socially and morally conservative without being theologically conservative? Oh, yes you can.

Meet the Bible-believing liberals. While they believe that the culture needs to return to its historic traditions, they think the Church needs to abandon hers. While maintaining that the Flag should be proudly displayed, they fear that a cross in Church might offend seekers. While they believe men and women have defined roles in marriage and family, they dont see why a woman cant replace a man in the pulpit. While outraged that our schools cater to the lowest-common denominator, they think our churches need to be geared toward the unchurched. They believe that public policy should be based on objective facts, but preaching should be based on felt needs. They want under God in Pledge of Allegiance, but omit the Apostles Creed from the Sunday service. They want the Ten Commandments in the public square, but are unconcerned when those commandments are replaced with principles for living in the pulpit. To the Bible-believing liberal, the ceremonies of a presidential inauguration are meaningful and inspiring, but the Sunday morning liturgy is boring. For the Bible-believing liberal, the differences between political parties are serious, but the differences between Christian denominations are petty. While they insist on a strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution, they play fast and loose with the Bible and its theology, even while maintaining its inerrancy and inspiration. These are the Bible-believing liberals.

A Contradiction in Terms

Now, I know what youre thinking. Bible-believing liberal is an oxymoron, right? You cant be truly Bible-believing and be liberal at the same time.

THAT is the point.

You see, many Christians think of themselves as conservative Christians. But they have confused cultural conservatism with theological conservatism. Theologically these Bible-believing Christians have a lot in common with liberals.

I had been thinking about this for some months. Then, during a conversation with Gene Edward Veith, he said something that made it all clear. Dr. Veith was describing the old-line liberals in the 20th century:

In the churches there was a sense of panic, that Oh people, the cultures changing! So if were gonna survive, weve got to go along with the culture. And so you had a movement in the Christian church to change Christianity according to the dominant culture And thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is.

I suddenly realized that Dr. Veith was also describing many Bible-believing Christians today. Thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is. He was describing Bible-believing liberals.

William Tighe recently observed of old-line liberals:

Liberals do think, since in their view there is no divine revelation with specific, objective and if one wants to use the term, propositional content, since its all a matter of feeling, you cant cling to any definitions, any confessional formulas. And since theyre always invoking the Holy Spirit, chasing the Holy Spirit since everything for them is the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the world, they play the game of here He is on the plain, here He is on the mountain, and the only thing they have to go by are social trends, which for them is where God is at, and the Church has to keep up with it.

But exactly the same thing could be said of many otherwise conservative Christians today. Yes, they still affirm the divine revelation of the Bible in principle. But theologically, they have adopted the liberals way of thinking. John Armstrong has also noticed this:

At the end of the last century theological liberalism told us that we needed to make Christianity attractive, or acceptable, to its "cultured despisers." This type of concern was not new. The very tension of "being in the world" but "not of the world" has always been with the church. What was new was the way liberalism decided to advance the church before the world, namely by reinterpreting the message of the cross in the light of the world's understanding and belief system. One of the most blatant examples of the compromise which flows out of this can be seen in 1966 World Council of Churches dictum: "The world must set the agenda for the church." I would suggest that this idea, formulated in the crucible of ecumenical dialogue between light and darkness, is not far from the "seeker sensitive" approach adopted through the Church Growth ideology of contemporary evangelicals.

The fact that so many otherwise conservative Christians fail to see the similarity between themselves and liberals is remarkable. The fact that so many Bible-believing liberals fail to see the disparity between their cultural beliefs and their theological beliefs is astonishing. But there is a reason for it.

How Bible-Believing are They?

Bible believing liberals affirm Scriptures inspiration and inerrancy. That is the main reason they consider themselves conservative Christians. After all, they think, I cant be a liberal! Liberals deny Scripture.

But there is more than one way to deny Scripture. Mike Horton has written about the practical denial of Scripture.

While evangelicals and other conservative Protestants hold to a high doctrine of Scripture in principle, the last two decades have especially seen a growing disregard for making their sermons expositions of Scripture; rather, its often the case that the Bible is used as a sourcebook of quotations for what we really want to say.

You see, you can affirm Scriptures authority in principle even while denying it in practice. Bible-believing liberals arent liberal in what they say about the Bible, Bible-believing liberals are liberal in how they use the Bible. Heres an example.

About ten years ago, G. A. Pritchard wrote a landmark book on the most influential megachurch in America, Willow Creek Community Church. He wrote of the staff and people of Willow Creek:

It would not be accurate or fair to depict them as theologically liberal. Liberal Christianity denies central Christian truth claims. However, there is a lack of emphasis on Christian truth at Willow Creek.

Nevertheless, in some cases, Willow Creeks lack of emphasis ends up looking a lot like denial as in the case of Pastor Nancy Beach. About the time Pritchard was publishing his book, Nancy Beach became one of Willow Creeks teaching pastors.

You ask, How did Bible-believing Willow Creek end up with a woman pastor? Heres how. Willow Creek had women elders since its founding. But in the mid-1990s a debate began over the inclusion of women at all levels of leadership. Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian is a founding member of Willow Creek and its resident theologian. In his 1985 book, Beyond Sex Roles,Bilezikian argued (among other things) that women should be pastors. Bilezikians method was to highlight the apparent contradictions in Pauls epistles. For example, He writes:

the juxtaposition of Paul's approval of women prophesying with this absolute command for women not to speak in church and to remain silent as a sign of their subordination constitutes a monumental contradiction that only a state of mental dislocation could explain...

In time, Bilezikians view and his way of reading the Bible won acceptance at Willow Creek:

In January 1996, John Ortberg, one of Willow Creek's teaching elders, taught a two-hour class to church ministry leaders, in which he said that staff needed to share the convictions of the church, or study until they shared those convictions; and they had a year to do so.

The result of that study was a position paper. That paper is a classic example of how liberals read the Bible:

The statement makes clear the church's belief that "when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively, it teaches the full equality of men and women in status, giftedness, and opportunity for ministry," despite "a few scriptural texts [that] appear to restrict the full ministry freedom of women."

Willow Creek affirms the authority of Scripture. But notice how they use Scripture. Pauls epistles only appear to restrict the pastoral office to men. But that appearance disappears when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively. This is just another way of saying, If we disregard the scriptural texts that say women cant be pastors, we discover that they can be pastors!

Bible-believing liberals dont deny the inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture. They just interpret the Bible comprehensively to make it say what they want. In the case of Willow Creek, interpreting the Bible comprehensively means explaining away Bible passages that forbid what you want to do. Bible-believing liberals are Bible-believing in principle, but liberal in practice.

In the 1970s liberal denominations used this reasoning to introduce the ordination of women. Today they are using the same reasoning to introduce the ordination of homosexuals. Will Bible-believing liberals follow suit?

The leaders of Willow Creek insist that these changes have nothing to do with the changing culture. But I ask, Then why have you changed your view on women in the Church? Why have you departed from the historic interpretation of Pauls teaching on women? What changed? The answer is, of course, the culture changed. The culture changes and Bible-believing liberals change to keep up with it. Remember Dr. Veiths words. Thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is. Pritchard concludes:

A serious critique of American culture from a Christian perspective is generally absent at Willow Creek. The fundamental reason for this failure is that Creekers do not think critically with the categories and content of Christian theology

Like it or not, many Bible-believing Christians are thinking and acting just like liberals. What else do many Bible-believing Christians have in common with liberals?

In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity. This is a truism for many Christians today. It is often attributed to Saint Augustine. But Augustine never said it. In truth, this sayings origins are more recent in early German liberalism.

The real author of this sentiment was a 17th century Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin. Meiderlins lived during a time of doctrinal compromise and unionism between Lutherans and the Reformed. Meiderlin was disturbed by the doctrinal debates taking place and thought that insistence on doctrinal purity was satanic. Meiderlin counseled a minimalist approach to doctrine: In a word, were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation.

Liberal Christians have taken Meiderlins maxim to heart. But so have many Bible-believing Christians. When it comes to doctrine, they dont sweat the details. And, just like liberals, when Bible-believing Christians talk about unity in essentials it isnt altogether clear what those essentials are.

Bishop T. D. Jakes was the keynote speaker for Willow Creeks August 2004 Leadership Summit. Jakes is a best selling author, a megachurch pastor and a popular televangelist. Willow Creeks bookstore, Seeds, sells dozens of different books, tapes, CDs and DVDs by Jakes. The only problem is, Jakes denies the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

Is the Trinity essential or incidental at Willow Creek? To be sure, Willow Creek affirms the Trinity in its public statements. But remember: what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice.

Meiderlins maxim assumes that false teaching is benign. Instead, the real danger comes from those who point out doctrinal error. Rick Warren has said:

Some of the most cantankerous Christians that I know are veritable storehouses of Bible knowledge, but they have not applied it. They can give you facts and quotes, and they can argue doctrine. But theyre angry; theyre very ugly people.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: Doctrine divides. That is, insistence on doctrinal clarity and purity is divisive. On this subject, Warren echoes Meiderlins maxim: "I'm not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won't try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?"

Warren downplays supposed theological conflicts between Christians. He sees them as a product of our limited knowledge of God. He dismisses such differences by appealing to how awesome God is:

On earth we see though a glass darkly so we all need a large dose of humility in dealing with our differences. Gods ways are awesome and far beyond human mental capabilities. He has no problem reconciling the supposed theological conflicts that we debate when ideas dont fit neatly into our logical, rational systems.

This sounds broadminded but is really complete nonsense. Can God reconcile a theology that says man is totally depraved with one that says he isnt? Can God reconcile a theology that teaches faith alone with one that teaches faith and works? Warrens idea would fit right in at the World Council of Churches one of their latest documents says essentially the same thing as Warren:

a more recent ecumenical vision includes the search for a new paradigm and image which could accommodate a diversity of truths under the same roof without diluting or annihilating any in the process of trying to bring them into convergence, for the sake of reaching one common and binding apostolic truth.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: Lets agree to disagree. A Willow Creek event demonstrated recently how far this idea could go. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 2001, Bill Hybels invited a local Muslim imam, Fisal Hammouda, to speak at a weekend service. During the service the imam asserted, We [Muslims] believe in Jesus, more than you do in fact. Hybels ventured to disagree, but the misimpression stuck. "I didn't know they believed in Jesus, church member Elizabeth Perez, 60, said after the service. I thought it was interesting how much we have in common."

Don Matzat summed up the doctrinal minimalism of Bible-believing liberals well:

Successful evangelical pastors like Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller are really no different than the successful modern liberal clergy, like Sloan Coffin and Harry Enwrson Fosdick. While Coffin and Fosdick built their congregations by appealing to human reason, Hybels and Schuller "grow a church" by appealing to the feelings and experience of people. While the classic liberal pastor questioned on the basis of reason the truth of traditional Christian doctrine, the postmodern pastor ignores doctrine and focuses on methods which produce success.

In 2004 Pastor James Perry made an impassioned plea to his church:

What would it be like if we had a moratorium on issues that divide us, and spent all our time and energy focusing on reaching out to those in our world who feel like outcasts, and share Gods love with them? It is my hope that we will be more concerned about extending Gods Grace than getting it right.

Was Perry arguing for more evangelism? No. Was Perry pleading for greater mission efforts? Not really. Perry was speaking at the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church in Pittsburgh, arguing for the full inclusion of active homosexuals in the church. For Perry, discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality was getting in the way of extending Gods Grace.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: the church is justified in using whatever means it deems necessary to carry out its mission. Again, Mike Horton describes this mindset well:

Increasingly, we hear that what unites us is mission, not theology. Doctrinal diversity is encouraged, as long as we can all agree on the mission and its methods. Mission and evangelism are in danger of being exploited as get out of jail free cards for any capitulation to the culture that we can imagine.

The ecumenical movement and liberal church bodies have been doing this for decades. But today, it is common to hear the same Mission justifies the means argument from conservative Christians. Mark Mittelberg writes:

The redemptive mission of the church is simply too important to let fear and traditional strongholds keep us from examining everything in light of our biblical, God-directed vision.

Notice the phrase, our biblical God-directed vision. Whatever happened to examining everything in light of the Bible itself? The mission blueprint has replaced the Bible; it must. For the Bible-believing liberal, the mission justifies the means.

Rick Warren is famous for saying, never criticize what God is blessing. Warren uses his congregations mission success to justify the sloppy doctrine in his books:

I knew that by simplifying doctrine in a devotional format for the average person, I ran the risk of either understating or overstating some truths. I'm sure I have done that. But I decided when I planted Saddleback in 1980 that I'd rather reach large numbers of people for Christ than seek the approval of religious traditionalists. In the past eight years, we've baptized over 11,000 new adult believers at our church.

For the Bible-believing liberal, all means are neutral even understating or overstating some truths. The mission (and its apparent success) justifies it. George Barna likewise urges the Church,

It is critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principal of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign our message has to be adapted to the needs of the audience.

Therefore, Barna sees anything but the most pragmatic concerns as a waste of time:

it behooves us to not waste time bickering about techniques and processes, but to study methods by which we can glorify our King and comply with the Great Commission.

And C. Peter Wagner, father of the church growth movement, agrees:

we ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method. If, on the other hand, my method is not accomplishing the goal, how can I be justified in continuing to use it?

Among Bible-believing liberals the mission not only justifies whatever approach seems to work, it also serves as a convenient way to discredit critics. Mark Mittelberg describes those who raise concerns about the means:

For a variety of reasons, some people will be unable to go along with you and the other leaders in your efforts to reach lost people. There are some people who profess to be Christians yet who dont care one whit about people outside Gods family. They are typically self-centered people who think that the church revolves around them and exists solely to meet their needs, and everyone else can go to hell literally.

The Bible-believing liberal says, I am justified in using whatever means I deem necessary to carry out the churchs mission. If you oppose my means, you are opposing the mission.

John Shelby Spong, perhaps the most liberal Christian liberal alive today, writes:

The language of original sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for so long that it has achieved the status of sacred mantra. In light of new circumstances, it is merely adjusted, never reconsidered. Yet, upon closer inspection, these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is no longer operative.

Joel Osteen, a Bible-believing Christian and pastor of the largest megachurch in America, says the same thing in simpler language:

Weve heard a lot about the judgment of God and what we cant do and whats going to keep us out of heaven. But its time people start hearing about the goodness of God, about a God that loves them.A God that believes in them. A God that wants to help them.

Spong wants to do away with the concept of sin altogether. Osteen simply wants to stop taking about it. Instead, Osteen wants to emphasize the goodness of God:

God wants us to have healthy, positive self-images, to see ourselves as priceless treasures. He wants us to feel good about ourselves. God knows were not perfect, that we all have faults and weaknesses; that we all make mistakes. But the good news is, God loves us anyway.

And why does the perfect and holy God love us with all our faults and weaknesses? Is it because Jesus lived a perfect life and died a perfect death in our place? No

His love for you is based on what you are, not on what you do. He created you as a unique individual there has never been, nor will there ever be, another person exactly like you Moreover, God sees you as a champion. He believes in you even more than you believe in yourself!

Apparently for Joel Osteen, sin is simply not a problem for God, or for us. Bill Hybels, on the other hand, certainly believes that sin is a problem. But what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice. When an internal survey of Willow Creek members revealed that large percentages of singles (25 percent of singles, 38 percent of single parents, and 41 percent of divorced individuals) admitted having illicit sexual relations in the last six months, Hybels failed to focus on the seriousness of sin:

Hybels did not call the congregation to repent for their rebellion against a holy God. Instead he emphasized Gods compassionate love: We are a love-starved people, with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only he can give long-term. We need to bring our brokenness out into the light of his grace and truth.

Yes, the members in the survey certainly might have been loved-starved people, with broken hearts, but they were also fornicators. When Bible-believing liberals dilute the Bibles message of sin, they also dilute the Bibles message of salvation. The Gospel gets reduced to God loves you. Hybels gospel often sounds largely therapeutic:

God satisfies. He does something for us and in us that we cant do for ourselves. God meets inner needs. He quiets restlessness and turmoil. He ministers to longings. He soothes wounds. He calms fears. He satisfies our souls.

All of this is true, of course, but its not the whole truth. Whats missing? In this gospel, we are presented as unsatisfied, unable, needy, restless, longing, wounded and fearful, but not sinful. This is a gospel without sin.

A gospel without sin satisfies sinners, but doesnt save them. A gospel without sin requires a God Who is merely good, not gracious and forgiving. A gospel without sin requires a Jesus who is merely sympathetic, not our substitute at the Cross. A gospel without sin is a gospel wherein Christ crucified is unnecessary. John Shelby Spong realizes this; he has done away the Cross. Maybe this is why Bible-believing liberals are doing away with it too.

The God loves you gospel is a gospel that any liberal could love. By contrast, here is what St. Paul says,

Continued here:
Bible Believing Liberals, by Todd Wilken

Liberalism can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from Classical liberalism. In this article the American political platform referred to as "liberal" within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in Europe and in other parliamentary democratic systems.

In the U.S. the word liberal is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the Democratic Party, that is, support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism, emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent, these days increasingly radical) rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper justification for law.

The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society." It also should be noted that a good portion of the Liberal economic philosophy has certain roots in the teachings of Karl Marx, such as the overall focus on social equality and the outrageous rejection of the Judeo-Christian morals. It should be noted, however, that Liberals are not pureblood communists: Unlike their redder brethren, Liberals are far more insidious and dangerous, as they have successfully infiltrated the American society and now threaten the American way of life.

The Democratic Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the civil rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

In Europe, liberalism refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to classical liberalism, and is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Because of this, the terms "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism", which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. "Conservative liberalism" simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as "law-and-order liberalism." Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American Republican Party. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the civil rights movement, when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the liberal Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism

The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.[9]

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.[10]

See also: Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

Link:
Liberalism - Conservapedia

The latest tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail suggests the Liberals have a seven-point lead in the closing week of the federal election campaign.

Numbers released on Oct. 14 show:

Respondents were asked: "If a federal election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences?"

Nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail, released Oct. 14. (Nanos Research)

If Canadians were voting today, the most recent results suggest they would elect a Liberal minority government, pollster Nik Nanos told CTV News Channel on Wednesday.

"With a seven-point advantage, the Liberals are in very good shape," he said. "However, there's five days left and a lot could happen."

With the campaign in its final stretch, Nanos said it will be a challenge for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to close the gap between his party and the Liberals.

"Realistically, last week was the most important week for the ad campaign because we know that people make their decision over the holiday weekend," he said. "The numbers decidedly moved in favour of the Liberals last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday."

The late shift towards Liberal support means that Harper needs more than a well-run campaign to take the lead, Nanos said.

"He needs some massive, major misstep from either the Liberal campaign or (Liberal Leader) Justin Trudeau to try and turn the current trend."

Nanos said the NDP also faces an uphill battle in the coming five days.

After a strong start to the campaign, the party has fallen to third place in the most recent Nanos tracking, almost 12 percentage points behind the Liberals.

"The story for the NDP has been that there was a lot of good will on the front end of the campaign, but as it looked like the Liberals were the only party to challenge the Conservatives, people strategically voted," Nanos said.

"So it's not a repudiation on Thomas Mulcair and the NDP, just people seeing the Liberals as the vehicle for change."

Poll methodology

A national dual-frame (land and cell) random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign using live agents. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample composed of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error 1,096 decided voters is 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Regional Races:

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, while the Conservatives have the lead in the Prairie provinces.

According to Nanos, the Liberals' Ontario advantage could significantly impact the election results.

"We call it a killer province in terms of the outcome of the election," Nanos said on Wednesday. "Ontario made Stephen Harper a majority government last time, and right now the Liberals have a 12-point advantage."

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the latest numbers show a tight race between the NDP and Liberals.

Nanos said the Quebec tie is the result of a "massive drop" in support for the NDP in the province.

Earlier in the campaign, the NDP was polling at approximately 50 per cent support in Quebec, Nanos said, but more recently the party's fallen to 32.6 per cent, while the Liberals are at 30.5 per cent in the province.

British Columbia is also locked in a tie, with the Conservatives and Liberals both hovering around 30 per cent.

But, Nanos said, the "party to watch" in British Columbia is the fourth-place Greens, who are currently at 13.9 per cent support in the province.

"They've been doing better in the last three or four days," he said. "Perhaps Elizabeth May might have a little company, a B.C. seat-mate."

The most recent regional numbers:

Full poll at Nanos Research

Follow @niknanos on Twitter

More:
Nanos tracking: Liberals have 7-point lead in campaign's ...

Adding to our earlier commentary Iven Plis writing at the Daily Caller reports:

Reporters Asked Pope Francis About Being Communist. Heres What He Said

And to the accusations of communism, Francis said that I havent said anything more than whats written in the social doctrine of the Church. If there are mistakes in his teaching, the pope said, they are an error of explanation, not a flaw in the teaching itself.

He joked that he could gladly clear up any misconceptions about his Catholic bona fides: If necessary, Ill recite the creed.

People are using his ill-informed words to advocate for flesh and blood policy matters on climate and economies. He cannot abjure responsibility and joke about the seriousness of getting it right and not sowing confusion.

Patriot Post writer Nate Jackson had this commentary, set forth in its entirety here with permission.

Francis Confuses Corporatism and Capitalism

Pope Francis arrived Tuesday for his first visit to the U.S. He will not only tour a Philadelphia prison and a Harlem school to showcase his trademark concern for the poor and downtrodden, but he will give the first-ever papal address to Congress Thursday on a range of topics. The political angle is that Democrats have finally found a pope with whom they can agree on the issues of climate and poverty all while ignoring traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the sanctity of life.

Francis arrived here by way of the Communist paradise poverty-stricken totalitarian island known as Cuba, where he spent four days and met not with dissidents but with Fidel Castro whom he reportedly thanked for his contributions to world peace. Notably, Francis arrived by plane, not by homemade raft on the shores of Florida as do many of the poor people fleeing Cubas oppressive regime for the Land of Liberty.

Indeed, if Francis truly cares for the poor, he showed it quite poorly in this instance.

Of capitalism in general, he said in his recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Such an economy kills.

Its no wonder he has an eager audience in the Democrats and Castros of the world.

But its important to understand that Francis views on capitalism are informed by his experience in his home country of Argentina a nation beset with powerful families and businesses influential in government. In other words, its not the free market and its not capitalism. Its cronyism and corporatism.

Its also ironic, writes Thomas Sowell, considering Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions [Francis] is now promoting around the world.

God does warn His people about loving money, and greed and inequity are part of sinful human nature no matter the economic system. But which countrys poor are better off Cubas, Argentinas or Americas? The truth is that no economic system has done more than capitalism to lift the poor out of poverty.

Tyranny kills, not Liberty.

Furthermore, Jesus never told his followers to perform charity by giving their money to the Romans instead. Contrary to the assertions of far too many, Jesus was not a socialist He always preached individual responsibility for our brothers and sisters, not collective statist mandates.

In many respects, Francis care for the poor is welcome. All Christians ought to see every opportunity to help the disadvantaged among us. But its the popes methods we object to. He is a proponent at least tacitly of liberation theology, a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity born in South America in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology embraces collectivization, the subordination of the individual in favor of the group, and the forced redistribution of wealth and property without fair compensation. Furthermore, Marxism is profoundly anti-religion, making its blending with Christian teaching like mixing oil and water.

Its noteworthy that Francis has thus effectively reversed the position of John Paul II, who was a staunch opponent of such noxious theology, and, together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, brought down the Soviet Empire. Try to imagine John Paul glad-handing Fidel Castro while dissidents languished in prison.

On the subject of climate change, the onerous regulations and top-down government solutions favored by Francis and his fellow alarmist travelers (and we do mean travelers in fuel-burning jets all over the world) are exactly the policies that will hurt the poor the most.

In his recent encyclical, Francis declared, The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. He blames the problem on consumerism, corporate greed, overreliance on technology and the poisonous political atmosphere in and among many nations. He called for a radial change in how people conduct their political and economic affairs and suggested that the time has come for each of us to alter our individual lifestyles in response to climate issues.

But The Wall Street Journal retorts, Well, he should have seen East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the air in Beijing today. Coercive governments are the worst befoulers of the environment. Democratic capitalism has created the wealth and electoral consent to clean the air and water, and only continued economic growth will create the resources to deal with climate change if it does become a serious threat to the Earth.

Francis says, Humanity is called on to be aware of the need to change lifestyles, production and consumption because the world is filled with a culture of waste. Were all for using energy judiciously and curbing waste, but not under the pretense of a UN-Vatican mandate, which is essentially the prescription Francis gives.

In short, while Francis has authority over doctrinal issues in his own church, his message on climate and economics is dead wrong and it should be rejected.

R Mall

Originally posted here:
Veritaspac.com | Defeating liberals /advocating a ...

New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer stole the headlines and put the White House on the defensive when he said he would vote against President Barack Obamas nuclear agreement with Iran.

But Obamas backstop in the House, where the Democratic Caucus is dominated by liberals, is holding firm.

Close to 40 House Democrats have come out in favor of the deal since it was first announced in mid-July, while 16 senators have voiced their support. And there are dozens of additional Democrats whove signaled in interviews and statements that they are inclined to back Obamas deal, which aims to stop Tehrans development of a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Most notably, not one of the 151 House Democrats who signed a May letter in support of the broad outlines of the agreement have announced opposition to the final product.

Obama needs at least 144 House Democrats to stick by him to sustain a veto of any GOP legislation that would undermine or dismantle the deal with Iran.

Growing Democratic support comes despite fierce opposition from Republicans and a huge, multimillion dollar effort by anti-deal groups like the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Republicans are planning to pass legislation this September that would disapprove of the deal and prevent the lifting of key sanctions, a move that would scuttle the agreement.

And opposition from Schumer is a significant blow for the administration, given his power and prominence in the party hes expected to be the leader of the Democratic Caucus after Harry Reid retires at the end of this Congress. But Schumers not expected to push other Democrats to oppose the deal. And even if enough swing Democrats followed Schumer and threatened to override a veto, the House would still serve as a bulwark for the agreement.

In the House, recent endorsements have come from the liberal wing of the party, including California Reps. Lois Capps, Doris Matsui and Mark Takano. Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz also announced his support this week.

This deal gives us the best chance we have had in years to halt the Iranian nuclear program, Walz said on Tuesday. It dismantles the progress they have made and opens up the country to strict inspections.

On Wednesday, Massachusetts Rep. Niki Tsongas voiced her support.

The consequences of rejecting this deal cannot be underestimated, leaving the United States isolated with no leverage and weakened alliances and credibility. Iran, already a nuclear threshold state, would be left unchecked with no reason to hold back its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Tsongas said.

So far, only nine House Democrats have come out against the deal but that number is likely to edge up slightly by the time the House holds its September vote. And Schumers opposition is a setback, particularly given how tight the Senate vote is expected to be.

POLITICO reported this week that Schumer has called 20 to 30 Democrats since he announced his opposition last week to explain why he cant support the deal. Sources said, however, that Schumer is promising not to whip lawmakers against the agreement.

And even Democrats who support the deal had some reservations; Matsui and Takano included broad criticisms of the deals framework in their announcements of support.

The deal is not perfect. No diplomatic endeavor ever results in an agreement wherein one side or the other gets everything it hoped for, Takano said. Iran has broken previous agreements, and we should be under no illusion that this deal means that they are now trustworthy or our friends.

But Takano added that having had family members affected by the atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II made him inclined to support the deal.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is more than sound policy; it is a moral imperative, he said.

The House and Senate are both expected to take up resolutions disapproving of the deal in mid-September when Congress returns from its five-week recess. The measures will likely pass, with nearly unanimous Republican support and some Democrats as well.

Obama has pledged to veto any legislation that stops the agreement from moving forward. It would then fall to either House or Senate Democrats to sustain that veto. Senior staffers in the House have predicted for weeks that lawmakers have the numbers to back Obama and prevent an override of his veto.

House lawmakers currently on record opposing the deal include Steve Israel of New York a leading Jewish lawmaker and Nita Lowey, Eliot Engel, Grace Meng and Kathleen Rice of New York, Albio Sires of New Jersey, Ted Deutch of Florida and Juan Vargas of California.

Iran is a grave threat to international stability. It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges, Engel said last week. We can have no doubt about the malevolent intent of a countrys leaders who chant Death to America and Death to Israel just days after concluding a deal.

Many lawmakers, including influential leaders, are still keeping their positions quiet. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is leading the whip operation for the deal in the House but her top lieutenants, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra are both publicly undecided.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, traveled to Israel over the August recess with a group of House Democrats and Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. On their visit, the lawmakers met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an ardent critic of the deal.

Hoyer didnt make any comments on the nuclear agreement while in Israel but released a jointly authored statement with McCarthy on Wednesday underlining congressional support for Israels security.

As we visited the towns of Ashkelon and Sderot near Gaza, we saw firsthand that without the Iron Dome, many more people would have lost their lives, the joint statement read. Congress stands united with Israel, not only in support of its Iron Dome defenses, but also in preserving Israels security and ensuring the safety of its people. In these dangerous times, Israel can always be certain that the American people are by their side.

Continue reading here:
Liberals poised to give Barack Obama a win on Iran - POLITICO