SPEAK NOW or forever hold your peace ... Net Neutrailty set to pass in Congress.

'Net Neutrality' Rules Set to Pass

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—The top communications regulator won support to pass contentious new rules for Internet traffic, a move likely to face legal challenges and create uncertainty about Internet regulation.


The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.


The Federal Communications Commission is set to approve on Tuesday Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposed rules governing net neutrality—a concept aimed at preventing Internet providers from interfering with web traffic.


The rules are expected to bar providers from discriminating against legal Internet traffic and require more transparency. They also would let broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services.


Net neutrality has become a contentious issue as worries grow that large phone and cable companies are growing too powerful as Internet gatekeepers. Start-ups and small businesses that rely on the Internet to provide shopping, information or other services to consumers are particularly concerned.


FCC's Julius Genachowski won support to pass contentious new rules for Internet traffic.


The FCC has wanted to step in and act as an Internet traffic cop, but Congress has never given it clear authority to do so.


"We must take action to protect consumers against price hikes and closed access to the Internet—and our proposed framework is designed to do just that: to guard against these risks while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a blog post this month.


The proposal has split the five-member FCC board. The two Republican members say the proposed rules impose an unneeded burden and will discourage broadband investment.


Mr. Genachowski's two Democratic colleagues said his plan didn't go far enough, particularly on rules covering wireless networks, but agreed


The proposed rules are expected to provide some new protections for consumers, such as a guarantee that they can access legal websites, and require providers to give more data on Internet speeds and service.


The rules include fewer restrictions on wireless broadband networks.


Phone and cable companies have offered some praise, as have some venture capitalists, including John Doerr, who called it "pragmatic balance of innovation, economic growth and crucial investment in the Internet."


For the most part, phone and cable companies have said they didn't want new rules on Internet lines. But they have mostly backed AT&T Inc.'s push to compromise with Mr. Genachowski.


Liberal activists and some consumer advocates have sharply criticized the proposal, saying it allows too much leeway to big broadband providers and falls well short of promises made by President Barack Obama, including limits on how the rules apply to mobile broadband networks.


"The chairman seems more willing to work with the companies he's supposed to be regulating than his fellow commissioners at the FCC," said Joel Kelsey, political advisor for Free Press, a public advocacy group.


Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) wrote on a blog Monday that "grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we've been had" and that the proposal was "worse than nothing."


Republicans are vowing a fight. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Texas) wants to cut off FCC funding to enforce the rules. House GOP lawmakers plan hearings and legislation to overturn the FCC's planned rules.


The rules are also expected to be challenged in court. Similar rules proposed by the agency in 2005 were thrown out by a federal appeals court in April.


In April, a federal appeals court tossed the FCC's first effort to enforce net neutrality rules, saying the agency hadn't justified its authority to act. The current proposal is expected to use a similar argument to the one used in the April case.


In May, the FCC's general counsel said using a variation on the same argument was "a recipe for prolonged uncertainty" but FCC lawyers now say upon further consideration, they believe their plan will withstand challenge.


Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704610904576032033563531432.html#ixzz19YNf3up8

IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: Fallout from DADT Decision ...

Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination

Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military

Posted: December 24, 2010 @ 7:40 pm Eastern By Brian Fitzpatrick – World Net Daily

An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.


Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.


Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"


The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:


Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy


1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.


2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."


"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.


The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.


"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.


Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.


"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.


"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."


Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.


"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."


The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:


"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."


As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.


The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.


"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."


Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.

Student Loans - Financal Aid or Government Pyramid Scheme?

Like many, I had to take out a student loan to help pay for college.  Now, at the time, I thought it was my only option - I was wrong.  Then, after I graduated, Sallie Mae said they could help me out by deferring my payments until I "got on my feet" - Wasn't that nice?  They also let me consolidate all of my "little" loans into one over-arching loan ... that way it was less confusing.  What they did not tell me was that the one over-arching loan was refinanced at a 9% interest rate and I had no option to adjust that rate ... Shame on me, I didn't do my homework and now I am dealing with the consequences - it was my responsibility, but I allowed for Big Brother to take care of it - never again!  If you are like me or are about ready to enter the college scene - I encourage you to read the following article ....

16 Shocking Facts About The Student Loan Debt Bubble And The Great College Education Scam http://endoftheamericandream.com/

As you read this, there are over 18 million students enrolled at the nearly 5,000 colleges and universities currently in operation across the United States. Many of these institutions of higher learning are now charging $20,000, $30,000 or even $40,000 a year for tuition and fees. That does not even count living expenses. Today it is 400% more expensive to go to college in the United States than it was just 30 years ago. Most of these 18 million students have been told over and over that a "higher education" is the key to getting a good job and living the American Dream. They have been told not to worry about how much it costs and that there is plenty of financial aid (mostly made up of loans) available. Now our economy is facing the biggest student loan debt bubble in the history of the world, and when our new college graduates enter the "real world" they are finding out that the good jobs they were promised are very few and far between. As millions of Americans wake up and start realizing that the tens of thousands of dollars that they have poured into their college educations was mostly a waste, will the great college education scam finally be exposed?


For now, the system continues to push the notion that a college education is the key to a good future and that there is plenty of "financial aid" out there for everyone that wants to go to college.


Recently, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited students at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia and encouraged them to load up on college loans....


"Please apply for our financial aid. We want to give you money. There’s lots of money out there for you."


So where will Arne Duncan be when those students find themselves locked into decades of absolutely suffocating student loan debt repayments?


What young high school students are never told is that not even bankruptcy can get you out of student loan debt. It will stay with you forever until you finally pay it off.


Today each new crop of optimistic college graduates quickly discovers that there are simply not nearly enough jobs for all of them. Thousands upon thousands of them end up waiting tables or stocking the shelves at retail stores. Many of them end up deeply bitter as they find themselves barely able to survive and yet saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that nobody ever warned them about.


Sadly, the quality of the education that most of these college students is receiving is a complete and total joke.


Take it from someone that has graduated from a couple of very highly respected institutions. I have an undergraduate degree, a law degree and another degree on top of that, so I know what I am talking about. Higher education in America has become so dumbed-down that the family dog could literally pass most college courses.


It is an absolute joke. The vast majority of college students in America spend two to four hours a day in the classroom and maybe an hour or two outside the classroom studying. The remainder of the time these "students" are out drinking beer, partying, chasing after sex partners, going to sporting events, playing video games, hanging out with friends, chatting on Facebook or getting into trouble. When they say that college is the most fun that most people will ever have in their lives they mean it. It is basically one huge party.


Of the little "education" that actually does go on, so much of it is so dedicated to pushing various social engineering agendas that it makes the whole process virtually worthless. Most parents would be absolutely shocked if they could actually see the kind of "indoctrination" that goes on inside U.S. college classrooms today.


A college education can be worth it for those in very highly technical or very highly scientific fields, or for those wanting to enter one of the very few fields that is still very financially lucrative, but for nearly everyone else it is just one big money-making scam.


Oh, but you parents please keep breaking your backs to put money into the college funds of your children so that they can be spoon-fed establishment propaganda all day and party like wild animals all night for four years.


It really is a huge scam. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.


But if you will not believe me, perhaps you will believe some cold, hard statistics. The following are 16 shocking facts about the student loan debt bubble and the great college education scam....


#1 Americans now owe more than $875 billion on student loans, which is more than the total amount that Americans owe on their credit cards.


#2 Since 1982, the cost of medical care in the United States has gone up over 200%, which is horrific, but that is nothing compared to the cost of college tuition which has gone up by more than 400%.


#3 The typical U.S. college student spends less than 30 hours a week on academics.


#4 The unemployment rate for college graduates under the age of 25 is over 9 percent.


#5 There are about two million recent college graduates that are currently unemployed.


#6 Approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loans.


#7 In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees.


#8 The Project on Student Debt estimates that 206,000 Americans graduated from college with more than $40,000 in student loan debt during 2008.


#9 In the United States today, 24.5 percent of all retail salespersons have a college degree.


#10 Total student loan debt in the United States is now increasing at a rate of approximately $2,853.88 per second.


#11 There are 365,000 cashiers in the United States today that have college degrees.


#12 Starting salaries for college graduates across the United States are down in 2010.


#13 In 1992, there were 5.1 million "underemployed" college graduates in the United States. In 2008, there were 17 million "underemployed" college graduates in the United States.


#14 In the United States today, over 18,000 parking lot attendants have college degrees.


#15 Federal statistics reveal that only 36 percent of the full-time students who began college in 2001 received a bachelor's degree within four years.


#16 According to a recent survey by Twentysomething Inc., a staggering 85 percent of college seniors planned to move back home after graduation last May.

DADT: Read the Fine Print ...

Post Now Admits Open Gays Can NOT Join Military

BY Cliff Kincaid

December 21. 2010

The law that was passed says the homosexual exclusion policy can only be lifted if it can be demonstrated by military authorities that the change will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

Only two days after it proclaimed the end of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy, The Washington Post is now admitting that open homosexuals can NOT join the military services. “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ ban on gays won’t change immediately,” was the headline over the article in the print edition of the paper. The on-line version was different. It said “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repealed: What’s next?”

As previously noted by Accuracy in Media, the votes in Congress to “repeal” the policy have not actually repealed it. The law that was passed says the homosexual exclusion policy can only be lifted if it can be demonstrated by military authorities that the change will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

“On Monday, Pentagon officials repeatedly declined to predict how long they would need, saying only that they would proceed at a ‘methodical’ and ‘deliberate’ pace,” the Post is now saying.

An Associated Press story noted that defense officials must certify that “the change will not damage combat readiness.” AP noted that Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwarz told the troops that “the current law remains in effect.”

Indeed, AP reported that Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan “stressed that the ban on open service is still in effect, and any service member who decided to declare he or she was gay would risk enforcement of the current law—which calls for removal from service.”

In order to secure the vote of Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “neither he [Admiral Mullen] nor I would sign a certification until we were satisfied, after having consulted with each of the Service Chiefs and Combatant Commanders, that risks to combat readiness, unit cohesion, and effectiveness had, in fact, been mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible for all Services, commands, and units.”

The law, however, specifically states that the changes must be “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.” The option of changing the policy as long as the negative impact is just “mitigated” is not there.

Senator Webb, a highly-decorated combat Marine in Vietnam and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, voted for the “repeal” anyway.

In a statement opposing the overturning of the homosexual exclusion policy, Jimmie L. Foster, national commander of The American Legion, said that “The American Legion remains convinced a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ cannot be easily implemented and could compromise the effectiveness of crucially needed fighting forces.”

It is now apparent that the new policy cannot be easily implemented without major negative consequences. Which means that it will be practically impossible for Gates and Mullen to truthfully certify that the change will not undermine military order, recruiting, and retention.

DADT - It's not too late ...

The Headlines Are Wrong: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Has Not Been Repealed

By Cliff Kincaid - Accuracy in Media

The headlines said that the Pentagon's homosexual exclusion policy had been repealed. "'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed by Senate; bill awaits Obama's signing," was the headline over the front page article in The Washington Post by Ed O'Keefe.

But the article went on to note, in the 22 paragraph, that top military leaders must find or certify that changes to the current policy "must not affect troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention." How is this possible when Marine Commandant General Jim Amos has already said that the changes would cost lives?

Calling repeal a major distraction, Amos said, "I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."


The Post went on, "Even after the finding, lawmakers will be able to hold hearings for two months to review the Pentagon's policies and procedures for accepting openly gay troops, according to congressional aides familiar with the matter."
This leaves open the door for Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to hold hearings. McKeon opposes repeal and praised Amos for his comments.


McKeon had told reporters that he wanted to hold hearings that would include rank-and-file service members along with military leaders. "I would really like to hear from battlefield commanders," McKeon said. "I would like to hear from battalion commanders, I would like to hear from company commanders on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq to see what their feelings are."


The New York Times story on the "repeal" simply noted, "The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal 'consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.'"


The "procedural steps" that are part of the bill give the new conservative-controlled House an opportunity to derail the repeal policy.


In terms of recruiting, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness points out that the Pentagon survey of the troops found that if open homosexuals were admitted, 32 percent of Marines said they would leave the service sooner than planned, and 16.2 percent would consider an early end to their careers. Among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4 percent would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6 percent would think about leaving.


These losses "could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force," Donnelly points out.
So will Congress approve the changes, knowing that they could result in the return of the military draft?


As the Times indicates, the specific language of the bill is that the repeal must be "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces."
The burden is on the gay rights lobby to prove that the changes would have no negative effect on any of the above. How can they prove such a thing when the Pentagon has already concluded that the change is risky and faces opposition from as many as 60 percent of our combat troops?


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

START Treaty 2010 - beginnings of the 2nd COLD WAR?

VISIT http://33-minutes.com/ FOR MORE INFORMATION

Is It Negative and Unbiblical to Name False Teachers by Brannon Howse

After our Worldview Weekend Rally in Rockford, Illinois on Sunday night November 21, 2010, we were informed that the church we had been renting for the past few years does not want us to return. What is really sad is this is the church in which my wife grew up and has included five generations of her family dating back to her great grandparents on both sides of her family. One set of great grandparents were two of the original 13 founders of this church.

At the conclusion of our November 21, 2010, Rockford Worldview Weekend we were told that three months before the rally the church staff had voted for Worldview Weekend not to return in 2011 because our 2009 rally was thought by some of the church staff to be too negative and that it was inappropriate to name the name of false teachers.

I asked what their senior pastor thought about that evening's Worldview Weekend Rally but was informed that the senior pastor had chosen not to attend the conference.


Please understand that I am not going to name the church because those that attended the conference and live in the area know the church of which I speak. I am not writing this article because of some kind of personal offense but to highlight how Biblical truth has become an offense to most of America's churches.


Many such churches would claim to love truth but what they really love is a man-centered Christianity that helps them obtain success in their marriage, finances, family, and a positive attitude that produces health and a successful personal life without the pain of dying to self, picking up the Cross of Christ and being persecuted for proclaiming Truth.


II Timothy 4:3 tells us that many Christians will only want to hear what makes them feel good and appeals to their flesh; "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."


The 2009 speakers that joined me for the Worldview Weekend Rally in Rockford, Illinois included me, Dr. Erwin Lutzer and Dr. David Reagan.

In my 2009 presentation I spoke on the topic of my book Grave Influence and I did name such Emergent Church, false teachers as Pastor Brian McLaren who has said the cross and hell is false advertising for God. I named Pastor Bill Hybels that signed the Yale document that states that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Hybels has also had Brian McLaren at his church. I also mentioned Pastor Rick Warren who sits on the advisory board of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation that seeks to bring the religions of the world together. I also named Pastor Rob Bell who has proclaimed an abundance of heresy and who has also spoken as Bill Hybel's church. I spoke on why pagan spirituality was doubling in America every eighteen months and how many New Age practices had come into the churches of America such as "Christian" yoga and contemplative prayer. I explained how Christian could proclaim the Gospel to a postmodern culture that has become more interested in spirituality than theology. I also warned last year, as I did this year, that many churches are being compromised from within by church staff that do not adhere to the Biblical mandates and purposes of a New Testament church and are an inch deep and a mile wide in their doctrinal and theological understanding and commitment. I warned that the remnant should understand that our greatest opposition would not come from the government but from those that have the title "reverend" or "pastor" in front of their name. Click here to hear a few minutes of the presentation I presented at this church in 2009.


In 2009, Dr. Lutzer spoke on seven lessons America should learn from Nazi Germany and Dr. Reagan spoke on 50 signs we are living in the last days. All three of us used a lot of scripture to equip those in attendance to understand the times and know what God would have them to respond.


Worldview Weekend is thankful for the churches that will allow us to rent their buildings but the increasing trend is that we are being forced to rent more and more hotel ballrooms because so few churches have leaders, staff, and pastors that have clear discernment, real courage under fire, and an unwavering commitment to Biblical truth in an age of non-judgmentalism, tolerance, and Christian happy talk.


No one ever said being a watchman on the wall that warns of impending danger was going to be a popular job but if popularity is what we seek then we are not seeking to be faithful to the One we serve and thus we have failed in our calling.


Warning the church of emerging dangerous, unbiblical trends, false teachers, a false gospel, and unbiblical theology and doctrine has now become negative in the eyes of many of today's hirelings. Jesus Himself told us that we would see those that claim to be shepherds/pastors that really have little concern for the sheep. In John 10:11-13 we read:


I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.


Listen to this audio of Pastor John MacArthur as he explains how Jesus named the names of false teachers and how this is the job of all Biblically minded Christians and true shepherds. In this audio clip Pastor MacArthur calls out Rick Warren by name for teaching a false gospel.

Worldview Weekend will not be deterred in speaking truth no matter how unpopular it becomes with individuals or members of a church staff.

Needless to say, I was concerned how my wife would respond to this criticism since she was raised in this church. Her response revealed to me, once again, how blessed I am that God gave Melissa to me as a helpmate. Melissa's response was "why are you surprised, you knew this church was becoming increasingly liberal over the past few years. I was shocked they let Worldview Weekend return for the 2010 rally."

Melissa encouraged me to shake the dust from my shoes and go out and find a hotel ballroom. She also encouraged me to continue to bring the Worldview Weekend to Rockford because of all the people, including life-long friends, that come up to her at the resource table to express their thankfulness that Worldview Weekend returns to Rockford, IL each year.


In fact, that night, while standing behind our resource table, a medical doctor, that is a member of this church, handed my wife a letter he had written to his children after last year's Worldview Weekend in Rockford. In his letter he wrote in part:
…I attended a Worldview Weekend Rally at [name of church removed] on Sunday evening, November 22nd, and found it to be very helpful, informative, stimulating and timely."

This father went on to recommend that his children read some of the books written by the speakers.
At this point in time, all three books impress me as being coherent, credible, plausible, relevant, responsible, strategic and timely. I believe that they qualify as priority reading for serous Christian believers and church leaders who need and want to be alert to the crucial times in which we and our families are living."

This letter reveals a common response and a common problem that I have seen all across America-lay leaders that are more Biblically grounded, discerning, and committed to Biblical truth than some of their own church staff.
The Worldview Weekend in Rockford was held at another location a few years ago and has consistently had a large attendance regardless of where it is held. Thus, if you live in or near Rockford please know we will return and have already secured a hotel ballroom for the November 2011 Worldview Weekend Rally in Rockford, IL.


Let me answer the question of our article. Is it negative and unbiblical to name false teachers? The Bible is filled with examples of Jesus and others naming false teachers by name. For example, the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy names numerous people by name.

2 Timothy 1:15: Phygellus and Hermogenes


2 Timothy 2:17: Mymenaeus and Philetus


2 Timothy 3:8: Jannes and Jambress


2 Timothy 4:10: Demas


2 Timothy 4:14: Alexander the coppersmith


In III John 9, John named Diotrephes.


Jesus called out the false teachers in Matthew 23 and Luke 11.


I truly believe that one reason why God allows false teachers is to provide believers with a test of whether they will be faithful in their Biblical mandate to expose false teachers and thus protect the sheep from the spiritual poison of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Ephesians 5:11 makes it clear we are to expose false teachers; "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."  If a shepherd/pastor will not point out the wolves that are among the sheep then this should be a clear warning to the flock that the shepherd/pastor does not have their best interest in mind. Such a hireling is not called of God but is simply involved in an occupation for personal gain as revealed in I Timothy 6:5.


In addition, such non-shepherds are revealing that they are more interested in their reputation and being seen by the larger community as tolerant and non-judgmental as defined by the unsaved world. False teachers also give the sheep the opportunity to test the commitment of their shepherds/pastors. If the pastors/shepherds on your church staff fail this Biblical test then it is time for the leaders of the church to replace such hirelings with real shepherds. If this Biblical action is not taken, then it is time for you to find a new flock that has a shepherd that will alert the sheep to the spirituality immature and even wolves in sheep's clothing that are on his own church staff.


Show me a shepherd/pastor that will not name false teachers and I will show you a false teacher. Pastor Jim Bublitz gives further insight into the positive results that come when we name false teachers by name: From those words it is clear that God allows teachers of error for the same reason as He does persecutors of His people: to test their love, to try their fidelity, to show that their loyalty to him is such that they will not give ear unto His enemies. Error has always been more popular than the Truth, for it lets down the bars and fosters fleshly indulgence, but for that very reason it is obnoxious to the godly.

The one who by grace can say "I have chosen the way of Truth" will be able to add "I have stuck unto Thy testimonies" (Psalm 119:30, 31), none being able to move him therefrom. "For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." (1 Corinthians 11:19). Committed Christians must publically name false teachers because it is impossible to privately correct public false teaching.


This fall I received an e-mail from a young lady that is a junior in high school near Atlanta, Georgia. In her e-mail she stated that because she had attended two Worldview Weekend Rallies in Atlanta and heard me expose the false teaching of emergent Pastor Rob Bell, she had been equipped to reject his false teaching when a Bible study group at her Christian school decided to read one of his books. She informed me that she immediately recognized the name of Rob Bell and remembered what I had spoken. This young lady had the courage and conviction to politely hand the book back to the group and to warn them of Bell's false teaching.

This young ladies testimony has come to my mind many times this fall and has been a real source of encouragement to me to continue to speak truth no matter how negative or offensive it may be to the non-discerning. If I had not named the name of Rob Bell, how would this student had known to reject his book and false doctrine? If I had not named the name of Rob Bell would this student now be spiritually deceived? If I had not named Rob Bell by name would she have been able to warn her peers to this spiritual poison?

The late Pastor Vance Havner wrote, "We live what we believe; the rest is religious talk." Living what we believe includes our willingness to name the name of false teachers and to endure the criticism and persecution that will surely follow. To do any less would be treason to our calling, to our mandate, to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. When we expose false teaching and false teachers we are proclaiming and defending the authority, accuracy, and application of God's Word; the very thing that false teachers seek to undermine.


Living what we believe requires speaking Biblical truth and Biblical warnings no matter how negative or offensive it may be to the spiritually immature, non-discerning or wolves that crept in among the sheep. Jude 3:1-4 commands all believers to contend for the faith that is under attack from false teachers.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Truth is never negative to those who seek to serve The Truth

FALSE TEACHERS: How should we respond?

Scripture to Consider ...

2 Timothy 1:15

2 Timothy 2:17

2 Timothy 3:8

2 Timothy 4:10

2 Timothy 4:14
III John 9
Matthew 23

Luke 11