A doctor struck up a conversation with a hard-working 75 year old rancher while suturing a mean cut on the old man's leathery hand. Eventually the topic got around to Obama.

The old rancher said, "Well, you know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'"

Unfamiliar with the term, the doctor asked him what he meant.

The old rancher replied, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'"

 

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued:

 

"You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of complete moron put him up there to begin with."

 

The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines an interface as “a point where two things meet and interact.” This brings us to the “mission statement” of this blog contained in my bio:

...seeking to explore the interface of science, technology, philosophy, theology and history (data) with current events (life), also known as, “where the rubber meets the road,” administered by a conservative Ph.D. in science with over three decades training and experience formulating, evaluating, and either verifying or abandoning his own theories based on the motto, “In God we trust...all others bring data,” or, as more eloquently stated by Daniel P. Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

I do not claim to be a master of all these areas, and you will rarely find an original thought here. Originality is not my forte. What you will find are original syntheses of data not necessarily linked together by others. Seeing and analyzing the connections between the ideas and concepts, the data found in these diverse arenas and the current events reported in the news and facing us individually and collectively, that is the strength (if strength there be) of this blog. A classic example of this kind of post is my recent well received essay entitled A Brave New 1984. Other blogs such as some of those on my blogroll to the right are more adept at aggregating news and specifically commenting on current affairs, and I usually rely on, and frequently simply point to, their work to find things which I can then weave into the logical and verbal tapestries to interpret and understand the underlying root causes. Thus, my emphasis is more on the “how to” of critical thinking and the various tools thereof.

As mentioned, I do frequently simply point to the work of those I consider wonderful anti-idiotarians (e.g., Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson), sometimes with a few comments of my own, when I consider their thoughts to be of particular saliency to the topic of discussion in the story. The choice of this material is, of course, my own subjective opinion, but I generally try to point to articles where the facts are front and center and specifically refute some liberal claim or favorite doctrine divorced from the data.

Of course, an essential survival skill of human relationships is a sense of humor, and I often post items of interest that fall into that old Reader’s Digest category (which is really a biblical category: cf. Proverbs 17:22) of Laughter, the Best Medicine.

The whole point of this post, therefore, is to take this opportunity to express my thanks, and provide for newer readers a little of an explanation for what I am trying to do here, a slightly expanded and more theological version of which may be found here. And for those newer readers who simply don’t have the time to search the archives of my previous posts, let me provide a “best of” list of my more original work, here for 2006, my first (um…quarter?) year of posting.

In The Fecklessness of Multiculturalism, I dissect out this suicidal ideology and discuss the consequences that multiculturalists don’t want you to think about. I have cross referenced this post several times in later posts.

One of my pet peeves is when people take Scripture and twist it to say the opposite of what it actually says so as to claim biblical authority for their own position. Liberals are great at this. In Applied Biblical Theology, Part 1, and then in Part 2, I gently dismember a liberal’s argument that we shouldn’t judge others and that the moral high ground is to let yourself be killed rather than to inflict death on others. Sorry, but you just can’t justify your stupidity with the Bible!

With The Enemy Within, I detail the documented goals of the Communist Party for this country…from the 1950’s. It is chilling to see how successful they’ve been. Then in Are You Crazy?! I “interview” a typical liberal responding to that post and the recent election results.

Finally, in Arrogance I obliterate the claims for secular humanism put out by a certain Center for Inquiry.

President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled.  This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion.  But Obama does not understand science.  "Settled science" is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterizes science as "settled" or "indisputable" is ignorant not only of science, but also history and philosophy.

Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known.  He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology.  Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years.  In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were "the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry."

Reasonable Reservations

Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed skeptical concerns.  But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle's dicta. The science was settled.

Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong.  He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously.  Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed.  The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo's contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus.

Galileo is better remembered today for clashing with the Catholic Church over the issue of whether or not the Earth was at the center of the universe.  An Earth-centered cosmology was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Eudoxus in the fourth century B.C.

Impious Aristarchus

About a hundred years later, an upstart named Aristarchus suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun. Aristarchus' system never proved popular, and he was criticized for being impious.  The Earth-centered system was finalized by Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D., and remained unchallenged until the sixteenth century.

Everyone knew that the science of astronomy had been settled "beyond dispute." When Galileo insisted that the Earth revolved around the sun, he was castigated by the church for advocating an idea that was not only heretical, but also "foolish and absurd in philosophy."

Late in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton demonstrated definitively that Aristotle's physics were incorrect.  He proposed the Law of Universal Gravitation, and explained how the planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits.  Newton is still regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He settled the science of motion in such a conclusive way that his system was referred to as an "invincible edifice."

But the edifice crumbled early in the twentieth century when Einstein showed that Newtonian physics break down as the speed of light is approached.  Near the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Neptunian School of geology taught that all rocks had formed by crystallization from a now-vanished universal ocean.  Although the evidence falsifying this theory was both plain and abundant, Neptunists interpreted every observation as supportive of their hypothesis.  Blinded by an immoderate zeal, they selected and magnified any fact in accordance with their theory, while neglecting those that tended to disprove it.  Robert Jameson characterized the evidence supporting Neptunism as "incontrovertible."  But the theory collapsed in a few decades, and today is recognized as an artifact of inexhaustible human folly.

The End Of History?

President Obama, a lawyer and politician, would now have us believe that the process of history has stopped.  For the first time, scientific knowledge is not provisional and subject to revision, but final and settled.  Skepticism, which has been the spur to all innovation and human progress, is unacceptable and must be condemned.  But in fact, it is our awareness of what we do not know that determines our scientific level.

Socrates was the wisest man, not because he knew more than others, but because he was the only one to recognize that he did not know.  Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit.

Psychologist Robert Cialdini wrote the seminal book on the Laws of Persuasion[1] in which he presents and discusses the prevalent methods of marketing. An important part of critical thinking entails a knowledge of these principles so that one is aware of when they are being used and can ascertain the validity of that use. Dr. Cialdini enumerates six principles or Laws of Persuasion as he calls them.

1-LAW OF RECIPROCITY

This law observes that people generally try to repay in kind what another person has provided to them. If someone gives you something, especially unsolicited, a sense of obligation is created to respond back somehow. We have probably all received those address labels in the mail from various non-profit organizations requesting a charitable donation. Feeling compelled to “return the favor” results in more donations.

This rule is appropriately used in negotiations when the ideas of fairness and equal exchange are on the table. The old adage of “give him a yard and he’ll take a mile” describes an inappropriate use: reciprocity implies a mutually agreed upon equality in whatever is exchanged; thus the other old saying, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

Many conflicts in human relationships occur when expectations of reciprocity go unfulfilled, especially when the party receiving the benefit refuses to recognize, or is totally ignorant of, the favor they received (for a biblical example, read 1 Samuel 25). Often the favor given is merely in the eyes of the one giving it and offense arises when the alleged recipient fails to acknowledge having received such a favor when, in fact, they received nothing of value to them in the first place. (The concept of gratitude is also related to this law but would require more discussion than is necessary for now.)

Interestingly, Christian ethics removes this potential source of conflict from human relationships by demanding the exact opposite behavior on the part of Christians, even to the point of how one treats one’s enemies:

And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.  But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High.  For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.  (Luke 6:34-35)

2-LAW OF COMMITMENT AND CONSISTENCY

People instinctively do not want to appear to be capricious and mercurial, but consistent in their thoughts, feelings, and actions, and so will resist change once their minds are made up or they have taken a stand, however small. All too often, this includes ignoring contrary facts and data and rationalizing one’s choices even when the evidence shows a mistake was made (pride and an unwillingness to admit a mistake frequently enters the picture here). In a marketing situation, once a commitment is made to a cause or product, however small, it then becomes easier to be convinced to increase that commitment.

Resistance to change is not necessarily bad, and change (“progress”) is not necessarily good. It truly depends on the extent to which the current situation conforms to reality versus that to which change is being advocated. (The current administration is initiating “change” with policies that have repeatedly failed throughout history, but apparently those failures are being willfully ignored in an incredible dissociation from reality, dooming us to a repetition of the disasters of history.) A very wise man once noted:

My son, fear the LORD and the king; do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring? (Proverbs 24:21-22)

An example of employing this law as a persuasion tactic is the use of a series of questions which lead the other side through “small” decisions step-by-step to only one obvious conclusion: to accept the general concession. Once you say “yes” to the first steps, it becomes increasingly more difficult to say “no” at the end of the question chain even if the final question would normally elicit a negative response. The key is making the steps small, with only one desirable response.

This method is not a necessarily a bad thing. Frequently, a logical argument needs to proceed in discrete steps to a final inevitable conclusion using data correctly extracted and applied, and using logic appropriately. The entrapment occurs when the logic is invalid or the data used is false or distorted by hidden premises in its use. A classic “neutral” example is the old mathematical “proof” that 2 equals 1:

Let a = b, then

Q.E.D.!!!

Each step in this “proof” is mathematically valid taken separately; you are either doing the same thing to both sides of the equation, or correctly rearranging the components of each side. Nevertheless, the obvious conclusion is equally obviously wrong to the point of absurdity (even in “new” math)! Why? Hidden in the “big picture” and this chain of “decisions” is a mathematical fact that invalidates one of the above operations, but it is subtly masked in a seemingly valid step so that you don’t see the error as you execute the step.[2]

This form of argumentation can be seen frequently coming from the Left. For example, gay activists, when they aren’t exploding in their “tolerant” invective, will use such arguments:

“You believe in family, right?”       

“Well, yes.”

“And families are made from marriages, right?”      

“Um, right.”

“And everyone should have equal rights, right?”

and since no one wants to appear so politically incorrect as to answer this question in the negative, this is often answered in the affirmative as well, which then let’s our activist set the hook with:

“Well, then, why can’t gay people have the right to be married? Don’t they have a right to a family? I thought you said you were for family?!”

Several invalid assumptions permeate this stream of argumentation, but one must be on one’s toes to catch them. It is not my purpose here to discuss this particular issue at length, but to briefly point out two of them: 1.) everyone does not, in fact, have equal rights; criminals have many rights removed from them; people with highly contagious diseases do not have the right to unlimited contact with the rest of humanity; children do not have (or at least should not have) equal rights with adults; etc., etc. and 2.) marriage is a necessary but not sufficient component in defining family; there involves much more, including the equal but different contribution by the members of both genders in the definition of family that has been in successful operation for millenia.

3-LAW OF LIKING

When you like someone, or you believe that they are “just like you,” you are more inclined to believe their assertions, to want to please them and, consequently to purchase whatever they are selling, be it a product or an ideology. This is why salesmen and politicians try to establish a rapport with potential buyers/voters with various antics, valid and invalid. Here is why testimonials from satisfied customers flood the airwaves: when someone just like you agrees that such and such is a good idea, or works wonders on their bathtub, then it must be a good idea/product, and don’t I want to be just like them and use it too?

This law can be seen in operation in the old “good cop, bad cop” routine, where one person in the other negotiating party is clearly opposed to your own objectives, but it appears that another of their team members is “on your side.” The average man sees this any time he wants to buy a car. “His” salesman really, really wants him to have this car, “but, ya know, that (mean) ole boss/manager, he just won’t let it go for any less money. So let me just try and see if I can get him to come down a little more.” And it’s all been choreographed before you ever set foot on the door!

While this may accurately describe how people in general operate, the law itself is actually useless in determining truth due to the susceptibility of individuals equally to deception and/or error. Just because your next door neighbor believes something works well doesn’t necessarily make it so, even for them. This is not to say that testimonials have no value, but the context in which they are given is critical in estimating their value. User reviews, especially in appreciable numbers (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6), in which the good, the bad, and the ugly of a product are put forth are of greater weight than those in commercials where the individuals giving the testimonials have likely been paid and thus have a conflict of interest in their framing of their report.

The tendency to overuse this principle leads to the “echo chamber” effect seen all too frequently in politics with those who refuse to acknowledge differences of opinion from their constituents, and in business when the boss surrounds himself with so-called “yes men” who never point out mistakes or problems with a course of action. Healthy debate requires at least a temporary a setting aside of this principle.

Another abuse of this principle is when the drive for “unity” demands ignoring critical differences in opinion, distortion of facts, and hiding underlying agendas. This strategy was used consistently and successfully by liberals in the beginning of the twentieth century as they slowly took over conservative seminaries and churches in this country.

4-LAW OF SCARCITY

This might be called the law of supply and demand in human interactions, for it points out that in situations of indecision, the instant the product becomes “the last one available” the urgency and “need to buy” ratchets up a notch or two whether we think about it or not. Since you have generally been considering buying it, or something like it, and short supply must originate in high demand, it seems to make it more likely that you will be unable to get another one quickly, or at all, if you decide you want it later. Here again the used car lot provides ample examples, where indecision leads the salesman to confide in you that several others have been looking at that same car, and even made offers on it, so if you don’t buy now, Now, NOW…it’ll be GONE, and you will kick yourself for the rest of your life for missing out on this deal! Anytime someone pressures you for a decision, this law comes into play, for one of our most valuable commodities is time.

This is why wisdom says:

The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, but those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.  (Proverbs 21:5)

and

Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.  (Proverbs 29:20)

The fact is that rarely does the situation really require an immediate decision (battlefields and hospital triage being notable exceptions). When you base your life and your decisions on an urgent feeling rather than rational thought, you are a gullible goose ready to be plucked and served up. Solomon described you like this:

Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls.  (Proverbs 25:28)

5-LAW OF AUTHORITY

Have you ever seen celebrity endorsements or “expert” testimonials? This is an appeal to authority to convince you that if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for you. Oh, and incidentally, if you use it, then you might even develop the good looks or acquire the wealth or fame that these individuals do as well. At least that is the subtext. (Just once I’d like to see the Marlboro Man in his hospital bed after he’s lost a lung and is spitting out the other and then see how romantic smoking cigarettes truly is.) Truth in advertising when the truth is really not as good as it sounds is often masked by using someone whose judgment we intuitively trust (whether or not it is well placed is another story) to give us the message that we really, really, need this product, or have to believe this message.

This principle embodies the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy because even “experts” can be mistaken or deceived. Authority is only as good as the level to which it conforms to the data and the underlying reality of that data. This is one reason I have used my own credentials only once on this blog (when my credentials impinged directly on my knowledge of the subject matter), and try to remain anonymous for the most part: I want my readers to interact with the data, the data analysis and the logic presented rather than my personality or education or experience. Ad hominem responses (and comments) are eschewed by this author and highly discouraged in the comments.

A classic example of this principle being used in the ideological realm is Carl Sagan and his evolutionary propaganda TV series Cosmos. Dr. Sagan was an astronomer, yet in that series, he asserts authority in multiple disciplines outside the area of his expertise simply because it fits his agenda.

Now, an astute reader of a leftist persuasion (such as Piker perhaps?) might ask, how does that differ from what I’m doing here on this blog? Aren’t I claiming an expertise in history, and theology, and a multiplicity of other disciplines outside my own area of training and experience? The not so subtle difference is:  I do not claim to be, or try to portray myself as, an expert in these fields, but as a researcher presenting data in these areas. As such, I seek to provide my sources and links to the original data so that the reader may judge for themselves the truth of my assertions, and I invite discussion, to what extent this venue permits, in the comments and additional posts. Correct me if and when I am wrong, but do so with facts, data, and sound and logical argumentation that goes to the point, not my personality (calling me a stupid doofus does not refute my argument, regardless of how much better it might make you feel).

6-LAW OF SOCIAL PROOF

This is just a fancy way of saying “peer pressure!” If others are engaging in a specific behavior, or believing a specific thing, then it must be the proper and right thing to do, right? An innocuous example: canned laugh tracks on TV sitcoms. They generally elicit audience laughter, and consequently higher ratings. When we aren’t sure what to do in any given situation, we tend to rely on others around us to guide our reaction.

Classic, and fun, examples of this are the psychological studies in which the old TV show, Candid Camera, would engage. These were so much more subtle and imaginative than the garbage you currently see on so-called “reality TV” these days. In one such study they looked at people in an elevator. The door opens and the subject enters. There are three other people in the car, and they are all looking at the ceiling…for no reason whatsoever. As the car moves, the subject slowly freaks out and almost invariably will end up joining the others staring at the ceiling for no reason whatsoever other than the social pressure of his peers in the car. They did the same with direction in which they were facing (everyone else facing the rear of the car, or the one side of the car). It was truly hilarious to see the expressions on the subject’s face as he or she processed the information of what the others were doing and tried to decide whether or not to join them!

Here is why we see the MSM trying to disparage, ignore, and downplay the recent TEA Parties: heaven forbid that the majority of Americans realize that they are in the majority and that the social consensus really doesn’t conform to the worldview of the MSM!

APPLICATION

The above principles of persuasion can be used for good or ill. Controlled, in the right context, and used for communicating truth, they are useful knowledge tools for the education of others. In the wrong hands and with the motives of deception and exploitation, they become the basis for unethical manipulation.

In an excellent recent analysis of how Obama and his campaign and current administration have used the methods outlined by Saul Alinsky submitted by our fellow Townhaller, Garnet92, we can see some examples of several of the above principles being used to deceive and exploit those who fail to realize the disconnect from reality that they are willingly embracing when following our The One over the cliff. (All quotes below are from this essay; put it on your list of posts to read…NOW!)

One of the more obvious ones is the use of the converse of the Law of Liking: if we tend to believe and follow those we like, then we will tend to disbelieve and reject those we don’t. Thus the Alinsky doctrine, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. There is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.” The principle operates on an emotive level, so objections based on logic and data will be less effectual in countering it unless one can get the subject to calm down and realize how irrationally emotional he is being. One has only to recall the MSM treatment of the candidates in the last election to see positive (for Obama) and negative (against any of his opponents) examples of this.

Another Alinsky doctrine is to stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies. The reason: “Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a massive movement is preparing to shift into high gear….” This is an attempt at using the Law of Social Proof.

Lastly, the idea of laughing at your enemy to provoke an irrational anger combines both the Law of Liking and the Law of Social Proof. The thought conveyed is that the one being ridiculed is different and not like you, and everyone else knows it so that we can only laugh and thus ignore any point, however true, that originates from that absurd source.

The Alinsky doctrines include much more, and seeing them described in comparison to Democratic strategies that have been used in the recent past right up to today is somewhat chilling. Garnet92’s point that we should start using the same strategies against them has considerable merit to the extent that we do not sink to their level of deception and manipulation but use them to unshackle the befuddled minds of their minions.

In conclusion, an awareness of the method someone is using to try to persuade us of something is necessary to discern whether or not there is validity to their use of those methods and to their position. If we are not to be bamboozled (technical term for being royally deceived and manipulated), it behooves us to know and recognize the tools of the trade.

This great YouTube video features some incredible skill and showmanship. It’s halftime at a basketball game between the Army and Navy academies. These colleges are fierce rivals. What could bring both sides to a standing ovation?

What about a team of girls jumping rope? [What??!?] The Firecrackers are a team of elementary and junior high girls from Ohio. And they’ve taken jumping rope to the extreme. Their skills have made them a sensation at sporting events. They’ve jumped in the Macy’s Day parade. They even had a spot on The Late Show with David Letterman.

The Firecrackers practice for two hours a day, five days a week. That’s on top of keeping their grades up. And each girl must pass an etiquette class to make the team. After watching this, you’ll see that they deserve every ovation they get.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
   --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, 6 April 1816

 

Merle D’Aubigne gives us some idea of the two sides:

Never had man appeared before so imposing an assembly. The Emperor Charles V., whose sovereignty extended over a great part of the old and new world; his brother the Archduke Ferdinand; six electors of the empire, most of whose descendents now wear the kingly crown; twenty-four dukes, the majority of whom were independent sovereigns over countries more or less extensive, and among whom were some whose names afterwards became formidable to the Reformation; the Duke of Alva and his two sons; eight margraves; thirty archbishops, bishops, and abbots; seven ambassadors, including those from the kings of France and England; the deputies of ten free cities; a great number of princes, counts, and sovereign barons; the papal nuncios; in all two hundred and four persons: such was the imposing court before which appeared Martin Luther.

The date, April 18^th, 1521. The place, Worms, Germany. Dr. Luther had been granted a safe conduct to appear and defend his writings, yet many still feared for his life. It was the end of extensive examinations and hostile questionings, with Dr. Luther being required to provide the answers in both German and Latin. Finally:

When he had ceased speaking, the Chancellor of Treves, the orator of the diet, said indignantly: “You have not answered the question put to you. You were not summoned hither to call in question the decisions of councils. You are required to give a clear and precise answer. Will you, or will you not, retract?” Upon this Luther replied without hesitation: “Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require from me a clear, simple, and precise answer, I will give you one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, -- unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, -- and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience.” And then, looking round on this assembly before which he stood, and which held his life in its hands, he said: “HERE I STAND, I CAN DO NO OTHER; MAY GOD HELP ME! AMEN!”

The assembly was thunderstruck. Many of the princes found it difficult to conceal their admiration. The emperor, recovering from his first impression, exclaimed: “This monk speaks with an intrepid heart and unshaken courage.”

This is truly speaking truth to power: when the power is so great it can extinguish you at its will, yet you speak the truth nonetheless. Not in recent history has anyone spoken thus in this country.

What was the significance of this act? The immediate impact:

The monk had vanquished these great ones of the earth. He had said no to the Church and to the empire.

Any student of history can tell you the significance of that. (Um, yes, this is the highly condensed version.)

The future impact: Luther initiated the Reformation, which spread to Calvin, who taught Knox who took it to Scotland. The Puritans picked it up there, and eventually were moved to depart England to a new world in search of religious freedom (among other things). Much of our freedoms and form of government (at least at the outset of this country) we owe to the Reformation. All because one man stood for truth and withstood seemingly impossible odds. The thing is, he was not alone despite appearances, for his God was with him all the way. (And, yes, this is even more condensed, skipping over much and making grand generalizations. Nevertheless, the core truth of the matter still holds.)

May I suggest that the same God is looking for men and women to stand in the gap today (Ezekiel 22:30), for truth is under assault still.