(Swindall left the air since this initial writing to pursue a prison ministry. Contact him at email@example.com for current ministry works and campaigning information.)
From Swindall’s website:
· In February, 1994, I began a one year prison sentence,
which I completed on
Today, I believe
that, just as God took Ezekiel behind the face of the
As a Christian, I know that God is sovereign and that everything that has happened to me is part of God’s permissive will for my life. I also know that in God’s economy, nothing is wasted. I am convinced that God has called me not only to point out the problems which threaten our nation’s future, but also to advocate Biblical solutions to these problems. It is to this end that Providence Broadcasting Network and "the Pat Swindall Show" are dedicated. (http: //www.pbcn.com /journey_facade.htm 1997, 1998 Providence Broadcasting Network)
The month following his release Swindall aired his first edition of the Pat Swindall Show. Throughout the broadcast he has focused on his God. No situation, whether world-wide, national, or local, escaped a biblical solution from Pat. Scarcely a political or religious issue arises he does not address. The show’s motto, "Where politics and religion converge" could not be more accurate.
As presented earlier, many political leaders desire a politically complacent citizenry. Many ignoble religious leaders benefit as well. Therefore, common American remarks such as, "Two things to never talk about are politics and religion," are widely accepted. Such complacency has produced the transformation from a constitutional republic (American Revolutionary War heroes shed blood to secure) to a socialized totalitarian nation. After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin, when asked what they had accomplished, commented, "...a constitutional republic, if you can keep it." 1 The American Republic provided the model for the world (the first in the world’s history! of such liberty and freedom.
The Pat Swindall Show presented the other side of news events. Persons skeptical of Swindall’s viewpoint would serve themselves and their country well by doing the following homework assignment. Examine mainstream publications, radio news, and television news for one week. Keep a tally sheet of how many articles end favoring a liberal ideal. Pay particular attention to phrases such as: "right (or left)-wing conspiracy," "religious (or atheist) fanatic," and "conservative (or liberal) extremist." Then tally them left and right. The student will be hard pressed to find references to "left-wing extremists."
Is it really possible no opposing extreme exists? Liberalism is the majority opinion. Can this liberal majority exist without extremists? Indeed, liberal extremists emerged from in between the lines of the liberally dominated media’s print via Swindall’s microphone. Some appeared as invited guests on the Show. Some of these guests even rationalize the behavior of accused and charged (and in some charges admitted) perjurer, traitor, womanizer, illegal drug user, murder conspirator William Jefferson Clinton. "President" is a misnomer.
A president can fraternize with his
nation’s enemies, perjure himself in court (Whitewater), snort cocaine (Boy
Clinton, 1997, by: Emmil Emmett, distributed by: National Book Network),
seemingly leave a trail of dead bodies that, if alive today, could ruin him
politically, and womanize to an extent he has already confessed. Yet this
president enjoys an average American’s complacent response such as,
"He’s a good president. The economy is good." Today’s
feminists "defend" their rights to independence, self-respect, ad
infinitum; yet they support a man in the White House who uses, degrades, and
trashes women as often as other Americans empty their garbage. Appallingly,
even feminists look the other way and commend
An American president has much less control
over the nation’s economy than many persons think. Congress pulls the
purse strings. Worse, even Congress is limited. Indeed, Alan Greenspan, of the
private Federal Reserve Board, sets interest rates. Greenspan (a non-elected
official of an unconstitutional institution) controls the inflation and
Low interest rates make money available for investors to put into the economy, creating jobs and fueling established businesses (e.g., home developers). When interest rates are low, money is available for purchasing land, hiring contractors with their laborers, and purchasing supplies, etc. Also, average Americans can afford mortgages. Later, the homes need insurance, etc. Greenspan can make or ruin a president by manipulating that president’s economy.
When President Bush confronted democratic Houses, American news media commonly referred to the "gridlock" problems. The media implied a democratic Congress needed a democratic president. When tables were turned, however, they reported the Republican Congress "shut down government." Clinton, the good guy, battled conservative evils. They did not report a Republican Congress needed a Republican president to stave off gridlock.
Swindall immediately exposed the media’s bias toward liberals. Mainstream media cleverly and subtly paints its disfavored subjects negatively. Swindall excoriates it.
LaHaye, again, in Battle for the Mind,
provides a keen observation. He asserts that
· · During that campaign, the news media referred to candidate Carter as Governor Carter; but when they mentioned Governor Reagan, it was usually as Mr. Reagan or Ronnie Reagan. Some call that reporting; I call it political bias (p. 155).
The Pat Swindall Show did not yet air during that campaign. Nevertheless, Swindall’s listeners later heard such alternate viewpoints. Had the show been on during that campaign, Swindall would have brought to light Governor Reagan’s success rate. Meanwhile, back at the ranch (to wit, mainstream media), Governor Carter would be uplifted.
Throughout election campaigns many candidates accessed Pat’s microphone. Sometimes they served as guest hosts. Liberals avoided taking advantage of such an opportunity, for most prefer to let the media do their talking.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free. John (KJV)
Pat daily demonstrated absolute faith in his God’s Word on his show, to the extent that many Christian listeners grew upset at him. Why? Many of them lack absolute faith in their Bible!
A few of Pat’s diverse guests will illustrate that claim. (1) Larry Newnan, (orthodox Jew) appeared on the show numerous times. He and Pat discussed their differences in faith. Some listeners complain that presenting disbelief in Christ will sway some from Christ. Swindall, however, disagrees. He maintains that an open forum attracts non-Christian theists to an arena proclaiming truth. He trusts the truth of the gospel speaks loudly and clearly. Also, he believes the active, interacting God in his life is so powerful no one who has truly received Him would turn from Him.
(2) Though an oxymoron, the label "Christian homosexual" exists. One Christian homosexual appeared on Pat’s show, claiming homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in Christian faith. Again, Pat received complaints from Christian listeners. However, the Word of Pat’s God remained solid. Pat saw an opportunity for Christians who are "trapped in homosexuality" to hear the Truth.
(3) Well known local atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, Dr. Edward M. Buckner, of The Atlanta Freethought Society, also appeared more than once on Pat’s show. Again, some Christians criticized Pat for hosting such a guest. Pat, however, held fast to his faith in truth.
Is Pat Swindall right or wrong in such practices? It would be difficult to learn exactly what effect his open-mindedness has on listeners. One listener, an atheist member of Buckner’s AFS, not only encouraged and supported Buckner’s atheistic claims, but instigated the initial on-air debate. This listener investigated claims presented in that and the following Swindall-Buckner debate. As a result, he dropped his AFS membership and became a born-again, baptized Christian evangelical.
Pat’s trust in truth does not stop
there. Sometimes the truth can be unglamorous. One caller on
The Problem Solver
Pat Swindall opposes big government. What
then beyond previous examples of private sector solutions to
"Real-Life Success Story"
On page 173 of A House Divided, Swindall presents a true story of charity at its best. With a desire in his heart to minister to the needs of the impoverished, a man moved from suburbia into an impoverished inner-city locale.
One Christmas he gathered food, clothes, and toys from affluent neighborhood churches and synagogues. When he witnessed the donation’s recipients’ parents, he noticed, though happy for their children, some felt bad they were not able to provide for their children themselves. They lacked self-respect and dignity.
This missionary made another observation. He noticed many of the people were actually talented and hard working individuals. He then put together a community store. He matched the community dwellers’ needs with corresponding talents. Those who participated were issued vouchers for their completed work. They then used those vouchers to purchase the donated items for their children the following Christmas. The result? Self-respecting, dignified parents were able to present their children with gifts they had purchased for them, rather than witness them receiving charity. Also, they left behind a trail of cleaned and restored homes. The missionary, to use Pat’s words, "reformed a ‘toys for tots’ campaign into a ‘dignity for dads’ campaign." Swindall summarizes the success in that story:
Elements of Success
· My friends solution worked because it contained three elements for success: volunteerism, opportunity, and responsibility. The core of his solicitation and provision of food, clothing, and toys was volunteerism, as was the painting, cleaning, carpentry work, and plumbing. The volunteers’ contribution of the gifts, clothing, and toys wasn’t enough, however. It was the opportunity to work and be productive and the responsibility attached to that work and productivity that made his vision so effective in meeting the less tangible needs of the community.
Frequently the most
creative solutions are local ones. That’s what federalism is all about.
That’s what our Founders were talking about in the Constitution. It
wasn’t just a document of vague ideas. Our Founders understood that ideas
have consequences. Their idea was to allow local communities to address their
own problems whenever practicable. Chances are that individuals at the local
level are better able to do so than is a central government somewhere far away,
Another element essential to the success of my friend’s vision was his understanding that emotional and spiritual needs, as well as physical needs, must be considered. Through his vision, all three needs were at least partially met in his own community. That is something the federal government is incapable of ever doing. In fact, the federal government can actually be counterproductive when it comes to meeting spiritual needs.
My friend had a fundamental understanding that individuals do want to help themselves. All they need is the opportunity and the attendant responsibility. Individuals are not likely to take advantage of available opportunities, however, when surrounded by a system that is tugging people in exactly the opposite direction.
In so many ways we have regressed in terms of the vision that this nation once offered to the rest of the world, a world that is starved for a vision. We have regressed because we have abandoned our fundamental understanding that charity and responsibility must go hand in hand. 2 [emphasis added]
The FAVOR Program
One common argument spewed from
pro-abortionists is, "Who’s going to care for these unwanted
babies?" Swindall suggests more foundations similar to one he established
in the 1980’s: the Foundation for the Advancement of Volunteerism,
FAVOR addressed the abortion problem as well as homelessness. It implemented the three factors of success that Pat observed in his friend’s missionary vision. FAVOR targeted three specific problems: homelessness, legal services for indigents, and housing and care for unwed, single mothers. It demonstrated communities can meet legitimate needs of their needy without the intervention of federal government, or any lower government for that matter.
When Pat established FAVOR, he had recently witnessed Congress allocating one billion dollars to address homelessness. His FAVOR foundation utilized existing private resources. FAVOR also allowed an opportunity to meet the spiritual and emotional problems that initially produce homelessness (unlike governmental programs).
FAVOR utilized churches and synagogues in Swindall’s congressional district. Volunteer couples (thirty or more) from the establishments committed to stay the night once per month, ministering to the spiritual and emotional needs of the guests. The areas of the churches used for sheltering were still available during daytime hours for the church’s needs.
As a congressman, Swindall witnessed what he considered failed governmental attempts at providing legal services to indigents. He found their programs costly considering administrative overhead, physical facilities, and liberal lobbying efforts.
He responded by recruiting 52 attorneys in private practice to donate one week each year to indigent legal cases. They would accept any cases from indigents lacking resources. They would then see the case to its completion.
One week of an attorney’s time may appear expensive. However, the government spends the majority of its revenues on salaries, vacations, buildings, motor vehicles for social workers, etc., before money trickles down to the supposed recipients. If other professionals and non-professionals did as those attorneys, all citizens could enjoy receiving a full paycheck every pay period. April 15th every year could become as minuscule as a routine dental cleaning.
FAVOR philosophized that many abortions could be prevented by families opening their doors to unwed mothers throughout their pregnancies. The program recruited abortion opponents to provide shelter as well as spiritual and emotional nurturing for the unwed mothers. Concerning "Who will care for the unwanted babies?" FAVOR acknowledged the steady stream of couples on years-long waiting lists desiring to adopt new-born infants as a viable, valuable resource.
How does Swindall fit in where the "unGodly" are concerned? Frankly, when a congressman, he did not. Homosexuality, prostitution, and gambling are state level issues. However, he is opposed to them all, as any Christian well should be for their own lives. Where is the dividing line between individual liberties and community concerns? That is an answer only great debate can uncover. Such controversial issues were the substances of the Pat Swindall Show. He has claimed that God does not desire servants serving by force. He desires an open loving heart desiring to serve Him. Perhaps that insight will someday lead Pat to The Libertarian Party. Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, Swindall offers homosexuals,
prostitutes, gamblers, and various other non-Christians a constitutional