Some Christmas Pictures

Today, I thought I would take a moment and share some of my pictures from the Roberson Museum and Science Center. The first one is of the fantastic train setup that they have, and the rest are of the Christmas decor around the place. Hope you enjoy these.

Best Seats In The House

Looking for something to do in Binghamton, NY in the middle winter is not an easy thing to do, especially if you want to keep it kinda cheap. Well, we didn't keep quite as low cost as we might have liked, but it's not like you can do anything outside, so you have to pay to do something inside. Anyway, we went to the Roberson Museum and Science Center, which is a very neat experience.

Anyway, they have a small planetarium show, and while we were going in for that the attendant told us that the 4th row back would be the best of the remaining seats, and at that time there weren't all that many seats taken, so we sat there as most of the other people filed in. The attendant that was there when we got in there must have had other things to do, and another guy took over, and as we sat there we must have heard him tell nearly everyone that came in, "Oh sit right over there, they're the best seats in the house." This went on right up until the doors were closed and the lights went down. We had quite a laugh over all of this.

As it was, our seats were pretty good, and the show was pretty enjoyable.

As for the rest of the museum, it was very neat, and there were wonderfully decorated Christmas tree's in nearly every room of the old mansion that now serves as part of the museum. It really is a fantastic place to go.

Christmas Eve

Hello all, it is now Christmas Eve, and I hope that everyone is having a great time with family and friends. I have been blessed to be able to spend the last couple of days and today with my mom, and will be spending Christmas day with my wife's family, so it will be a great time for all.

My daughter has been a little sick, spiking a pretty good fever the other night, but we seem to, at least, have that under control now, so thank God for that.

More than anything else though, Thank God that he sent his only Son to Earth to live a sinless life and die on the Cross for our sins, so that we could spend eternity with Him.

Yes, as I said in my last post, that is what Christmas is about for me. It's a time to remember the birth of our Savior and reflect on all that means for us. Of course, we love the time with family and friends, and all the great food and presents and all those wonderful things that make up the Christmas Season.

A funny little side story, last night Mom had to call her Cable Company about something, and at the end of the phone call the woman from the Cable Company says, "Happy Holidays," so Mom says to her, "And a Merry Christmas to you too." Go Mom!

The Separation Of Church And Christmas

There are a lot of people today who want to protest any public display of Christmas Celebration, but I have to question if there is really any point at all to what these people are doing.

Of course for Christians, such as myself, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ. Most of us understand quite well that December 25th was not the actual date of our Lord's birth, but since this is when it has been celebrated for a few centuries, we are willing to go with the tradition. Even Christians though, tend to take part in a lot of practices that are not uniquely Christian, or even Christian at all for that matter.

Look at some of the songs that we sing. Songs like "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" there's really nothing Christian at all about this song, in fact, it makes reference to the Pagan festival of Yule, and talks about the Fates, which are directly out of Greek Mythology. I'm not against this song, it's catchy and whatnot, but certainly shouldn't offend anyone, as it's not a Christian song at all.

Any what's the big deal about Christmas tree's? Again, I'm not against Christmas tree's, in fact, I'm rather fond of them, but again, there is nothing uniquely Christian about them. And yet, even Christmas tree's, which also have their roots in Pagan, rather than Christian, culture, seem to be a source of consternation for some of these people. Crazy as it is, they see Christmas tree's as a way of having religion forced upon them.

Then there's Santa Claus, some people even object to Santa Claus... I mean, calling him a religious symbol, I actually object to Santa Claus for exactly the opposite reason. I feel that too many Christians make far too big of a deal about Santa Claus, at the expense of teaching their kids about Jesus, in fact, most parents, even Christian ones, get very upset if their kids stop believing in Santa, but seem to care very little if they believe about Jesus.

As for the manger scene, well, ok, that's a different argument, because that is uniquely Christian, not that I think that public displays of it should be banned, but as I said, that's a whole different argument.

My point is that, while I Celebrate the Birth of Christ, Christmas has become a very broad holiday, which can be celebrated by a wide variety of people, who celebrate for a very wide variety of reasons. It is entirely possible that someone could celebrate Christmas, take part in many of the traditions, sing a very great deal of traditional Christmas songs, have a Christmas tree, have presents, have a big family get together and a great family feast, and never Celebrate the Birth of Christ at all.

I'm not saying that this is what people should do, but it is a what a lot of people do do. So there is really nothing for people to get all bent out of shape about, just because someone says "Merry Christmas" does not mean that they are trying to force you to believe in Jesus, they are just observing a holiday, and in the US an official Federal holiday.

I do love Christmas, both for the Christian traditions, as well as for some of the secular traditions, but it's not my favorite holiday, but I won't get into all of that right now. I just don't think that people need to get all bent out of shape, Christmas shouldn't be offensive, it's a holiday that anyone can choose to celebrate, either on it's secular side, or on it's Christian side, but absolutely no one needs to be offended about it.

Road Signs

While driving from Florida to PA I saw a lot of road signs, but I think that one of the best examples of bad signs was in Florida. You know how over most of the country at those little turnarounds on the interstates there will be a sign that says "Authorized Vehicles Only." Which makes a lot of sense, because if your vehicle was authorized, chances are, you would know it. However, in Florida, they don't make sense like that, they say, "Official Use Only." This left me asking, what exactly does that mean? Couldn't pretty much anybody officially make a U-turn?

Oh well, it was a long drive, but we made it, in spite of all the bad road signs along the way.

No Sympathy Here

A man in New Jersey is upset because a Bakery refused to put his son's full name on his Birthday cake, and he just doesn't think that's fair. Of course, if he hadn't named his son "Adolph Hitler" it probably wouldn't have been a problem.

So, to anyone stupid enough to brand their kid with such a moniker, make your own stinking cake.

Where's the Outrage?

I keep seeing these commercials for this Law Firm who is looking for people to join in a class action suit about asbestos exposure, and at the end there is an old gentleman in a wheelchair who struggles to say "I have mesothelioma." And they are obviously exploiting him to try to make people mad and get more people on board for their law suit?

So I want to know, where are all the people expressing outrage over the exploitation of this little old man who has one foot in the grave and needs to be left in peace? I guess they're all too busy hammering away at Burger King for the horrible atrocity of handing out Whoppers to poor people.

What idiocy.

"A Private Hot Line to God?"

"A Private Hot Line to God?"

Gregory Koukl

Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim.

I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not. This is a delicate issue, so I want to take a moment and clarify my view regarding whether the Bible teaches that God speaks to us in this fashion. The question is not whether or not Jesus lives in our hearts in the person of the Holy Spirit. Having believed, we've been sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. We've been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He indwells us. He convicts us of sin. He teaches us. The Holy Spirit regenerates us, washing us in the blood of Christ. He comforts us in difficult times. He confirms in our hearts that we are children of God. The Holy Spirit is in and through every part of our lives, and He ought to be. All of this is specifically taught in the Bible. The question is not whether there is a Holy Spirit, or whether that Holy Spirit indwells us, or whether that Holy Spirit does things for us or to us in an experiential, subjective way. All of those things are the case. The question is actually two-fold: Is it enough for Christians to simply say, "'You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.' I have the confirmation of a subjective experience. I feel Jesus.'?" The answer is no, it is not enough to say that. Because the Mormons feel Jesus. And the New Ager feels Jesus. And a Jehovah's Witness feels Jesus. Lots of people feel Jesus. They have psychological certainty that they're children of God and that they're right with God. The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth. Hasn't it been the case, friends, that you've felt absolutely certain about something that later turned out to be false? Of course you did. And the question is: How do we protect ourselves from that error? How do we represent the truth of Christianity to another person who may not be sharing our subjective certitude, or our subjective experience? We must have some objective foundation. We must be able to point to more than just our feelings to prove the truthfulness of our faith and the legitimacy of our confidence that Jesus is in our lives. But there's a second step here. There's another factor that goes beyond proving to ourselves or others that Jesus is true beyond our psychological confidence. Do we have biblical justification for the idea that one of the ways the Holy Spirit is active in our lives is that He, as a standard operational procedure, gives Christians personal and individual messages from God, contentful, propositional information like, "Marry that person"? Does the Bible teach that having a personal, live connection with God speaking to you is God's way for Christians? Does the Bible teach that this represents the optimal Christian life? You hear His voice and then you know what to do in your life? Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is not the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is also a source of authoritative information about God? And can we expect God to speak to us and fill in the gaps, as it were, on things the Bible does not address (e.g., the specific person I should marry)? My answer is, the Bible does not teach such a thing. It's ironic that so many Christians who hold to sola scriptura in debates with Roman Catholics, would also hold that they receive authoritative pronouncements from God. For goodness sake, at least the Roman Catholic Church relegates that only to the teaching magisterium of the church, and to the Pope when he speaks from the chair. But we have Protestants who hold to sola scriptura who then, in the next breath, speak about the authoritative messages they've received from God that they're obliged to follow. By the way, if you're in the habit of saying, "God told me to do..." thus and so, keep in mind that you're making the claim of a prophet, no less than any prophet of the Old Testament. The testing for a prophet was very severe. A prophet of the Old Testament never made that kind of claim unless he was willing to stake his life on it and die for the claim. In fact, if the claim wasn't true, that's just what happened. The prophet found himself under a pile of rocks. So Christians would be good to guard their mouths and not flippantly make proclamations that God has been speaking privately to them. Even the prophets of God did not make those claims with such a cavalier attitude. We ought not assume that maturity as a Christian means receiving daily authoritative revelations from God when the Bible itself does not give us the justification for believing that such a thing is a standard work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does many things, but it doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit does that.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1998 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Whopper Virgins

My hat is truly off to the marketing people for Burger King. They have come up with a new ad campaign for the Whopper. Calling them "Whopper Virgins" they have gone all over the world, finding people who have never tasted a hamburger of any kind and having them take part in a taste test of the Whopper and McDonalds Big Mac. Then they went to remote villages, carting along a Burger King Broiler so they could cook Whoppers on site in some of these places where there would be no other way for people to ever get to try them.

Besides being really fun to watch, it was a great idea. I know that they are taking some grief from some morons who claim that they are exploiting the impoverished peoples of the world, but come on, if you lived in a simple village in a remote area, not feeling impoverished because you really didn't know any better, and somebody came in and gave you a Whopper, would you feel exploited? I don't think so.

I think that this is a brilliant marketing scheme, and congrats to Burger King from coming up with it and pulling it off so well.

Bailouts And Such

It occurs to me, as I have been railing so hard against these devastating bailouts that the Government has been handing out right and left that the Bush administration has been a huge supporter of these bailouts, even taking a leadership role in trying to get more of them pushed through. I have mentioned the Bush White House in this before, but thought it might deserve a little more focus today.

With all the pushing for bailouts and nationalization of American industries and businesses and such, George W. Bush has now officially become the most socialist President in American History... so far. That "so far" is important however, because he only gets to carry that title until January 20th, as the policies and regulations, codes and laws ushered in under the incoming Obama administration will bring Socialism to our great land in ways many of our forefathers never would have imagined possible.

The important thing to realize here is that George W. Bush had the opportunity to mitigate some of the things that Obama and the other Democrats want to do, but instead of standing up to Protect America, he is laying the groundwork to allow all of these things to be put into place.

Truly this is the darkest hour for the Bush Presidency. May God have Mercy on us all.

Flint

Fresh off my first time reading of "The Broken Gun" (see yesterday's post) I decided to go ahead and re-read on old favorite, "Flint" by Louis L'Amour. Let me start by saying that L'Amour always wrote a great story, and always spun a good yarn. His stories are always fun to read, and never overly complicated, just really good stories to sit back, enjoy and pass the time with. His stories also are never boring. As I was discussing with someone one time, there is virtually never a lull in a L'Amour story, and if it seems to be going into a valley, you can rest assured, the hero is only going into the valley to escape the villains or Indians (and no, in L'Amour books the Indians, even the hostile ones, are not always cast as villains) and the bullets or arrows whizzing by overhead keep that from being boring either.

"Flint" has all of that, but something more, you see, "Flint" is also a great work of literature. It may be unheard of by many, lost in the shuffle amongst all the other great books L'Amour wrote, or amongst all the other great books that have been written by other authors, but "Flint" truly is an example of the great American novel.

This story follows a man who is dying of Cancer and leaves the fast paced life of New York City, where his name is feared in the financial sector, of which he is truly a giant, the Donald Trump of his day, though he never went bankrupt... but I digress. Anyway, leaving New York City behind him he returns to the Western land of his youth to die alone, on his own terms, and finds himself in the middle of a range war, and decides to take part on the side of right and justice, and as the other players in this saga soon learn, this man is no tenderfoot.

This is a stellar story, fast paced and fun, and never dull.

One thing that I find very interesting is that, unlike most writers, L'Amour never used an outline or planned his stories in advance. He simply sat in front of his typewriter and hammered out some of the best western stories ever written. In fact, this leads to one of my favorite quotes from L'Amour, "One day I was speeding along at the typewriter, and my daughter - who was a child at the time - asked me, 'Daddy, why are you writing so fast?' And I replied, 'Because I want to see how the story turns out!'" Of course, this style of writing fits very well with how L'Amour saw himself, "I think of myself in the oral tradition -- as a troubadour, a village taleteller, the man in the shadows of the campfire. That's the way I'd like to be remembered -- as a storyteller. A good storyteller." And he was, he really was.

The Broken Gun

I have always been a big fan of the books of Louis L'Amour. In fact, he's the author that go me into reading in a big way. When I was in about the 5th or 6th grade, I had no interest in reading whatsoever, to the point that my Dad actually asked my teacher if I could read OK, and she said, yes, he reads well, but he has to find something that interests him. So Dad said, well I've got a lot of Louis L'Amour books, and Matt does like Westerns, would those be OK? and the Teacher told him that even though they were adult books, she had read some and knew they were wholesome stories, with good themes and very little in the way of swearing and such, so, if it would get me reading, then she thought it was a good idea. A voracious reader was born.

So, the other day I ran across "The Broken Gun" and realized that I had never read this particular book, and, not having another book going at that moment, decided to go ahead and give it a read. As it turns out, it was another great book. This one is a rarity in that it's not set in the old west, but rather in the west in the 1960's, and yet he makes a convincing frontier story, and yet another book that you don't want to put down.

This one is about, of all things, a western author who gets caught up in a 90 year old land dispute, and the fast paced story keeps you reading, and as normal for L'Amour, makes you really want to know what is going to happen next.

If you're looking for a good novel that's not going to take all that long to read, and has a good, enjoyable story where the good guys and the bad guys are clearly defined, and the hero is a hero indeed, I suggest you go ahead and read, "The Broken Gun" by Louis L'Amour.

Do They Even Hear Themselves?

I've been trying to pay less attention to the news these days, now that we are past election season. It's not that there aren't important things happening, it's just that it's so aggravating, what with all the unrelenting stupidity out there.

A case in point, the Auto Bailout, which, you can see in a previous post, I think is a terrible idea, and I laid out the reasons why in that post, but it looks to be going forward in any case. The latest thing is that they are saying that if the Government makes these "loans" with our money to keep the Automakers afloat for some length of time, then the automakers have a set amount of time to come up with a restructuring plan that meets with the approval of the Congress. Great idea, because Congress has proven itself to be such a wonderful planning outfit... but I digress.

They then go on to tell us that we need not worry, because, if the automakers fail to come up with a plan that Congress will approve of, they will have to pay the "loans" back in full, immediately. Sounds great right? How? Isn't that the point of the whole issue? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY! So how are they going to pay the "loan" back? Who's going to loan them the money to do that?

Isn't it comforting to know that the people who come up with these plans can't even think things that far through before they start spouting off? No? I didn't think so either.

Those Government Dollars

I can't believe that we're still hearing this. When I was a kid I remember morons on the news talking about Government dollars being spent on this or that, and I remember my Mom and Dad getting a little disgusted and saying that there are no such thing as Government dollars. The Government gets all it's money from the people. So when they say "Government Dollars" what they mean is "Taxpayer Dollars," that is to say, our money.

I understand what they are doing, they are engaging in spin, trying to make it not sound so bad that they are spending our money like drunken sailors. I guess what really gets me is that they still seem to think that we are too stupid to realize that this is what is going on. Pretty much everyone now understands that the Government only gets money by taking it from the people, this is called taxes, and some level of taxation is fully legitimate, but things like buying banks and bailing out car companies, are not a legitimate use of our money. The people who write the news understand this, and being liberals themselves they support big intrusive Government which goes well outside of it's legitimate bounds, they want to make it sound better, so they say Government Dollars instead of, your money.

Like I said, I understand what they are doing, but it still disgusts me.

Dishes

I'm procrastinating.

I need to wash the dishes.

I had some other stuff to do this morning, but I've been home for quite a while now... so why haven't I finished them?

I'm tired, but that's nothing new.

I did put all the clean dishes away.

I loaded the dishwasher and now it's running, so that only leaves a few pots and pans.

(A few minutes later) Now I have the sink full of hot soapy water, and the Crock Pot insert is soaking so I can scrub off the roast I cooked in there yesterday.

And yet, instead of scrubbing pans, I'm still procrastinating.

(A few minutes after that) Well, the Crock Pot insert and lid are nice and clean... what should I wash next?

(Yet later still) There now all the dishes are done... except that stoneware pan, I don't have anywhere to put it, but that's ok, once the other stuff dries, I'll go ahead and clean that up, it'll only take a few minutes... if I can get to it, and don't procrastinate... but I wouldn't do that... would I?

Senator, Listen To Thyself

Senator Chris Dodd is calling for the firing of the CEO of General Motors in exchange for the horrific bailout plan that is being rammed down the throats of the American people. Dodd reasons that you can't trust the people who caused major problem to be the ones to fix it.

But is this not exactly what Senator Dodd is asking us to do? Dodd has supported and voted for many of the regulations and policies that have led to much of the economic problems facing the US today, including the Auto Makers.

As chairman of the Senate Banking committee, Dodd did nothing to warn us of the impending crisis. No, he took his sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide, and said nothing while the house of cards that was the mortgage system in the Country fell apart. Not only that, but he also supported the Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to make these high risk loans to begin with. He has also been a supporter of regulations on the Auto Makers that have caused them to be unprofitable, and put them in the situation that they are in today.

There is a lot of stuff going on here, and it would take a lot of time to go through, but the fact is that if you look closely at all of the economic problems that we have in front of us today, you will find Senator Dodd's fingerprints all over all of them. So why doesn't he take his own advice and step down? If he really believes in doing the right thing, and that we can't trust the people who screwed something up to fix it, then he must step down. He has left himself no other option.

I'm not holding my breath.

FDR--Pearl Harbor Speech

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Christmas Card Captions--From Stand To Reason

Christmas Card Captions

Copy and paste these captions to turn your Christmas card into an evangelistic tool...

_____________________________________________________________

O God our loving Father, help us rightly to remember the birth of Jesus, that we may share in the song of the angels, the gladness of the shepherds, and the worship of the wise men. May Christmas morning make us happy to be Thy children and Christmas evening bring us to our beds with grateful thoughts, forgiving and forgiven, for Jesus’ sake, amen.

—Robert LouisStevenson

_____________________________________________________________

Jesus is God’s promise fulfilled.
May you take great joy in Him and the celebration of His birth.

_____________________________________________________________

From the cradle to the cross:
What the Child has done for those who receive His pardon…

_____________________________________________________________

Nailed to the top of Jesus’ cross is a “certificate of debt” to Caesar, a public display of Jesus’ crime: “King of the Jews.” When punishment is complete, Caesar’s court will cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: “tetelestai.” Finished. Paid in full.

Being king of the Jews is not the crime Jesus pays for, however. Hidden to all but the Father is another certificate nailed to that cross: ours. In the darkness that shrouds Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, God the Father unleashes His fury upon His sinless Son who has taken upon Himself the crimes of the world as if guilty of all.

At the last, it is not the cross that takes Jesus’ life. When the full payment is made, when the last of the sin debt melts away and the justice of God is fully satisfied, Jesus simply dismisses His spirit with a single Greek word that falls from His lips: “Tetelestai.” It is finished.

Colossians 2:13-14
John 19:30

_____________________________________________________________

Christmas Blessings…

…with a prayer that you come to a quiet place of reflection on the simplicity of Jesus’ birth and the magnitude of His purpose.

_____________________________________________________________

Christmas is not about giving, it's about a gift. May the gift of forgiveness through Jesus, our Lord, fill your heart this year.

Merry Christmas

_____________________________________________________________

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name “Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
Matthew 1:23

_____________________________________________________________

The God of all creation humbled Himself to become a human being—our Savior, Christ the Lord. Because Jesus was born He could die, bringing the abundance of life we enjoy through Him. May each of you rest in the security of the Babe who’s birth we celebrate this day.

_____________________________________________________________

Have You Heard This One?

OK, let me start by saying that this is not a big political post, it's just something that strikes me as being very funny.

It turns out that, as of right now, Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be Secretary of State. Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution basically states no Senator or member of the US House of Representatives may be appointed to an office if that office were created, or the salary (it calls it "Emoluments" but it means salary or compensation) for that office were increased during that Senator or Representatives term of service. Even if that person voted against such an increase, it doesn't matter, they still are not eligible to be appointed to that office. And yes, the salary for Cabinet Members, which the SecState is one of, have increased while Mrs. Clinton has set in the US Senate.

The reason that I said, "as of right now," is that Presidents have gotten around this in the past by getting Congress to lower the Salary for a given office back down to the pre-raise levels, which seems to pass muster, allowing the Senator or Representative to be appointed, and I'm sure something similar will be done here, so it's really a non-issue, I just think it's funny.

Blaming Wal-Mart

After that poor man was trampled to death at a Long Island Wal-Mart, there are lots of people out there trying to blame Wal-Mart, and maybe they share in some of the blame, but clearly the lion share of the blame lies somewhere else.

I'm not talking about legal liability, I don't know how all of that works out, but just from the perspective of a regular guy, there's plenty of blame to go around.

I think that Wal-Mart's biggest contribution to this tragedy is in hyping up the Black Friday deals, but, or course, they are not alone in this, virtually every store out there gets into that. They also kept everyone outside where a mob mentality had the chance to form. Wal-Mart's in this area, most of them anyway, are open 24 hours a day, and so people are able to come into the store and line up near the items that are of interest to them. It can still be kinda scary if you're in the store, but it would generally avoid this kind of thing.

The largest part of the blame in all of this has to go to the mob. Those people that were so worked up in their selfish frenzy to get the things that they wanted, that they were willing to push and shove their way into the store, no matter what, or who, they had to step on in order to get in there.

Now we also have some morons crying that this employee didn't have any crowd control training or experience. Two things on that, one, duh! Of course he didn't have any crowd control training, he was a part time Wal-Mart employee, not a cop or some such person as that. And secondly, what kind of moron thinks that crowd control training would have helped? This was a mob, not a crowd. They actually broke down the doors of the store, so anyone there, regardless of training, would have been trampled by this mob.

Of course, if the individual people had some sense of respect and care for people other than themselves, and the things that they wanted to get for themselves, they would not have allowed themselves to turn into a mob, and kill a man who was just trying to make enough money to get by.

I will say, just for the record, not that I've heard anyone blame him, but just to make sure it's clear, the victim here does not bear any of the blame for this, he was just trying to do his job, doing what he was told to do, and the mob killed him for his trouble. I feel terrible for him, and for his family, and while I'm not sure how much Wal-Mart is responsible for this, I can understand why the family has sued Wal-Mart, but regardless of the outcome of that lawsuit, I hope that they are able to find some healing over the course of time.

Jude (KJV)

Jude 1

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 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.

4 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.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Still Fearing Sarah

Sarah Palin showed up in Georgia to campaign for Senator Saxby Chambliss in a runoff election. There is something to be said for this being a news story, at least a minor one.

I don't have a problem with this being reported, but just about the only thing you hear from the media is that Gov. Palin isn't really doing this for Senator Chambliss, but for her own political ambitions, and they say it as though she is doing something wrong.

The fact is, I'm sure, that she is doing this for two reasons, one is to help Senator Chambliss get re-elected, which is good for the Party, and also, yes, for her own political ambitions. To keep her face out there and make sure that people remember that she's still around, and that she isn't finished on the national stage.

There is nothing at all wrong with this, it is what politicians do. She has a opportunity here to help a fellow Republican, and help herself while she's at it. I am quite encouraged to see her being active again so soon after the election is over. She's not being selfish, or trying to undermine anyone, she's simply keeping herself visible to the American people so that she is remembered, rather than fading into memory. Nobody, especially a politician, wants to fall victim to the old "out of sight, out of mind" scenario.

The fact is that the media and the leftists, and the leftists in the media, who spent the entire election drooling all over Obama, are very fearful of Governor Palin, and what she might be able to accomplish if she can stay somewhat in the spotlight over the next four years.

The liberals finally have their power, and they are scared to death that the American people might wake up and they will lose their newly acquired power. They feel that they must continue to attack her at every opportunity, because they fear the possibility that she might defeat Obama for a second term if she is able to run in four years, and so, they feel the need to keep that from ever happening.

When you have to fear what will happen to your side when the people learn the truth, maybe you're on the wrong side.

More Leftist Lunacy

As most of you already know, I'm neither a George W. Bush fan, nor am I a Bush hater. This makes me just a little unique, because it can be hard to find people who don't fall into one of those two camps. And yes, even though you don't really see them on the news, there are plenty of Bush fans out there.

Something is bothering me though. There seem to be a lot of people, all of them on the far left, who are saying that President Bush should resign and allow Obama to take office earlier than the scheduled January 20th time frame. They even have some wild ideas of how this could be done. They say that Bush and Cheney could resign together, and then Nancy Pelosi would be President (since she's the speaker of the House right now) and she would just go along with Obama's ideas. This, of course, is nothing more than a ploy to make sure that the Democrats get the first woman President, showing how they are still running scared of Sarah Palin. As a side note, if this were going to happen, which it won't which I'll get to in a moment, the right way to do it would be for Dick Cheney to resign, Bush to appoint Obama as VP and then resign once he's confirmed, which would take this Senate all of about three seconds.

Anyway, the idiocy of these people is simply stunning. One of the things that really sets the United States apart from the rest of the world is the fact that every 4 to 8 years we elect a new President, and power is transferred in a clean, efficient, peaceful way. As much as Republicans didn't like Bill Clinton, when Bush won the 2000 election, you didn't hear all these calls for Clinton to step aside for him to take the office early. It was enough for Republicans that we had won, and would soon have our man in the White House. Likewise, as much as I disagree with Obama, and am not anticipating a good time for the next 4 years, and based on that am hoping that a really good conservative Republican is able to defeat him in 2012, should that happen, I would not expect Obama not to serve out his term.

This is driven by a couple of things, first and foremost being the rabid hatred that the leftists have for George W. Bush, and the other is their lust for power. They have tasted victory with the election of Obama, and can't wait for him to destroy... err... change our Country.

One funny part of this is the fact that on the biggest thing that is going on right now, the economic woes, Bush is basically doing (sadly) exactly what Obama would do, and most of the other issues in the far left agenda will take some time to move forward, so rushing to power won't do them any good.

For myself, while I'm no big fan of George W. Bush, I think that it would be a grand time to be able to sit down and have lunch with the man, sometime after January 21st 2009. I question some of the things he did as President, but he seems to me that as a regular guy, he could be a lot of fun to hang out with.

Those Who Can, Do...

There's an old saying that "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach." This is actually a true statement, but I have heard it grossly misapplied to teachers! I know that sounds odd, but let me explain.

This is not talking about school teachers, it is talking about professionals. Doctors who can cut it practicing medicine do so, those who can't cut it in practice teach in Medical schools. Likewise nurses who can't cut it in Hospitals either go to nursing homes, or teach other nurses. This applies not only to the medical profession, but across the board. Journalists who can't write teach other journalists, Lawyers who fail at practicing law teach in law schools, politicians who can do virtually nothing often end up teaching. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. So, the only way this applies to school teachers is, those who can teach do, and those who can't either get cushy Union contracts so they can't be fired, or they teach other teachers.

Good teachers in our schools are not there because they can't do something else, they are there because they love kids, and know how important it is to help kids learn.

There are exceptions to the "...those who can't, teach" rule though. Sometimes, after a lifetime of doing whatever it is that a person has chosen to do, they decide to spend the remaining years of their working life trying to pass on their knowledge to others, or maybe for something to do, part time, in their retirement years.

In any event, the statement holds true, just not for the reasons that some people think.

The Battle For The Beginning

I just finished reading and excellent book, "The Battle For The Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible" by John MacArthur.

There is a generally accepted idea that people who believe in the Biblical account of Creation are ignoring science, or that perhaps the Bible is true, but we have misunderstood it. In this book, John MacArthur takes you step by step through the first three Chapters of Genesis to show us exactly what the Bible says, and why we have not misunderstood it. He also takes you through some of the science (although this is not an in depth scientific study) to show that it is not Christians who have ignored what science is trying to tell us.

More importantly, perhaps, MacArthur guides us through why it is that people would cling to such notions as evolution, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Creation is actually the truth.

I won't get into all of these reasons here today, since MacArthur does such a great job of bearing it all out in the pages of this book. This is a book I highly recommend, and, at present, it costs only $11.00 at www.gty.org and I think you'll find it to be money well spent.

For any Christian who has held fast to their belief in Scriptural Creationism, but is constantly buffeted by the never ending storm of criticism from the world at large, I think this book will be a huge blessing. For those who don't know, or believe in Evolution but are wanting to look at the other side of the debate, this book will be, at the very least, a great place to start.

On Unions

In a recent post I laid a lot of blame on the Union for the troubles facing the auto makers. Shortly after that post, I heard a discussion on the radio where one guy said that he didn't blame the Unions for the damage that they had done to the Companies, because, after all, their job was to get whatever they could get for the Union members, but he said it in a sinister kind of way, making it sound like hurting the company was a part of that.

The fact is pretty simple. Yes, the Unions primary responsibility is to make things better for Union workers, but as such, they have a vested interest in the health and success of the Companies they bargain with, because, if they put Companies out of business, or force them into laying people off, what good have they done for the members?

Before anyone gets upset with me, I'm not anti-union. In fact, I think that the purpose for which Unions were originally formed was very good. The problem is with what most Unions have become. That is, organizations obsessed with their own power, with little regard for what is good for their members, or the Companies they work for, which is related to what is good for the members. Also, they spend tons of money trying to elect people to public office who will take actions to increase their power. This is not good for anyone.

Happy Thanksgiving

Philippians 4:4-9 (ESV)

4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; 6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

I hope that everyone has a great Thanksgiving, and gets to spend some time with family, giving thanks to God for all the things that we have to be thankful for.

Fat People On Planes

A couple of years ago some airlines decided that they would charge fat people for two seats, even if they did not require two seats. Of course, this was ridiculous, to ask that people over a certain weight, who could fit into a single seat, would be required to pay for a seat that they wouldn't be using, and then the airline would still go ahead and sell that second seat to another person, so the person forced to pay extra for it couldn't even have the use of it. Wrong on so many levels.

Now, in Canada, a Court has ruled something equally ridiculous on the other extreme. Now airlines in Canada must allow fat people to fly on a single ticket, paying for only one seat, even if they require two. Obviously the airline cannot sell that second seat because it's already occupied. This means that ultimately the money will be paid by everyone in the form of higher ticket prices for everyone. Once again, wrong on so many level.

How's this for a solution, everyone pays for the seats that they actually need to use. That way, everyone pays for what they use, and only what they use.

Where did the common sense go?

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving

Gregory Koukl

Which president made a proclamation to make this an official holiday?

I thought it would be interesting to read Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863, in light of the recent understanding of "separation of church and state." Thanksgiving has been celebrated since 1621, but it became a national holiday thanks to Abraham Lincoln. Thanksgiving isn’t just a time to give thanks, because we ought to be giving thanks on a regular basis. It is a time to give thanks corporately, as a community, as a nation. That was Abraham Lincoln’s contribution in 1863. I was trying to remember where this was exactly in the Civil War. In mid-1863 the tide of the war had just turned. Gettysburg was the turning point in early July--the 1st, 2nd , and 3rd of 1963--and on the 4th Vicksburg fell under Grant after a long five or six month siege there. It was a bad week for the South. So there was a big turning point in July and things started going the way of the Union. There was plenty to give thanks for, in a sense. Yet at the same time there was a bloody war continuing, and lives were still being lost. It would two more years of unimaginable carnage before the Civil War would end. In the midst of this difficult time, President Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a national holiday and he did so with these words. Listen closely, especially in light of the present atmosphere of so-called separation of church and state. Proclamation of Thanksgiving* Washington, D.C. October 3, 1863 The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth. By the President: Abraham Lincoln William H. Seward, Secretary of State And so we have done now for some 131 years. We have set aside the day. On that day all over this country the post offices are closed, banks are closed, people observe the national holiday. But are they observing the holiday that Abraham Lincoln instituted in 1863? No, not quite. Abraham Lincoln, in his official capacity as president, acknowledged that we owe everything to God. He called on us to humble ourselves in penitence for our disobedience, confess our sins with contrition, ask for God’s mercy and give Him praise for his love, for all of His care for us. This is not the Thanksgiving our country now officially observes, for it is de facto illegal for those under the color of governmental authority to take the initiative to honor God in this way. You can’t do it in public places We can’t do that anymore. We can’t do it in schools. We can’t do it on government property. We can’t even put a cross on a hill in San Diego because people are offended by that. Why? Because the government owns the air, I guess. Now, my point is not to try to get prayer back into schools. I actually don’t think we can turn back the clock on that one. Any prayer we succeeded in having included would have to be too general and "pluralistic" to be acceptable to the God Who demanded we have no false Gods before Him. My point is to show how far removed the present atmosphere of the so-called "separation of church and state" is from what was understood by our forefathers. The current practice is not the original notion of non-establishment that the Bill of Rights mandates, and Lincoln’s comments make this clear Notice how natural it was for someone like the president of our country--many would say the greatest president our country has ever seen (and probably the saddest)--in the midst of an agonizing trial of national proportions--the civil war--to call the nation to repentance, prayer, and thanksgiving to God. What a man. And what a change we have gone through since then to now. *Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. This is an edited transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1994 Gregory Koukl

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

The Great Lie Begins

It was on this date in 1859 that Charles Darwin published "The Origin of the Species" in which he set forth his ideas for the theory of evolution, in a vain attempt to explain where everything came from, without giving credit to God.

The remarkable thing is not that someone once thought of this and put it out there as a theory, but rather that so many fairly reasonable people have bought into the idea as though it were something that could actually have happened.

Over many years, it is Christians who have been accused of ignoring science when it comes to the Creation/Evolution debate, however, if you stop and think about it, this simply isn't true. The funny thing is that much of what is touted as proof of evolution can only be seen as such if you presuppose that evolution is true, and deliberately interpret the data to agree with what you already think.

Just to give a somewhat unrelated example, let me tell of a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. The Atheist asked the Christian if he believed in Creation, and that Jesus had indeed died on the Cross, and been raised from the dead, and some other miraculous events, and the Christian said yes, and the Atheist basically said, well, there you go, you must be wrong because those things can't happen. Of course, what he was doing was attempting to frame the debate in such a way as to say that natural scientific laws as we know them are all there is, and so, anything outside of that can't be real. The problem is that the debate was about whether or not there is anything Supernatural, so, assuming that the Supernatural doesn't exist doesn't prove that it does not.

This is the same thing that happens in the Creation/Evolution debate. Those who believe in Evolution look at all evidence as though Evolution is absolutely true, and therefore, anything that goes against this must be false, which does not allow them to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.

There are many reasons why Evolution doesn't make any sense, but it's really not about science. I'm not going to get into all of that today, but I may at some point soon. For today, I just wanted to point out that the lie began 149 years ago today, and we are still fighting against it after all this time.

Some Quotes To Share

Just thought I would take a minute today and list some quotes from down through the ages, some may be famous, and some aren't, but I hope you enjoy them.

"A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killers hands."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 45 AD

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."--Benjamin Franklin

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

"How do you tell a Communist? A Communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." --Ronald Reagan

"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan

"When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the Government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton Jr.

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." -- General George S. Patton Jr.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison

"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." -- George W. Bush

"Character, not circumstances, makes the man." -- Booker T. Washington

"Hope is no basis for a defense policy." -- Margaret Thatcher

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." -- Calvin Coolidge

"You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." -- Margaret Thatcher

And the best one for today:

"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns." -- Ronald Reagan

Auto Bailout--Prolonging Death

It's time once again for the people to speak out, to stand up and tell our elected officials that we are sick and tired of them doing the wrong thing at every turn. The auto company bailout is just one more example of money going right down the drain, and will do nothing in the long run to fix what is actually wrong. Let me explain.

The auto industry is hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. This is due to a great many things. Most people only want to talk about the lavish salaries of upper management, and that is, in fact, part of it, but it's not the largest part. If the companies were flush with capital, I wouldn't care about lavish salaries, but I certainly don't think that I should have to pay them.

A much larger part of the picture is the UAW. The Union contracts are killing the American auto makers. Just a few examples, $57.00 an hour for assembly line workers, talk about unsustainable! Then you have huge benefit packages. And a huge part is those who have retired after 25 to 30 years in the job, and continue to get paid something akin to their full salary for the rest of their lives, which could potentially be longer than their productive careers with the companies. Some Union contracts actually force the auto manufacturers to pay people that they have no work for to sit home and not work. On top of that, Union contracts won't allow them to make multiple models of car in one plant, so many things have to be duplicated which really shouldn't be, and more importantly, that they can't afford for them to be. And they are duplicated many times for all the many many types of cars that they make.

The sheer number of types of cars that they make is part of the problem too, they would be much better off with a more streamlined product lineup.

But let's also be aware of the Governments role. Once again, we are talking about an industry which is very heavily regulated by the Government. With mileage requirements, and other regulations which are constantly changing, forcing the companies to constantly make expensive changes to their assembly lines in order to keep up. Also, the Government regulations force them to make certain cars, rather than others, without regard to what people are looking to buy, which means they have to put a lot of money into something that they are not going to be able to sell at a profit.

Even if we give them the $25 Billion that they are begging for, all of these things will still exist, meaning that the money continues to flow out far faster than any is coming in, and very soon, the bailout money will be gone, and we will be out the money, and the Auto makers will be right back in the same boat that they are in now. So a bailout is clearly not the answer, at all.

So what is the answer? Bankruptcy. This does not mean that they would go out of business, but it would allow them to reorganize, and to shed some of the Union contracts that are killing them, and to cut back on the lavish salaries and benefits of upper management, and to shed some of their unprofitable products. They could come up with a much more workable and sustainable business model. About the only thing they couldn't do anything about is all the Government regulation, but, hey, one problem instead of several, at least that's something they can work around, but they can't work around it all.

Yes, I understand that some people would lose their jobs, but better a few than everyone. I also understand that some benefits will have to be cut, but again, they will still be able to provide good benefits, just without the gold plating. I understand that Auto workers would have to take a pay cut, but again, better that than no job at all. And I understand that some retirees would lose their pensions, but if a 60 year old has to go get a job, I'm not devastated. The contracts were designed in such a way as to make them ultimately untenable in the long run, so they must be gotten rid off. That is what bankruptcy exists for.

Honestly, is there anyone who can say that they think that the Average American taxpayer should be forced to pay the salaries of people who make several times the amount that the Average Taxpayer makes? Does this make any sense at all?

Let them take the hit. They will come back stronger for it. And let's face it, if they didn't, someone would step in to take their place. In any event, a $25 Billion bailout (which even Congressman Barney Frank has admitted would only be the beginning, and not the total) is not the answer.

They Will Do Anything, Won't They?

It was reported, by NASA, earlier this month that this October was the hottest one on record, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, not everyone just blindly accepted the data at face value, as the NASA people apparently did, and it was quickly discovered that only in Siberia were temperatures showing to be 10 degree's hotter than last October, while the rest of the world showed a modest decline in temperature. A little closer look revealed that the temperature readings recorded for October had not been taken in October at all, but were rather carried over from September, and when the real readings were entered, they were much more in line those of the rest of the world, showing October 2008 to be the 70th hottest October in 114 years, hardly worth getting worked up about.

This is only part of it though. The data now shows that there has been no warming since 1998, and not only that, but also the Earth has been cooling slightly ever since 1998, and that cooling has accelerated somewhat over the last 2 years. The evidence on this is clear, so why do some refuse to admit it? When the Earth was heating up, people like me readily admitted what the data showed, but we were skeptical of the cause, not seeing evidence that Human activity was the cause of the warming. For this position we have been ridiculed, compared to Holocaust deniers, and called all sorts of crude names simply because we wanted solid evidence, not just politically motivated nonsense. Now that the Earth is clearly cooling, those who called us so many names refuse to even admit the fact that the Earth is cooling.

The facts also are not even slowing down the Politicians who want to put all kinds of regulations in place, specifically to combat global warming, regardless of how damaging they would be to our already struggling economy. They want to put these things in place, not because they want to protect the Planet, but because they want to expand the size, scope and authority of Government, thus increasing their own power.

Worlds Easiest Job

William Ayers, and a bunch of people on the left, have been accusing Republicans and Conservatives (sadly not the same thing anymore) of demonizing him. I can't think of an easier task than that. Demonizing a demon, or vilifying a villain.

Ayers now wants to claim that he was not a terrorist because he never killed anyone, this, however, isn't quite true, on a couple of points. First, he may not personally have killed anyone, but being an inept terrorist doesn't make one not a terrorist. Further, while he may not have personally killed anyone, the terror organization that he founded did kill several people, and so he does bear responsibility for that. And the fact that he was never convicted doesn't mean anything in this case, because he got off on a technicality, and has since admitted his role, since he could no longer be prosecuted for it.

And one other major point about Ayers assertion that he wouldn't be a terrorist because he didn't kill anyone. While most terrorists do kill people as part of their tactics, it is not a defining trait. Trying to strike terror into the hearts of the people in order to achieve your own political ends is terrorism. It's all about fear, if someone were really effective, they would be able to terrorize without actually killing anyone, but that wouldn't make them any less despicable a person.

Regardless if Ayers personally killed anyone or not, he engaged in activity that basically held that if he couldn't convince people that his way was right, he would blow something up and try to cow people into doing whatever he wanted. If he couldn't win the argument, which he couldn't, he would go straight to setting off bombs.

So, are we guilty of demonizing William Ayers? Not at all, he did that himself, a long, long time ago. And he's a close friend of the man who will be our President. You think about that.

Abortion and Human Rights

Abortion and Human Rights

Gregory Koukl

Greg convincingly describes how the issue of abortion is truly no different than the issue of slavery. The issue to be considered is the issue of human rights.

Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you've said is that it's appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you'd be in favor of that. The economic issue would actually be on the side of the South because slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. When slaves were emancipated it gutted them of their economic force. Let's remove the economic argument. Based solely on morality, are you willing to say that the moral issue of slavery should be enforced simply as a moral issue? This is a very important point. Many people have offered the objection that we should not force a particular morality in the issue of abortion. My questions are very pointed and leading, and they were simply to make the point that virtually everybody who makes that kind of objection actually does believe that there are cases in which morality should be legislated. We talked about the obvious issue of slavery because there is the human rights issue that is at stake. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. My encouragement to you and anyone else who would espouse the same position is to understand that the pro-life side is arguing this issue on the basis of human rights. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. If that is the case, it is just as appropriate for us to legislate on the abortion issue as it is in the slavery issue. It's not just a casual parallel because in 1859 Judge Taney on the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision that declared that black people were not human beings and did not deserve protection under the law. That was a Supreme Court decision that was later overturned by The Emancipation Proclamation. The point I'm making is that if you don't address this issue on a human rights basis then you're not addressing it on the basis that pro-lifers are addressing it. The questions should be asked about the appropriateness of abortion or about laws against abortion based on a human rights issue. To be honest with you, I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn child is not a human being worthy of being protected. We're not interested in getting into people's bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We're not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people's lives miserable. We're interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery. If you are to reject my position on abortion, that's your prerogative. I respect your right to do that. But I would encourage you to engage intellectually the real critical issue: is the unborn child a human being? If you can answer for yourself with some rationality that there is no reason to believe that this is a human being, then I think you've justified your position. But I don't think the simple objection that it's not appropriate for one person to force their morality on someone else is ultimately legitimate. When questioned a little bit you acknowledge that that's not a valid way of approaching human rights issues. What about cases of rape and incest? During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. I don't say that it's permissible in those cases. I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue. If we don't do that we are not doing the issue justice. But what I don't want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It's not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can't do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances. The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It's unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I'm not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother. Anyway that's my personal challenge to you to rethink this issue in a different fashion.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1992 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Overreact Much?

Perhaps you've been seeing the news stories about the Nebraska law that allows parents to drop off their kids at Hospitals or Fire Stations, or some such public place, and basically abandon them, without fear of recrimination.

For myself, I have to say that I believe strongly in personal responsibility, if you have the kid, you are responsible to raise him/her. That being said, I understand what they were trying to do where, and I do, with some reservations, and somewhat tentatively, support the idea behind this law. I understand that idea of a young, and especially in the case of unwed, Mother, who has the baby, trying to do the right thing by her child, and finds out she can't handle it and doesn't know what to do. The idea behind this law was to give people in those situations a viable out, and keeping the safety of the child in mind.

The problem with what is going on in Nebraska of course, is that the law was very poorly crafted (gross understatement), and allowed parents of any minor children, even up to 17 years of age, being residents of Nebraska or not, to bring the child there and drop them off. Clearly, that's pretty stupid. Now that people have been bringing older children, and yes, even teenagers, from as far away as Georgia, just to get rid of them and dump them on the State of Nebraska, they have realized that maybe this wasn't be best idea in the world.

Clearly they need to do something to change the setup. The problem is that now, some moron in the Nebraska legislature has come up with the idea that they should change the law so that it only applies to kids that are up to 3 days old. But isn't that a gross overreaction? What about the young Mother, who this law was intended to help, who has the baby for two weeks, or two months, or six months, before she realizes that she can't give him/her the care they need? What are they supposed to do then? How many mothers do you think will decide within the first three days that they aren't equal to the task? So, we can save the ones that were going to get tossed into a dumpster on the day they were born, but that's about it. Of course, they are worth saving too, but I just think that cutting from 17 years to 3 days is a bit drastic.

This is the problem with Government solutions, they start out poorly crafted, and end up needing major revision, and instead get gutted to where the do virtually no good for anyone. We need some common sense, unfortunately, all to often, Government service attracts people with absolutely no common sense whatsoever.