Talking today about some widely accepted lies. Oddly enough, I'm not talking about the fact that there were a lot of people in the past who believed that the Earth was flat, nor to the crazies today who still hold to this theory. The lie I'm talking about today is something that most of us were taught as children, and probably never gave enough thought to realize how irrational it is. This is the idea that Christopher Columbus, and he alone, knew that the Earth was round and set out to prove it.
In fact, I'm sure Columbus did know that the Earth was round, he was a seafaring man, and sailors had been well aware of the true nature of the Earth for Centuries, if not Millenia, before Columbus was ever born. Often we are taught that ancient Sailors would cling to the shore line, being afraid that if they sailed too far away, they might fall off the edge of the Earth. This is not true at all, in fact, as most any sailor can tell you, the most dangerous place to be is too close to the shore, as that's where the water is most shallow.
I remember being taught that Columbus's crew were scared of falling off the edge of the World, and therefore Columbus made false entries in his log so that his crew wouldn't know where they were actually going. This is one of the most ridiculous idea's that any historian (pseudo-historian?) ever came up with. Think about it in terms of today. Is your boss the only person who knows what's going on around your workplace? In my experience, the leader, or boss, or whatever, knows different things, but, unless they were promoted from within, actually know quite a bit less about the actual workings of the workplace than do the workers. If Columbus had actually tried to trick his crew in such a way, they would have thought him a fool, since there were likely many among them who could easily navigate as well as he could. The truth is that they well understood that the Earth was round, and they knew where they were going, they were also probably well aware of the false log entries which Columbus used because he didn't want anyone else to know the route to his "new" resource rich environment.
Just the same however, is the fiasco with Global Warming. I've talked about this quite few times, so I won't dwell on it long today. Just as school history books have been complicit in the Columbus proof of the Earth being round myth, so has the news media been complicit in the Global Warming myth.
For quite some time now we have been hearing that the debate is over. That Global Warming is caused by the actions of man, and if we don't make huge sacrifices and change our lives drastically, the Earth would warm, and some unspecified bad thing would certainly happen as a result... on such flimsy evidence, and such a weak warning, I'm shocked that so many people have been taken in by it.
Strangely enough, the mainstream media is largely ignoring the fact that both Temperature evidence, as well as quite few scientists seem to agree that the trend has turned around we are starting a time of (mild) Global Cooling.
Now I'm waiting for Al Gore's next movie... you know, the one where he tells us that we have to release more carbon, and that we haven't done enough to increase Greenhouse gasses, and that if we don't get moving and get a whole lot more CO2 back in the air, we'll be in an ice age, and the Sea's will freeze, and Port cities today will find themselves hundreds of miles inland... sound crazy? A lot of people didn't think so when his alarmist movie made equally outrageous claims in the opposite direction.
All I'm wondering about now is, how long before the alarmists admit the truth... or will they ever?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Truth War
Last week I read a book called "The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception" by John MacArthur. Another truly phenomenal book.It took me some time to figure out what I was going to say about this book for the simple reason that it would be very easy for people to get the wrong idea about this book, and that is the last thing that I want to happen with it.
This book is written to Christians. It deals with false teachings and false doctrine within the Church, and how Christians need to respond to it. MacArthur is very clear, he is not talking about starting a huge battle over every minor disagreement. He is talking about confronting and rebuking what can only be described as attacks on the Truth of God, teachings that, if accepted, would invalidate the entire message of the Gospel, and worst of all, destroy the Church's ability to win Souls to Christ.
Jude 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.
Jude 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.
You can see here that Jude intended to write a happy letter, talking about how great Salvation is, but the Holy Spirit moved in his heart and inspired him to write about standing up against false teaching, and fighting for the Truth of God.
I'm not going to try to explain the book here, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about it. MacArthur is not trying to start fights within the Church, he is trying to show Christians that we need to be united for the Truth. I do feel that all Christians should read this book. It has given me much to think about, and awakened me to the fact that I need to spend more time reading God's Word, and give more attention to the things of God, instead of so much of my time and attention to politics. That's not to say that I won't pay any attention to Politics, but I need to put a lot more of my focus on the things that really matter.
*************
Forgot to add, again, thanks to Christine over at TalkWisdom for recommending this book to me.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I Got Mine
OK, so I know I've been away from my blog for a while. It's been a crazy week. I've got Jury Duty this week, which I don't mind, but I feel like they are stringing me along. I spent all day Monday at the Courthouse, and then had to call in twice yesterday, and then again at 10AM today, and have to call again at 11:15 AM today, so I'm still in limbo, not knowing what is going on. I still haven't been selected for any given trial, but I'm still in the on call Jury Pool, so, we shall see what happens.
Anyway, at the end of a previous post (Endorsement Train) I told you that you could go to http://www.heritage.org/ to get your free copy of a Pocket Constitution. I also ordered mine that day. It obviously took a little time, but my copy showed up in the mail yesterday afternoon.
It's a pretty neat little booklet too, including The Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution. Also, many times if you get a book that includes the Constitution, and even some online sources for it, you'll find that they don't include Amendments. Sometimes they will have the Bill of Rights, but rarely do they include up to date Amendments, which this one does, so that is really cool too. It is also small enough to carry around with you, if you wish to do so.
Most Americans view the Constitution as a somewhat mystical document that you need to be a lawyer to understand, but that is simply not true. The fact is that it was written just so that people like you and I could read and understand it. While it is true that reading some of the supporting documents, such as "The Federalist Papers" can be very helpful in discerning the full intent of the writers, the Constitution itself is in no way cryptic, and is fairly easy to understand.
People not only need to understand that they can understand what the Constitution says, they also need to know that doing so would give them a much greater ability to force elected officials, as well as Government Bureaucrats, to abide by it, nor would special interest groups find the mind of the American people nearly so pliable, nor would they be able to twist the wishes and intents of our Founding Fathers to meet their own ends. This would go a long way toward putting our nation back on the right track.
So, if you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to order your free copy today.
*************
Update:
So, after all that calling and everything, I was released from Jury Service when I called this morning, so at least now I know that I go back to my normal routine.
Anyway, at the end of a previous post (Endorsement Train) I told you that you could go to http://www.heritage.org/ to get your free copy of a Pocket Constitution. I also ordered mine that day. It obviously took a little time, but my copy showed up in the mail yesterday afternoon.
It's a pretty neat little booklet too, including The Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution. Also, many times if you get a book that includes the Constitution, and even some online sources for it, you'll find that they don't include Amendments. Sometimes they will have the Bill of Rights, but rarely do they include up to date Amendments, which this one does, so that is really cool too. It is also small enough to carry around with you, if you wish to do so.
Most Americans view the Constitution as a somewhat mystical document that you need to be a lawyer to understand, but that is simply not true. The fact is that it was written just so that people like you and I could read and understand it. While it is true that reading some of the supporting documents, such as "The Federalist Papers" can be very helpful in discerning the full intent of the writers, the Constitution itself is in no way cryptic, and is fairly easy to understand.
People not only need to understand that they can understand what the Constitution says, they also need to know that doing so would give them a much greater ability to force elected officials, as well as Government Bureaucrats, to abide by it, nor would special interest groups find the mind of the American people nearly so pliable, nor would they be able to twist the wishes and intents of our Founding Fathers to meet their own ends. This would go a long way toward putting our nation back on the right track.
So, if you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to order your free copy today.
*************
Update:
So, after all that calling and everything, I was released from Jury Service when I called this morning, so at least now I know that I go back to my normal routine.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
John 1
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
"The Innocent Man"
Back to the books today. I just finished reading "The Innocent Man: Murder And Injustice In A Small Town" by John Grisham.This is a truly outstanding book. Meticulously researched, and written in Grisham's gripping style. If there are any complaints about this book at all, they stem from the fact that it is so well written that, at times you can almost forget that it's a true story... almost.
Normally when you read a book by Grisham, it's hard to figure out just exactly how he feels about a particular subject, and there is some of that here, so good is he at writing in a detached style. However, there are times in this book where his feelings about this case are clear, but you'll find yourself in total agreement with him when you're reading this book.
Now, I was raised, and still firmly believe that the Police are a force for good. That we should cooperate with them, and that as long as you do not commit a crime, you will be fine. I still believe that this is primarily true, but as this book makes very clear, there are exceptions. This is the reason why there are all those rules in place that the Police must abide by. Many times over the years I have thought that those rules were silly, and indeed, I'm sure that there are some that unduly impede the Police from doing there jobs, and protect no one except for guilty criminals, however, most of them are in place to protect the innocent from Officers and Detectives, and Prosecutors who are more concerned with "solving" the case, and getting convictions, than they are in actually finding the truth.
Part of the pressure is put on by the public, fueled by all the TV Cop shows that leave people with the impression that Detectives only work on one case at a time (sometimes it looks like entire law enforcement agencies only work one case at a time) and that all crimes should be solved in one hour, with a little time off for commercials. [I read something along those lines once before, but I can't remember where, so I can't give due credit.] Sometimes things like this lead to Cops and Prosecutors who see little choice but to close cases, at any cost, and innocent people get lost in the shuffle. To be fair, most people who are convicted are guilty, and most Law Enforcement officials are good people who are out to protect the people, and to get dangerous criminals off the street.
I do highly recommend this book. It was a very good read, and an important story that needs to be heard. It's a cautionary tale, and one that needs to be paid attention to. Even one innocent person being convicted and sent to jail, or sentenced to death, is too many.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
First Time? Really?
While speaking about her husbands campaign, and how excited and involved people are getting in it and about it, Michelle Obama had this to say, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country." Really now?
A very large portion of the mainstream media, if they are talking about this at all, are trying to make it sound like she said something other than what she clearly said. Of course, they want to make all of us who found this to be a highly offensive statement look ridiculous, and they honestly think that people are stupid enough to buy it. The first spin that they tried to put on it was from the Obama campaign, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." Well, that explanation might work except for a few minor (or not so minor) points. Not the least of which is the quote itself: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my Country." Which doesn't say anything at all about any of the nonsense that the campaign in spewing. Also, it would serve us well to remember that she is an intelligent woman, whose husband his a major candidate for a major party running for the office of the President of the United States of America, so she's not going to make this kind of statement in error. Let's face it, "I'm the proudest I've ever been of my Country," is a far cry from what she actually said. To say that she didn't mean that she's never been proud of the USA in the past is ridiculous. It's specifically what she said, and she's not stupid enough to say this by mistake... and it's offensive that the press thinks that we are stupid enough to fall for it. This shows how out of touch the media is with the population in general, but it does show just how in touch the Obama's are with their base.
Now, I for one, have heard some people question how they can't be proud of their country given the status that they have already achieved, and the fact that he is on the brink of getting the Democratic Nomination for President. Not that it's such a bad question, except that it's really a softball question, and it's the kind of question that gives room for the Campaign to put out the kind of inane statement that they did, in fact, put out.
What I want to ask is this, is she really telling us that she finds nothing in the History of the USA to be proud of?
Now, I understand that there are clearly some things in the History of this nation that are not things to be proud of, however, isn't the fact that we did overcome those things cause for some national pride?
What about John Quincy Adams? The sixth President of the United States, and the only President to be elected to the US House of Representatives after serving as President, where he spent the rest of his life fighting against slavery. Isn't that something to be proud of?
What of the many soldiers who gave their lives in the Civil War? Even though Slavery was not, as is often taught, the main reason for the fighting of the War, it was a motivating factor for many to join the Union Army, and many people sacrificed greatly to bring that vile institution to an end. Can't we be proud of them?
What about World War One? Did not the United States put forth a noble effort there?
What of World War Two? Was not Hitler a sufficiently evil enemy to warrant some pride at his defeat?
What about Korea? Was it not a good thing to stop the Communists from enslaving those in the south the same way that they had with those in the north?
What of all the Americans, both black and white, who put all they had on the line for Civil Rights in the '60's? Can't we be proud of them?
What about Vietnam? Even though it was horribly mismanaged, and ended up being a loss, it was still a noble effort, and a loss only because it was a war in which decisions were made by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and not by commanders in the field. Of course, most liberals would never feel any pride for that, or for Korea for that matter because we were fighting against Communism, and they kinda like communism. Not by that name of course, but the do like Socialism, which is nothing more than Communism with a less soiled name.
How about the fact that Women and minorities now have all the same opportunities as anyone else? Isn't that something to be proud of? Or are liberals so busy denying the truth of that statement that they don't see it?
For me, I have been proud of my country from my earliest memory. Not that I don't understand that we have had some not so proud moments throughout the history of our country, but I have always been taught, and since being old enough to really understand these things for myself, have realized that the USA is basically good. Things have not always been as they should be, but there have always been those who have fought hard to right the wrongs that they see. This does not only apply to liberals, even though they would claim it, but they have done some good in the past, no question about that, but, most of those liberals from decades past would be utterly disgusted at what is being done in the name of liberalism today.
The United States of America is a good country, a good place, and a good people. Some, like Obama, don't believe that, and want desperately to take the USA down the wrong path.
None of us knows what the future holds, but for today we know, we are from a nation whose history we can be proud of.
A very large portion of the mainstream media, if they are talking about this at all, are trying to make it sound like she said something other than what she clearly said. Of course, they want to make all of us who found this to be a highly offensive statement look ridiculous, and they honestly think that people are stupid enough to buy it. The first spin that they tried to put on it was from the Obama campaign, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." Well, that explanation might work except for a few minor (or not so minor) points. Not the least of which is the quote itself: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my Country." Which doesn't say anything at all about any of the nonsense that the campaign in spewing. Also, it would serve us well to remember that she is an intelligent woman, whose husband his a major candidate for a major party running for the office of the President of the United States of America, so she's not going to make this kind of statement in error. Let's face it, "I'm the proudest I've ever been of my Country," is a far cry from what she actually said. To say that she didn't mean that she's never been proud of the USA in the past is ridiculous. It's specifically what she said, and she's not stupid enough to say this by mistake... and it's offensive that the press thinks that we are stupid enough to fall for it. This shows how out of touch the media is with the population in general, but it does show just how in touch the Obama's are with their base.
Now, I for one, have heard some people question how they can't be proud of their country given the status that they have already achieved, and the fact that he is on the brink of getting the Democratic Nomination for President. Not that it's such a bad question, except that it's really a softball question, and it's the kind of question that gives room for the Campaign to put out the kind of inane statement that they did, in fact, put out.
What I want to ask is this, is she really telling us that she finds nothing in the History of the USA to be proud of?
Now, I understand that there are clearly some things in the History of this nation that are not things to be proud of, however, isn't the fact that we did overcome those things cause for some national pride?
What about John Quincy Adams? The sixth President of the United States, and the only President to be elected to the US House of Representatives after serving as President, where he spent the rest of his life fighting against slavery. Isn't that something to be proud of?
What of the many soldiers who gave their lives in the Civil War? Even though Slavery was not, as is often taught, the main reason for the fighting of the War, it was a motivating factor for many to join the Union Army, and many people sacrificed greatly to bring that vile institution to an end. Can't we be proud of them?
What about World War One? Did not the United States put forth a noble effort there?
What of World War Two? Was not Hitler a sufficiently evil enemy to warrant some pride at his defeat?
What about Korea? Was it not a good thing to stop the Communists from enslaving those in the south the same way that they had with those in the north?
What of all the Americans, both black and white, who put all they had on the line for Civil Rights in the '60's? Can't we be proud of them?
What about Vietnam? Even though it was horribly mismanaged, and ended up being a loss, it was still a noble effort, and a loss only because it was a war in which decisions were made by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and not by commanders in the field. Of course, most liberals would never feel any pride for that, or for Korea for that matter because we were fighting against Communism, and they kinda like communism. Not by that name of course, but the do like Socialism, which is nothing more than Communism with a less soiled name.
How about the fact that Women and minorities now have all the same opportunities as anyone else? Isn't that something to be proud of? Or are liberals so busy denying the truth of that statement that they don't see it?
For me, I have been proud of my country from my earliest memory. Not that I don't understand that we have had some not so proud moments throughout the history of our country, but I have always been taught, and since being old enough to really understand these things for myself, have realized that the USA is basically good. Things have not always been as they should be, but there have always been those who have fought hard to right the wrongs that they see. This does not only apply to liberals, even though they would claim it, but they have done some good in the past, no question about that, but, most of those liberals from decades past would be utterly disgusted at what is being done in the name of liberalism today.
The United States of America is a good country, a good place, and a good people. Some, like Obama, don't believe that, and want desperately to take the USA down the wrong path.
None of us knows what the future holds, but for today we know, we are from a nation whose history we can be proud of.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Rambo
Ok, so I know that I was said I was planning to post about Politics yesterday, but didn't end up blogging at all, but fear not (cause I'm sure you did) I'll get to it at some point.
I had a Darden Restaurants gift card from a contest at work. We looked at the choices listed on the card, and two we didn't recognize, and other than that there were "Red Lobster," which neither of us care for, and "Olive Garden," which is my wifes' favorite Restaurant, but doesn't do much for me. So she said to look and see there were any locations of the other two in our local area, but there weren't, the closest of either was over an hour away. So I Googled Darden to see if they had anything that wasn't listed on the card. Apparently they just bought Longhorn Steakhouse, which is awesome. I was so excited. I was sitting in front of the computer yelling "honey, they have Longhorn listed here, they have Longhorn listed here!!!!" So we called Longhorn to be sure they would take the card, and they said yes.
So, we decided to go see a movie, and have a nice dinner. My in-laws said they would watch the kids, so that was cool too. So I looked up the theater that is closest to Longhorn, and was again overcome with excitement as they were still showing "Rambo." I'm not sure my wife shared my enthusiasm, but she went along with it.
So, we dropped the kids off at her parents house, and they got pizza for dinner and got to go to the park, and found out Grandpa could still run! Even at a whopping 57 years of age! Ok, well the kids were surprised, but anyway, they had a great time.
So we went to the theater first, and got there with quite a bit of time to spare, and settled in to watch the inane program that they show in between movie showings. I'd describe it, but first I would have had to have been paying attention to it, and I can't say that I was. Anyway, and keep in mind we were seeing "Rambo," which is rated "R," which, in this case could be, "With Very Good Reason." So, we're sitting there watching other people file in, and what do we see? Some guy comes in with a kid that couldn't have been more than 5 years old. My jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe it. I'd have trouble thinking of a more inappropriate movie for kid that young. But I digress.
Of course, once the inane show was over, the commercials started. Now, I've always enjoyed previews of other movies before the movie. I like them. But commercials? I mean, come on, and especially given that they showed around five of them. Then the previews finally started, and there were quite a few of them, everything from "Midnight Meat Train," a horror flick that I imagine I would sleep through, and likely will never bother seeing, all the way to the new Narnia movie due out in a couple of months, which we've been waiting for.
So, finally, at 4:25, for a movie that had a start time of 4:05, the movie finally got started.
I do not intend to give away any plot points here, as I don't want to ruin it for anyone who wants to see this movie, but hasn't had the chance yet. What I will say is that there was some foul language, but if you've seen the other Rambo movies, you would expect this, and there was action. Lots and lots of action. I would say that this was, by far, the bloodiest of the Rambo movies, but it was still a really good movie. If you can get past the language, and aren't too squeamish (my wife had her eyes closed quite a few times) I would highly recommend this movie.
I think that the "Rambo" franchise has gotten a bad rap over the years. Quite often I have heard lots of different people talk about any generic Rambo movie as the ultimate in senseless violence movies, but really this isn't true. If you are not familiar with the movies, bear with me for a moment. All four of the movies are intended to make a very valid point. The first one, "Rambo: First Blood," was meant to draw attention to the very poor treatment of Veterans who returned from the Vietnam War. The second movie, "Rambo: First Blood, Part 2," was intended to raise public awareness of POW's from the Vietnam War still being held in North Vietnam after so many years. I remember watching that one with my Dad, and the passionate response he had. At the end a CIA guy asks "What do you want us to do, Bomb Hanoi?" My dad jumped right out of his chair (we were at home, thank God) and yelled "YES!!!!" The third one was to make people aware of what the Soviet Union was doing to the people of Afghanistan during their occupation of that country. And this last one, simply titled "Rambo," is meant to spotlight the atrocities that are happening right now, today, in Burma (AKA Myanmar) and can be checked out at http://www.witness.org/ and is a very real thing.
I know that these are action movies, and they involve a lot of killing and such, and certainly, a lot of violence, but I just wanted to point out that this is not the full extent of what the movies are.
It's also interesting to note that the hero of the movies, John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stalone, always just wants to be left alone. He never wants trouble, never wants to get involved, but that option is never really left open for him, much to the chagrin of his eventual enemies. There is also a surprising Christian presence in this movie, as it is Christian aide workers that he goes in to rescue, and I'm not giving anything away here, you can see that much in any synopsis at any movie theater web site.
Anyway, I thought that it was a great movie, and am glad that I got to see it in the theater, but thinking back to that little kid (who did stay for the entire movie), all I can say is, I really hope they Scotch Guarded those seats!!!
I had a Darden Restaurants gift card from a contest at work. We looked at the choices listed on the card, and two we didn't recognize, and other than that there were "Red Lobster," which neither of us care for, and "Olive Garden," which is my wifes' favorite Restaurant, but doesn't do much for me. So she said to look and see there were any locations of the other two in our local area, but there weren't, the closest of either was over an hour away. So I Googled Darden to see if they had anything that wasn't listed on the card. Apparently they just bought Longhorn Steakhouse, which is awesome. I was so excited. I was sitting in front of the computer yelling "honey, they have Longhorn listed here, they have Longhorn listed here!!!!" So we called Longhorn to be sure they would take the card, and they said yes.
So, we decided to go see a movie, and have a nice dinner. My in-laws said they would watch the kids, so that was cool too. So I looked up the theater that is closest to Longhorn, and was again overcome with excitement as they were still showing "Rambo." I'm not sure my wife shared my enthusiasm, but she went along with it.
So, we dropped the kids off at her parents house, and they got pizza for dinner and got to go to the park, and found out Grandpa could still run! Even at a whopping 57 years of age! Ok, well the kids were surprised, but anyway, they had a great time.
So we went to the theater first, and got there with quite a bit of time to spare, and settled in to watch the inane program that they show in between movie showings. I'd describe it, but first I would have had to have been paying attention to it, and I can't say that I was. Anyway, and keep in mind we were seeing "Rambo," which is rated "R," which, in this case could be, "With Very Good Reason." So, we're sitting there watching other people file in, and what do we see? Some guy comes in with a kid that couldn't have been more than 5 years old. My jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe it. I'd have trouble thinking of a more inappropriate movie for kid that young. But I digress.
Of course, once the inane show was over, the commercials started. Now, I've always enjoyed previews of other movies before the movie. I like them. But commercials? I mean, come on, and especially given that they showed around five of them. Then the previews finally started, and there were quite a few of them, everything from "Midnight Meat Train," a horror flick that I imagine I would sleep through, and likely will never bother seeing, all the way to the new Narnia movie due out in a couple of months, which we've been waiting for.
So, finally, at 4:25, for a movie that had a start time of 4:05, the movie finally got started.
I do not intend to give away any plot points here, as I don't want to ruin it for anyone who wants to see this movie, but hasn't had the chance yet. What I will say is that there was some foul language, but if you've seen the other Rambo movies, you would expect this, and there was action. Lots and lots of action. I would say that this was, by far, the bloodiest of the Rambo movies, but it was still a really good movie. If you can get past the language, and aren't too squeamish (my wife had her eyes closed quite a few times) I would highly recommend this movie.
I think that the "Rambo" franchise has gotten a bad rap over the years. Quite often I have heard lots of different people talk about any generic Rambo movie as the ultimate in senseless violence movies, but really this isn't true. If you are not familiar with the movies, bear with me for a moment. All four of the movies are intended to make a very valid point. The first one, "Rambo: First Blood," was meant to draw attention to the very poor treatment of Veterans who returned from the Vietnam War. The second movie, "Rambo: First Blood, Part 2," was intended to raise public awareness of POW's from the Vietnam War still being held in North Vietnam after so many years. I remember watching that one with my Dad, and the passionate response he had. At the end a CIA guy asks "What do you want us to do, Bomb Hanoi?" My dad jumped right out of his chair (we were at home, thank God) and yelled "YES!!!!" The third one was to make people aware of what the Soviet Union was doing to the people of Afghanistan during their occupation of that country. And this last one, simply titled "Rambo," is meant to spotlight the atrocities that are happening right now, today, in Burma (AKA Myanmar) and can be checked out at http://www.witness.org/ and is a very real thing.
I know that these are action movies, and they involve a lot of killing and such, and certainly, a lot of violence, but I just wanted to point out that this is not the full extent of what the movies are.
It's also interesting to note that the hero of the movies, John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stalone, always just wants to be left alone. He never wants trouble, never wants to get involved, but that option is never really left open for him, much to the chagrin of his eventual enemies. There is also a surprising Christian presence in this movie, as it is Christian aide workers that he goes in to rescue, and I'm not giving anything away here, you can see that much in any synopsis at any movie theater web site.
Anyway, I thought that it was a great movie, and am glad that I got to see it in the theater, but thinking back to that little kid (who did stay for the entire movie), all I can say is, I really hope they Scotch Guarded those seats!!!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Remembering Dad
It was two years ago today, on a day not all that unlike this one, that I received the call from my brother that Dad had passed away. I was home with my son, who was two at the time, and was watching cartoons in the other room at that moment. He heard me crying and came running out to me. He said, "What's wrong Daddy? Did you hurt yourself when you were out here by yourself?" I told him, no, that his Uncle had called me with some bad news. He then wanted to know if my brother had yelled at me. So I explained to him that, no, he hadn't yelled at me, but that my Dad had died and was in Heaven now, and that I was going to miss him because I wouldn't be able to see or talk to him anymore. He hugged me and said he was sorry, and headed back for his cartoons. At that time my wife was still working at Wal-Mart, and her Dad worked there also, doing oil changes and tires back in the Tire, Lube Express, which made him much easier to get ahold of than she was, being on a cash register, so I called him first, and he went and told my wife, and let her boss know that she needed to come home. We packed up for the trip to New York, and then went and picked up our daughter from school. When I explained to her what had happened, her first words were, "Oh Daddy, I'm so sorry your Daddy died."Dad was supposed to have a Dr.'s appointment that morning. Mom was at work, and a friend was going to take him to his appointment, but when the friend got there she found him in his power chair, looking like he was asleep, which is what she thought for just a moment. While we don't know exactly when it happened, we do know that he was all dressed to go, had his coat on and was sitting as he always seemed to be while waiting to be picked up for one of his many appointments. The Dr thought it happened instantly without much pain because his clothes were not disheveled, so he did not appear to have grasped his chest. It is entirely possible that he fell asleep in his chair and simply slipped on to Glory.
The picture above gives some idea of the view from his grave sight, which Mom and I visited this past Christmas. Which brings me to the first thing that I really want to share today. This first one is from a plaque that Mom has hanging on her bedroom wall, next to a very nice picture of her and Dad:
The Broken Chain
Author Unknown
We little knew that morning, that God was going to call your name.
In life we loved you dearly, In death we do the same.
It broke our hearts to lose you, You did not go alone;
For part of us went with you, The day God called you home.
You left us peaceful memories, Your love is still our guide;
And though we cannot see you, you are always at our side.
Our family chain is broken, and nothing seems the same;
But as God calls us one by one, the chain will link again.
This next one is a poem that I wrote on the drive to New York, on the very day that Dad died. The Pastor read it at the funeral, and I think he made it sound better than what it is, but I'm going to share it with you anyway.
Dad
By Matt Wiser
Feburary 15, 2006
Today I lost a man I've Loved,
Since the day that I was born,
I'll never forget my brother's broken voice,
As it shattered my peaceful morn.
I always knew this day would come,
And that I would be sad,
But surely it'd be down the road,
I'd have to say goodbye to Dad.
Somtimes we used to diagree,
To argue, and even fight.
I had to become a Dad myself,
To see that he was right.
I wonder why I lost my Dad,
While I'm still so young a man,
But some things in this life,
We'll never understand.
I'll see him someday,
Leaping on streets of Gold,
I'll hold his hand and sing,
While we bask in Jesus' Glory, Joy untold.
How can I talk of the love of God,
On the day my Father died?
Because I know, when he met our Lord,
Jesus' arms were open wide.
To turn my back upon my God,
Is something I could ill aford.
The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away,
Blessed be the name of the Lord.
And now I've saved the best for last. This next one is a poem that my dad wrote many years ago. While I don't know exactly when he wrote it, he had it notarized on October 26th 1971.
My Dream
By Leo C. Wiser
Last night I dreamed and Angel came
and took me far away,
To a place that we call Heaven
To a far, far better day,
I walked along those streets of gold
And marveled at what I saw,
The mansions Christ had prepared for me,
I stared in utter awe!
I dreamed that I saw Peter
And James and John and Paul,
The disciples and the prophets,
I rejoiced and talked with them all,
While behind were left the heartaches
That I had come to know:
The pain, the tears, the sorrow;
I didn't really miss it though!
I dreamed I saw my mother
Waiting for me there.
What a change there was from her death bed,
Her eyes were bright and fair.
No more pain and sorrow,
She spoke without a care;
And many other friends I know,
Were now in that land so fair.
Then I heard the choir of Heaven,
How beautifully they sang
The Hallelujah Chorus,
And Glory to his Name.
Then I saw a light so bright
That I could scarcely see.
I heard a voice so gently say,
"Welcome home with me."
And then I saw my Saviour
With arms outstretched to me,
Those nail-pierced hands and feet and side
Were oh so plain to see.
Down on my knees to Him I cried,
"I've been so unfaithful, Lord."
He said, "For you I was crucified;
Eternal Life is your reward."
I touched those nail-pierced hands and feet;
The tears flowed down my face.
He gently spoke again to me,
"My child, you've won the race."
"I am not worthy, Master,
In your presence here to be."
He dried my tears, and took my hand,
Then said, "Now welcome home with me."
It was this last poem, the one that Dad wrote, that I read at the funeral.
I miss my Dad, but I know where he is. Dad knew (KNOWS!) Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, and is with him now in Glory. Dad talked a lot about politics, and was passionate about his positions and opinions, but I know that he really cared deeply about where people were going to spend eternity. Like many Christians, Dad wanted to see people come to know Jesus, and to get saved, and he served in the Church, in many capacities, and was an AWANA leader for many years. If even one of those kids whose lives he touched got saved because of the way God used Dad in their lives, well, what better legacy could there be?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Love Fest
Ok, so I'm not one of the cynical people who cares nothing for Valentines Day, and thinks that it should just be done away with. Nor am I one of those people who goes crazy about it. We didn't really do anything for it this year, for several reasons, but I don't have anything against it, and I do like to do something special for my wife on this day, if I can.
It's confusing for kids though. My daughter came home very upset because several of her friends at school received gifts from their parents, and one girl couldn't stop talking about all the stuff that she was getting from her parents and grandparents. So she was pretty upset that we didn't get anything for her. I took the time to explain to her that Valentines day is a day for grown ups, Mommies and Daddies and such, to get each other a little something and tell each other how much they love each other, and it's a fun day for kids to exchange cards at school with the rest of the class, but it's not a gift giving day on a grand scale, like a birthday or Christmas. I also explained to her that when her mother and I were children our parents didn't give us gifts on Valentines day (Nor should they have). I won't say that this made her happy, but I think that she understood.
Valentines day isn't a day that we can say has been hijacked by commercial interest, like you can with most other Holidays, because this one, as far as I know, always has been a commercial holiday, and it can be fun too, as long as you don't place too much emphasis on it. In other words, don't go crazy.
I do find myself wondering today how many flowers, boxes of chocolate, and sweet little love cards were sent to Obama by NBC news, since they are so in love with him.
I mean, you have to look at what Obama has been saying... which is NOTHING. I don't have any issue with him talking about hope and change, but with nothing to back them up, it is all utterly meaningless. If you don't tell what changes you want to make, and what it is you plan to do to give people hope and then fulfill that hope, they are just words. There are a lot of questions that news people should be asking of this man, but they don't, they just drool over him and talk about having a thrill run up thier leg (honestly, that's what Chris Matthews said about him) or talk about getting tears in their eyes when they hear him talk. If this doesn't qualify as a crush, then I don't know what would.
Tomorrow I have a special post planned, and then I will most likely tackle the issue of the turncoat, Mitt Romney, endorsing John McCain for President on Saturday, so stay tuned, you don't want to miss these next two posts.
It's confusing for kids though. My daughter came home very upset because several of her friends at school received gifts from their parents, and one girl couldn't stop talking about all the stuff that she was getting from her parents and grandparents. So she was pretty upset that we didn't get anything for her. I took the time to explain to her that Valentines day is a day for grown ups, Mommies and Daddies and such, to get each other a little something and tell each other how much they love each other, and it's a fun day for kids to exchange cards at school with the rest of the class, but it's not a gift giving day on a grand scale, like a birthday or Christmas. I also explained to her that when her mother and I were children our parents didn't give us gifts on Valentines day (Nor should they have). I won't say that this made her happy, but I think that she understood.
Valentines day isn't a day that we can say has been hijacked by commercial interest, like you can with most other Holidays, because this one, as far as I know, always has been a commercial holiday, and it can be fun too, as long as you don't place too much emphasis on it. In other words, don't go crazy.
I do find myself wondering today how many flowers, boxes of chocolate, and sweet little love cards were sent to Obama by NBC news, since they are so in love with him.
I mean, you have to look at what Obama has been saying... which is NOTHING. I don't have any issue with him talking about hope and change, but with nothing to back them up, it is all utterly meaningless. If you don't tell what changes you want to make, and what it is you plan to do to give people hope and then fulfill that hope, they are just words. There are a lot of questions that news people should be asking of this man, but they don't, they just drool over him and talk about having a thrill run up thier leg (honestly, that's what Chris Matthews said about him) or talk about getting tears in their eyes when they hear him talk. If this doesn't qualify as a crush, then I don't know what would.
Tomorrow I have a special post planned, and then I will most likely tackle the issue of the turncoat, Mitt Romney, endorsing John McCain for President on Saturday, so stay tuned, you don't want to miss these next two posts.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Books and Writers
For starters today I'm going to do another book review. I don't know for sure if I'll make this a regular part of this blog or not, but I do tend to read a lot of books, and so, there is every possibility that I might do so.
Last week I read Bill O'Reilly's book, "Culture Warrior." I found this to be a very interesting book. Well researched, and well written. It was also very informative, and over all a good read. It actually dealt with some of the same issues as "The Marketing of Evil," but from a differant angle, and it dealt with some differant things as well. I'm not comparing the two books, if I did I'd have to say that "The Marketing of Evil" was the better book, but that's not my point here.
I enjoyed "Culture Warrior" and do think that it was worth my time in reading it. That is not to say that I was in complete agreement with everything that O'Reilly put forth in the book. There are a couple of things that I do think that he was wrong about, but the book still made me stop and think about those things, and I really like that. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it more in the future, I like it when people repsectfully disagree with me, and then present the reasons why they disagree with what I've said (just as Gary did on my last post) which opens a dialouge, and that is where progress is made. By people being "forced" to think things over. By the same token, I like that O'Reilly said some things that I'm not on board with, because it really made me stop and think about those issues, even though, obviously, I can't go and talk to him about it. But that's ok.
One thing that is differant from my last book review is that I'm not going to recommend that people read this book. Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not saying that you shouldn't read this book. If you had it on your reading list already, go ahead and read it, or if you were thinking of reading it already, then by all means, don't let me stop you, it's not in any way a bad book. But I don't want to point people toward it that weren't already thinking of reading it. The reason for this is simple. First and foremost, it is written from a secular worldview, and the times that he does talk about religion are some of the things that I can't agree with. The other reason is that I don't find this book to be of Critical importance the way I do with "The Marketing of Evil," so if you are only going to read one or the other, then please, make it "The Marketing of Evil."
If you do read "Culture Warrior," just remember to keep thinking for yourself, and don't just believe everything to be as it is written in the book, just because it is written in this book. You've got to think for yourself. Besides, who needs O'Reilly to give them political annalysis when you can get it from me?
Just kidding!
Anyway, the second thing that I want to discuss today is the fact that the writers strike is finally over. I don't know the details of the deal that was made, but it is very good for the TV industry that the writers are back to work. I guess the question now will be, what shows will survive, and how many veiweres did some of the big shows lose out of this whole deal?
I know that I for one haven't missed very many shows while they have been off the air (or in re-runs, which is pretty much the same thing). I also think that it has been a really good time for channels like "The History Channel" and "The Discovery Channel" among others, and I wonder how many viewers that have gotten hooked on shows on those networks will stick with them rather than going back to the main networks. I'm sure it will be some.
I hope that the writers got a good deal out of this, since, in my opinion, the industry wouldn't be making any money without the writters.
On a side note, I would like to see the TV executives stop being so demanding of new shows. All too often these days if a show doesn't get stellar ratings right off the bat, they are cancelled. It wasn't always this way. I'm sure that a great many shows that have come to be fan favorites over the years never would have survived their first season if they were introduced today. Sometimes it just takes a show some time to find it's audience, so they need to give them a chance.
Last week I read Bill O'Reilly's book, "Culture Warrior." I found this to be a very interesting book. Well researched, and well written. It was also very informative, and over all a good read. It actually dealt with some of the same issues as "The Marketing of Evil," but from a differant angle, and it dealt with some differant things as well. I'm not comparing the two books, if I did I'd have to say that "The Marketing of Evil" was the better book, but that's not my point here.
I enjoyed "Culture Warrior" and do think that it was worth my time in reading it. That is not to say that I was in complete agreement with everything that O'Reilly put forth in the book. There are a couple of things that I do think that he was wrong about, but the book still made me stop and think about those things, and I really like that. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it more in the future, I like it when people repsectfully disagree with me, and then present the reasons why they disagree with what I've said (just as Gary did on my last post) which opens a dialouge, and that is where progress is made. By people being "forced" to think things over. By the same token, I like that O'Reilly said some things that I'm not on board with, because it really made me stop and think about those issues, even though, obviously, I can't go and talk to him about it. But that's ok.
One thing that is differant from my last book review is that I'm not going to recommend that people read this book. Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not saying that you shouldn't read this book. If you had it on your reading list already, go ahead and read it, or if you were thinking of reading it already, then by all means, don't let me stop you, it's not in any way a bad book. But I don't want to point people toward it that weren't already thinking of reading it. The reason for this is simple. First and foremost, it is written from a secular worldview, and the times that he does talk about religion are some of the things that I can't agree with. The other reason is that I don't find this book to be of Critical importance the way I do with "The Marketing of Evil," so if you are only going to read one or the other, then please, make it "The Marketing of Evil."
If you do read "Culture Warrior," just remember to keep thinking for yourself, and don't just believe everything to be as it is written in the book, just because it is written in this book. You've got to think for yourself. Besides, who needs O'Reilly to give them political annalysis when you can get it from me?
Just kidding!
Anyway, the second thing that I want to discuss today is the fact that the writers strike is finally over. I don't know the details of the deal that was made, but it is very good for the TV industry that the writers are back to work. I guess the question now will be, what shows will survive, and how many veiweres did some of the big shows lose out of this whole deal?
I know that I for one haven't missed very many shows while they have been off the air (or in re-runs, which is pretty much the same thing). I also think that it has been a really good time for channels like "The History Channel" and "The Discovery Channel" among others, and I wonder how many viewers that have gotten hooked on shows on those networks will stick with them rather than going back to the main networks. I'm sure it will be some.
I hope that the writers got a good deal out of this, since, in my opinion, the industry wouldn't be making any money without the writters.
On a side note, I would like to see the TV executives stop being so demanding of new shows. All too often these days if a show doesn't get stellar ratings right off the bat, they are cancelled. It wasn't always this way. I'm sure that a great many shows that have come to be fan favorites over the years never would have survived their first season if they were introduced today. Sometimes it just takes a show some time to find it's audience, so they need to give them a chance.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Fundamentalist
Recently Pastor Rick Warren, best know for being the author of "The Purpose Driven Life" book appeared on Comedy Central on the Colbert Report. First off, I didn't think that this was the best forum for a Christian to appear on, but I thought, hey, we're supposed to go out into the highways and byways and bring people to Christ, so why not. (To view the interview yourself, you can probably find it at http://www.comedycentral.com/ or through a search at http://www.google.com/ but, for me personally, I first ran acrost it at http://www.alittleleaven.com/)
Once the interview got started Steven Colbert asked Pastor Warren if he is a Fundamentalist Christian. Well, Rick didn't even have to think about that one, he said, "No. A Fundamentalist is someone who has stopped listening." He then went on to compare Fundamentalist Christians to Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, Secularists, and a few others. I was somewhat taken aback by this given that I've always considered myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian, so now, I had to find out for myself.
First I visited http://www.dictionary.com/ and looked up the definition of "Fundamentalist" and this is what I found: –noun
1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.
So, being very glad to have that all cleared up for me I said, good, so I was right, I am a Fundamentalist, just as I suspected. Of course, this brings up the next part of this question, if Rick Warren isn't a Fundamentalist Christian, what is he? Does he believe in those things listed above? Does he strictly adhear to our basic Christian beliefs? These are questions worth asking, and a lot of them, I don't have answers for right now, but if I find them, I would think that I'll be sharing them with you.
Back to the interview. One obvious question from Colbert was about what our purpose in life is. Now, if I remember correctly from reading Rick's book, I think that he said our purpose was to Worship God. Not something I would argue with, being that I did think that the book was written to Christians. However, that's not what he told Colbert. He said that our purpose in life is to be ourselves. He said that God is happy when he see's us being ourselves, and gave the example of watching his kids sleep, and seeing their chests rise and fall as they slept, and that this made him really happy, because he made them. Of course, I thought God made them, but then, this answer kind of gave me pause because I really felt that he was answering a question about how God felt about something by telling how he felt about it, which, at least in my mind, seemed like he was putting himself equal with God. I'm sure he didn't actually mean it that way, at least, I really hope not, but that's how it came across to me.
Anyway, I was curious about that answer too, is God happy with people just being themselves? Jer 17:9 says, "The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Which, I'm thinking, isn't going to lead us to do things that make God happy. Certainly he doesn't like when are deceitful and do desperately wicked things, but, having been born with a sin nature, that is who we are. So, no, I don't think God is happy with us just being us, nor can we say that our purpose is just being ourselves. This also brings up the point that a great many of the people that were in the Colbert audience, both in the studio and at home, were not Christians, so, can someone who doesn't have faith in Jesus Christ be pleasing to God? No. Hebrews 11:6(a) says, "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]..." so the message here was, at best, incomplete.
What would have been a worthy thing to speak about would have been repentance. Unfortunately, that's not a fun, or funny, thing to talk about. However, the truth of the matter is that it is our highest calling. In what we have come to call the Great Commision, Jesus says this in Matthew 28:18-20, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." Which I think is pretty clear. Nowhere I have found the Bible to say that we are to come up with our own Philosophy that makes everyone feel that they are good enough, and that God loves them just as they are, so that they can feel that they have nothing to repent from, and end up going to Hell. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the oposite of what we are supposed to do.
Warren never mentioned getting saved, or believing in Christ, all he talked about was being oursleves. Being who God created us to be. Unfortunately, who God created us to be is something that we cannot do while we are enslaved to our sin nature. Nor can we be saved without repentance and fully trusting in Jesus Christ and his completed work on Calvary. John 3:3 says, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And Romans 10:11-17 says, "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
It seems to me that Rick didn't want to make people feel bad by talking about their sins. He wanted people to feel good, and probably felt that he was sharing something good with them. Unfortunately he was not Preaching the Gospel of Peace. As most of you know, I'm sure, the Gospel is The Good News. In fact, it's the absolute Best News that we could ever share with anyone. But as good and wonderful as the Gospel is, it starts with the fact that people are sinners and need to repent. Without the knowledge that one is a sinner, there is no feeling on the part of that one that they need to repent.
Also, if you watch this interview you will see that Warren also told Colbert that we are here to practice for the afterlife so we won't be "a doofus" when we get there. So, I was wondering exactly where he got this from, so I went to http://www.blueletterbible.org/ and searched for the word "doofus" in every single version of the Bible that they have there (and they have quite a few) and found that it doesn't appear anywhere in any version of the Bible that I know of, so I wasn't able to get an answer to that one... sorry.
Seriously though, I invite, and in fact, strongly encourage comments on this post. (I always invite comments, but on this post especially.) If anyone has anything to add, or if you see where I have said something that is not supported by the Scriptures, please let me know. The last thing that I want to do is spread falsehoods, so please, don't be bashful.
Once the interview got started Steven Colbert asked Pastor Warren if he is a Fundamentalist Christian. Well, Rick didn't even have to think about that one, he said, "No. A Fundamentalist is someone who has stopped listening." He then went on to compare Fundamentalist Christians to Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, Secularists, and a few others. I was somewhat taken aback by this given that I've always considered myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian, so now, I had to find out for myself.
First I visited http://www.dictionary.com/ and looked up the definition of "Fundamentalist" and this is what I found: –noun
1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.
So, being very glad to have that all cleared up for me I said, good, so I was right, I am a Fundamentalist, just as I suspected. Of course, this brings up the next part of this question, if Rick Warren isn't a Fundamentalist Christian, what is he? Does he believe in those things listed above? Does he strictly adhear to our basic Christian beliefs? These are questions worth asking, and a lot of them, I don't have answers for right now, but if I find them, I would think that I'll be sharing them with you.
Back to the interview. One obvious question from Colbert was about what our purpose in life is. Now, if I remember correctly from reading Rick's book, I think that he said our purpose was to Worship God. Not something I would argue with, being that I did think that the book was written to Christians. However, that's not what he told Colbert. He said that our purpose in life is to be ourselves. He said that God is happy when he see's us being ourselves, and gave the example of watching his kids sleep, and seeing their chests rise and fall as they slept, and that this made him really happy, because he made them. Of course, I thought God made them, but then, this answer kind of gave me pause because I really felt that he was answering a question about how God felt about something by telling how he felt about it, which, at least in my mind, seemed like he was putting himself equal with God. I'm sure he didn't actually mean it that way, at least, I really hope not, but that's how it came across to me.
Anyway, I was curious about that answer too, is God happy with people just being themselves? Jer 17:9 says, "The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Which, I'm thinking, isn't going to lead us to do things that make God happy. Certainly he doesn't like when are deceitful and do desperately wicked things, but, having been born with a sin nature, that is who we are. So, no, I don't think God is happy with us just being us, nor can we say that our purpose is just being ourselves. This also brings up the point that a great many of the people that were in the Colbert audience, both in the studio and at home, were not Christians, so, can someone who doesn't have faith in Jesus Christ be pleasing to God? No. Hebrews 11:6(a) says, "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]..." so the message here was, at best, incomplete.
What would have been a worthy thing to speak about would have been repentance. Unfortunately, that's not a fun, or funny, thing to talk about. However, the truth of the matter is that it is our highest calling. In what we have come to call the Great Commision, Jesus says this in Matthew 28:18-20, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." Which I think is pretty clear. Nowhere I have found the Bible to say that we are to come up with our own Philosophy that makes everyone feel that they are good enough, and that God loves them just as they are, so that they can feel that they have nothing to repent from, and end up going to Hell. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the oposite of what we are supposed to do.
Warren never mentioned getting saved, or believing in Christ, all he talked about was being oursleves. Being who God created us to be. Unfortunately, who God created us to be is something that we cannot do while we are enslaved to our sin nature. Nor can we be saved without repentance and fully trusting in Jesus Christ and his completed work on Calvary. John 3:3 says, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And Romans 10:11-17 says, "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
It seems to me that Rick didn't want to make people feel bad by talking about their sins. He wanted people to feel good, and probably felt that he was sharing something good with them. Unfortunately he was not Preaching the Gospel of Peace. As most of you know, I'm sure, the Gospel is The Good News. In fact, it's the absolute Best News that we could ever share with anyone. But as good and wonderful as the Gospel is, it starts with the fact that people are sinners and need to repent. Without the knowledge that one is a sinner, there is no feeling on the part of that one that they need to repent.
Also, if you watch this interview you will see that Warren also told Colbert that we are here to practice for the afterlife so we won't be "a doofus" when we get there. So, I was wondering exactly where he got this from, so I went to http://www.blueletterbible.org/ and searched for the word "doofus" in every single version of the Bible that they have there (and they have quite a few) and found that it doesn't appear anywhere in any version of the Bible that I know of, so I wasn't able to get an answer to that one... sorry.
Seriously though, I invite, and in fact, strongly encourage comments on this post. (I always invite comments, but on this post especially.) If anyone has anything to add, or if you see where I have said something that is not supported by the Scriptures, please let me know. The last thing that I want to do is spread falsehoods, so please, don't be bashful.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Out Of Line
If you have read many of my posts recently then you know that I'm not a big fan of Mike Huckabee. I don't dislike the man personally, but I don't think he would be a particularly good choice for President. However, I do understand James Dobson's point in endorsing him, being that he would be a better choice than John McCain. Fortunately I think that a great many Christians have figured out the truth about him and the votes that he is getting now don't have to do with people thinking that he's a great Christian leader so much as they have to do with him being a marginally better choice than the alternative. So, while I have not been a Huckabee supporter, since he is the only viable candidate left to challenge John McCain, I would like to see him pull out the nomination.
One thing that kind of ticked me off though was seeing that the Governor of Texas has called for Huckabee to drop out of the race. I couldn't beleive that this man had the gall to do that. Apparently he's so afraid that McCain might not win the nomination, that he wants any viable competition to drop out. I think that it is to Huckabee's credit that he refused to do so. I also think that Huckabee's refusal to drop out was justified in his Caucus/Primary victories yesterday. I would like to see the rest of the Republican politicians just shut up and let the people choose who they want to run in the General Election, and not try to make the call for us. Unfortunately, all the good choices have already dropped out of the race, but at least there is still a race going on, and while McCain seems to be a lock, Huckabee could still pull off an upset, we'll just have to wait and see.
I also saw a headline, and I didn't bother to read the article, saying the Huckabee's victories might get in the way of John McCain on his way to the nomination. As if McCain getting the nod really is a lock and Huckabee's victories are just delaying the inevitable. It's sickening how much the liberal press is trying to influence Republicans to vote for their darling Psuedo-Republican candidate. Like the GOP politicians, I would like to see the media shut up and stop trying to tell us who we should vote for. Crazy as it may sound (or not) the press doesn't run the country, nor should they.
I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I do know this, it should be up to registered Republicans, and no one else, to choose who will get the GOP nod, but sadly, thanks to idiot States that have open Primaries, it is already too late for that to happen.
One thing that kind of ticked me off though was seeing that the Governor of Texas has called for Huckabee to drop out of the race. I couldn't beleive that this man had the gall to do that. Apparently he's so afraid that McCain might not win the nomination, that he wants any viable competition to drop out. I think that it is to Huckabee's credit that he refused to do so. I also think that Huckabee's refusal to drop out was justified in his Caucus/Primary victories yesterday. I would like to see the rest of the Republican politicians just shut up and let the people choose who they want to run in the General Election, and not try to make the call for us. Unfortunately, all the good choices have already dropped out of the race, but at least there is still a race going on, and while McCain seems to be a lock, Huckabee could still pull off an upset, we'll just have to wait and see.
I also saw a headline, and I didn't bother to read the article, saying the Huckabee's victories might get in the way of John McCain on his way to the nomination. As if McCain getting the nod really is a lock and Huckabee's victories are just delaying the inevitable. It's sickening how much the liberal press is trying to influence Republicans to vote for their darling Psuedo-Republican candidate. Like the GOP politicians, I would like to see the media shut up and stop trying to tell us who we should vote for. Crazy as it may sound (or not) the press doesn't run the country, nor should they.
I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I do know this, it should be up to registered Republicans, and no one else, to choose who will get the GOP nod, but sadly, thanks to idiot States that have open Primaries, it is already too late for that to happen.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Just Get Dressed Already
There are some Nudists that are complaining that Sherriff's Deputies are harassing them at a local beach. I'm just a little confused as to how it is harassment when a law enforcement official tells you that you have to put some clothes on in order to be compliant with the law. To me this is just common sense (and maybe that's the problem) that you can't go nude on a public beach. We are talking about an area that is completely open to the general public, where families go for a fun day, and where children are bound to be when they are not in School.
I would think that people would understand that parents don't want their kids exposed to naked people when they are supposed to be just having a good time at the beach. For that matter, I don't want to see naked people sitting around out in public. It's gross, and what's more, it's wrong. But maybe that enters into it also. Relativism. The idea that just because I think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone else. Of course this is nonsense. I am a firm believer in Absolutes, and I believe it is absolutely wrong to run around in front of people in your birthday suit.
I know that I have seen arguments in the past where people are trying to say that there is nothing wrong with it because they are not ashamed of their bodies. Well, to that I say, who cares, I'm not ashamed of your body either, but I still don't want to see it. For that matter, I'm not ashamed of my body, even if I am fat, but I wouldn't even consider showing it off to other people, even if I wasn't fat. I don't get where this idea comes from. Somebody please explain to me how it is that Christmas trees are offensive, but naked bodies aren't. I'm totally confused.
Of course, maybe they could work something out where they have a judge who sits in a little booth on the beach and decides who is allowed to tromp around in the nude, and who isn't. At least that could serve to make things a little more pleasant for other beach goers. Ok, I'm just kidding. I'm opposed to all forms of public nudity. If we were talking about a private beach, or a designated "Nude Beach" then I wouldn't care, people would know what was going to be going on there before they ever went, but that's just not the case at a public beach.
Basically, I guess I just want to tell these people to shut up, quit griping, and put some stinking clothes on. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about (no pun intended).
To me, there is nothing wrong with the nude human form. In Private. And more specifically, between a Husband and Wife. It just doesn't belong outside of that relationship.
One other thing that the article on this was sure to point out was that the law that was being enforced was 13 years old. *GASP* 13 whole years!?!?! Can they be serious? They are still enforcing a 13 year old law? How did this happen? Who's responsible? Get a grip. I don't even know why they put that in there. Like 13 years is such a long time. How long has murder been against the law? And they still enforce that don't that? Sure they do, as long as the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with it.
I would also think that there would other reasons for not wanting people to go nude on the beach. Our beaches here are pretty loaded up with broken up shells, which I would think would be painful in certain sensitive area's. Not to mention all the little critters that crawl around in the sand. Wouldn't you want a little protection? And all that extra Sun Block!
It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will defend and fight for as a "right." Not caring that there is no basis at all for calling something like this a right. What would you call it, the right to nudity? And where does it derive from? Certainly not the Consititution, I know, I've read it, and even though I don't remember everything, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that: "The right to walk around buck naked shall not be infringed." --Yeah, I don't think so.
I would think that people would understand that parents don't want their kids exposed to naked people when they are supposed to be just having a good time at the beach. For that matter, I don't want to see naked people sitting around out in public. It's gross, and what's more, it's wrong. But maybe that enters into it also. Relativism. The idea that just because I think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone else. Of course this is nonsense. I am a firm believer in Absolutes, and I believe it is absolutely wrong to run around in front of people in your birthday suit.
I know that I have seen arguments in the past where people are trying to say that there is nothing wrong with it because they are not ashamed of their bodies. Well, to that I say, who cares, I'm not ashamed of your body either, but I still don't want to see it. For that matter, I'm not ashamed of my body, even if I am fat, but I wouldn't even consider showing it off to other people, even if I wasn't fat. I don't get where this idea comes from. Somebody please explain to me how it is that Christmas trees are offensive, but naked bodies aren't. I'm totally confused.
Of course, maybe they could work something out where they have a judge who sits in a little booth on the beach and decides who is allowed to tromp around in the nude, and who isn't. At least that could serve to make things a little more pleasant for other beach goers. Ok, I'm just kidding. I'm opposed to all forms of public nudity. If we were talking about a private beach, or a designated "Nude Beach" then I wouldn't care, people would know what was going to be going on there before they ever went, but that's just not the case at a public beach.
Basically, I guess I just want to tell these people to shut up, quit griping, and put some stinking clothes on. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about (no pun intended).
To me, there is nothing wrong with the nude human form. In Private. And more specifically, between a Husband and Wife. It just doesn't belong outside of that relationship.
One other thing that the article on this was sure to point out was that the law that was being enforced was 13 years old. *GASP* 13 whole years!?!?! Can they be serious? They are still enforcing a 13 year old law? How did this happen? Who's responsible? Get a grip. I don't even know why they put that in there. Like 13 years is such a long time. How long has murder been against the law? And they still enforce that don't that? Sure they do, as long as the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with it.
I would also think that there would other reasons for not wanting people to go nude on the beach. Our beaches here are pretty loaded up with broken up shells, which I would think would be painful in certain sensitive area's. Not to mention all the little critters that crawl around in the sand. Wouldn't you want a little protection? And all that extra Sun Block!
It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will defend and fight for as a "right." Not caring that there is no basis at all for calling something like this a right. What would you call it, the right to nudity? And where does it derive from? Certainly not the Consititution, I know, I've read it, and even though I don't remember everything, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that: "The right to walk around buck naked shall not be infringed." --Yeah, I don't think so.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Give Me A Break
Now, regarding the speech that John McCain made to Conservatives yesterday. How is it that the media keeps saying that he accomplished his goal of "reaching out to Conservatives"? I really don't get it at all. If you cut through all of the Political speak, basically, the driving point of the speech was that John McCain did all that he did, and took all the possitions that he took, and that he was not wrong about any of them, but regardless of how those stances may be percieved by Conservatives, it doesn't matter, because he is declaring himself to be conservative enough. Well, gee, thanks John. Now I feel a lot better.
It's good to know that selling out the Republican party under the guise of Campaign Finance Reform, infringing on the free speech rights of countless Americans, and considerably boosting the ability of the ultra-liberal media to affect the outcome of elections, counts as Conservative enough.
It's good to know that selling out the sovereignty of the USA under the guise of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, wanting to give amnesty to tens of millions of people who came here with no regard for our laws or our borders, while giving only token lip service to meaningfully securing the borders, counts as conservative enough.
It's good to know that co-authoring a bill under the guise of fighting against global warming, which would crush the American ecconomy, and destroy the prosperity of, not only the nation as a whole, but also of countless individual Americans, while doing virtually nothing to actually affect polution on a Global scale, counts as Conservative enough.
It's also good to know that many other things, like seriously considering leaving the GOP, considiering being John Kerry's running mate in the 2004 election, and several other things, which you can easily learn about from any number of sources, count as Conservative enough.
Just in case there is any confussion here, I'm not buying it. John McCain is no kind of Conservative, at least not anymore. I don't care if he can talk the talk, when, at least for the last 8 years, he has not walked the walk. He should have at least been honest, he should have gone out there and said, look, I'm not a Conservative, I don't care what you all think, this is what I am, take it or take Hillary Clinton. At least I could have respected his honesty. What he actually did is what is called pandering for votes. He hoped that all of us who are Conservative Republicans would be stupid enough to buy what he was selling. So sorry John, all you did was tick me off for thinking that I'm that stupid.
And as for the Media, I don't know how this has been handled by the mainstream, always liberal media, but I did read an article on Fox News (.com) where they said that McCain went to the Conservative meeting for the purpose of answering attacks by "the Far Right." That's right, the great "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is calling mainstream, grassroots Conservatives, "The Far Right." You have got to be kidding me. They want to lump people like me, who legitimately feel that John McCain is a horrible choice for President, in with the far right, which consists of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. This is an obvious attempt to marginalize our legitemate concerns. How very fair and balanced of John McCains cheerleaders... err... I mean, Fox News.
On the end of that article there were some reader comments. Some were good and some were just stupid. There was one that really caught my attention though. One person, who claimed to be in the Military, though there is no way to prove that on an annonymous comment board, said that all of us Civilian "McCain haters" just proved that only Military personel and veterans should be allowed to vote. Wow. What a concept that is. This guy (presumably a guy, the wording didn't feel like something written by a woman) wants to make the USA a Military State. What a great idea, let's toss out the Constitution, forget about all of our freedoms and liberties, and just let the Military run the entire Country. That has worked so well in bring freedom to all the other Countries around the world where it has been tried... or not. Adimittedly, this was just a comment by one moron who claimed to be in the Military, but it really stuck in my craw. Let me say that our Military, by and large, is awesome, full of wonderful people, who are Patriots of the highest order, and really understand what it is that they are fighting for, but this guy is a moron. Besides, a strong military is one of the best servants that any nation could have, but will ALWAYS make a fearful master, which is why this guy is such a MORON!
All that being said, let me just assure you, I will talk about something other than John McCain one of these days, so stick with me.
It's good to know that selling out the Republican party under the guise of Campaign Finance Reform, infringing on the free speech rights of countless Americans, and considerably boosting the ability of the ultra-liberal media to affect the outcome of elections, counts as Conservative enough.
It's good to know that selling out the sovereignty of the USA under the guise of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, wanting to give amnesty to tens of millions of people who came here with no regard for our laws or our borders, while giving only token lip service to meaningfully securing the borders, counts as conservative enough.
It's good to know that co-authoring a bill under the guise of fighting against global warming, which would crush the American ecconomy, and destroy the prosperity of, not only the nation as a whole, but also of countless individual Americans, while doing virtually nothing to actually affect polution on a Global scale, counts as Conservative enough.
It's also good to know that many other things, like seriously considering leaving the GOP, considiering being John Kerry's running mate in the 2004 election, and several other things, which you can easily learn about from any number of sources, count as Conservative enough.
Just in case there is any confussion here, I'm not buying it. John McCain is no kind of Conservative, at least not anymore. I don't care if he can talk the talk, when, at least for the last 8 years, he has not walked the walk. He should have at least been honest, he should have gone out there and said, look, I'm not a Conservative, I don't care what you all think, this is what I am, take it or take Hillary Clinton. At least I could have respected his honesty. What he actually did is what is called pandering for votes. He hoped that all of us who are Conservative Republicans would be stupid enough to buy what he was selling. So sorry John, all you did was tick me off for thinking that I'm that stupid.
And as for the Media, I don't know how this has been handled by the mainstream, always liberal media, but I did read an article on Fox News (.com) where they said that McCain went to the Conservative meeting for the purpose of answering attacks by "the Far Right." That's right, the great "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is calling mainstream, grassroots Conservatives, "The Far Right." You have got to be kidding me. They want to lump people like me, who legitimately feel that John McCain is a horrible choice for President, in with the far right, which consists of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. This is an obvious attempt to marginalize our legitemate concerns. How very fair and balanced of John McCains cheerleaders... err... I mean, Fox News.
On the end of that article there were some reader comments. Some were good and some were just stupid. There was one that really caught my attention though. One person, who claimed to be in the Military, though there is no way to prove that on an annonymous comment board, said that all of us Civilian "McCain haters" just proved that only Military personel and veterans should be allowed to vote. Wow. What a concept that is. This guy (presumably a guy, the wording didn't feel like something written by a woman) wants to make the USA a Military State. What a great idea, let's toss out the Constitution, forget about all of our freedoms and liberties, and just let the Military run the entire Country. That has worked so well in bring freedom to all the other Countries around the world where it has been tried... or not. Adimittedly, this was just a comment by one moron who claimed to be in the Military, but it really stuck in my craw. Let me say that our Military, by and large, is awesome, full of wonderful people, who are Patriots of the highest order, and really understand what it is that they are fighting for, but this guy is a moron. Besides, a strong military is one of the best servants that any nation could have, but will ALWAYS make a fearful master, which is why this guy is such a MORON!
All that being said, let me just assure you, I will talk about something other than John McCain one of these days, so stick with me.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Something Fishy
Well, sadly, it's pretty much final now. With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race for the White House, McCain is all but certain that he will gain the GOP nomination, and the country may well be doomed. We are fresh out of acceptable choices. I mean, Mike Huckabee is still in it, but short of McCain's ticker giving out, he doesn't really have any chance. And let's face it, Huckabee isn't a very good choice in any event. Romney wasn't a great choice, but he was, at least, acceptable, now what?
To me, this pretty much seals the deal, it is time to start looking for which third party candidate to vote for. At this point in time I don't know anything about any other potential Candidates, or what platform they are running on, but I will try to figure it out. One thing I will take a look at, although I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, is the Unity '08 ticket (http://www.unity08.com/) where they should be selecting candidates this summer, and I'm sure it will at least be worth looking at.
There hasn't been much question to some Conservatives for quite some time now that Mike Huckabee was staying in the race just to promote John McCain. That is to say that he was running as a spoiler, knowing that he could not win the nomination, but wanting to do all in his power to deny it to Mitt Romney. Some have said that there was a very blatant deal in West Virginia, where McCains people all voted for Huckabee in the second ballot, just to deny Romney the victory, which otherwise would have been his.
There is something fishy about Romney dropping out today. Was he getting pressured from the GOP establishment? I could see this since McCain is their man. Did he make a deal with McCain for some top administration spot should McCain be elected? Possible. Sometimes candidates can put their rather harsh feelings to the side for the sake making a deal. Regardless of what the actual reasoning is, something fishy is going on.
The power is being directly removed from the people in picking the people who will run for President. Some people have long said that they don't trust the election process, and don't really believe the outcome of elections, and I've never subscribed to that theory, but it is clear to me now that the establisments powers in the parties, in colusion with the news media, are picking the candidates, and there seems to be precious little that we can do about it.
Of course, that's only part of it. The rest of it is the fact that a lot of Republicans, being upset over the fact that there were no really good candidates this year, have simply stayed home, and declined to vote. I can understand the frustration, though I did go to vote (I'm sure you could have guessed that) but that is partly what is at play here. It's not that Republicans are so in love with John McCain, believe me, they're not, it's just that his supporters are the ones that are showing up to vote.
It may be too late for the GOP primary to be saved, and in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama, the USA is the big loser, however, staying home and not voting is not the answer. Remember that we vote for more than just President, and hey, even there, you can use your vote for a third party candidate as a statement of protest, or, if there is one that enough people can unify behind, and all the liberals (McCain and the dems) split the vote enough, we could even elect a third party candidate, as unlikely as that may be. Anyway, what becomes absolutely critical now is that we keep good people in Congress, and replace the bad ones that are already there with good ones. Remember, members of the House of Representatives must stand for re-election every two years, so the entire House is open, and if we are to protect our country, we must get out and vote for good people to fill these seats. Furthermore, a third of the Senate will also be elected this year (though none in Florida or New York) so if your state has a Senate seat up this year, be sure to vote on that as well. Clearly, the worst thing that we can do at this point is to sit home and let the liberals take both the White House and the Congress.
Please, do your homework, learn about the people who are running for Congress in your district, find out where they stand, and, if they have been in politics at all before, explore their voting record. We must not give up this fight. We must get out and vote for the ones that will do what is right without regard for what the party establishment wants them to do.
And remember, the Media cannot be trusted, do not trust them to inform you, and help you decide who you should vote for. Remember these are the same people who have been trying day and night to put McCain over the top, and openly supporting Obama. They are biased, and worse, they are willing to tell you bald faced lies to get you to do what they want you to do. Don't trust them.
And most certainly, don't sit it out.
To me, this pretty much seals the deal, it is time to start looking for which third party candidate to vote for. At this point in time I don't know anything about any other potential Candidates, or what platform they are running on, but I will try to figure it out. One thing I will take a look at, although I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, is the Unity '08 ticket (http://www.unity08.com/) where they should be selecting candidates this summer, and I'm sure it will at least be worth looking at.
There hasn't been much question to some Conservatives for quite some time now that Mike Huckabee was staying in the race just to promote John McCain. That is to say that he was running as a spoiler, knowing that he could not win the nomination, but wanting to do all in his power to deny it to Mitt Romney. Some have said that there was a very blatant deal in West Virginia, where McCains people all voted for Huckabee in the second ballot, just to deny Romney the victory, which otherwise would have been his.
There is something fishy about Romney dropping out today. Was he getting pressured from the GOP establishment? I could see this since McCain is their man. Did he make a deal with McCain for some top administration spot should McCain be elected? Possible. Sometimes candidates can put their rather harsh feelings to the side for the sake making a deal. Regardless of what the actual reasoning is, something fishy is going on.
The power is being directly removed from the people in picking the people who will run for President. Some people have long said that they don't trust the election process, and don't really believe the outcome of elections, and I've never subscribed to that theory, but it is clear to me now that the establisments powers in the parties, in colusion with the news media, are picking the candidates, and there seems to be precious little that we can do about it.
Of course, that's only part of it. The rest of it is the fact that a lot of Republicans, being upset over the fact that there were no really good candidates this year, have simply stayed home, and declined to vote. I can understand the frustration, though I did go to vote (I'm sure you could have guessed that) but that is partly what is at play here. It's not that Republicans are so in love with John McCain, believe me, they're not, it's just that his supporters are the ones that are showing up to vote.
It may be too late for the GOP primary to be saved, and in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama, the USA is the big loser, however, staying home and not voting is not the answer. Remember that we vote for more than just President, and hey, even there, you can use your vote for a third party candidate as a statement of protest, or, if there is one that enough people can unify behind, and all the liberals (McCain and the dems) split the vote enough, we could even elect a third party candidate, as unlikely as that may be. Anyway, what becomes absolutely critical now is that we keep good people in Congress, and replace the bad ones that are already there with good ones. Remember, members of the House of Representatives must stand for re-election every two years, so the entire House is open, and if we are to protect our country, we must get out and vote for good people to fill these seats. Furthermore, a third of the Senate will also be elected this year (though none in Florida or New York) so if your state has a Senate seat up this year, be sure to vote on that as well. Clearly, the worst thing that we can do at this point is to sit home and let the liberals take both the White House and the Congress.
Please, do your homework, learn about the people who are running for Congress in your district, find out where they stand, and, if they have been in politics at all before, explore their voting record. We must not give up this fight. We must get out and vote for the ones that will do what is right without regard for what the party establishment wants them to do.
And remember, the Media cannot be trusted, do not trust them to inform you, and help you decide who you should vote for. Remember these are the same people who have been trying day and night to put McCain over the top, and openly supporting Obama. They are biased, and worse, they are willing to tell you bald faced lies to get you to do what they want you to do. Don't trust them.
And most certainly, don't sit it out.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
ADF
The following is a repost of an Article/newsletter from the Alliance Defense Fund. I don't normally do reposts, but I think this one is important, so please read it.
**********
February 2008
Dear Friend,
"We will bury you!"
It has been more than 50 years since then-Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev swore that solemn oath to a group of Western ambassadors...long enough now that many Americans don't remember how deadly seriously their parents and grandparents took the threat.
But in the thick of the Cold War--three long decades before the Berlin Wall fell--most Americans had no doubt that Khrushchev meant what he said and that he and his fellow Communists would do their best to make good on the threat.
Our nation's leaders planned accordingly, and people go used to building backyard bomb shelters while children practiced diving under desks during atomic bomb drills. Spy movies became all the rage as people strained their imaginations to think of clever ways the Communists might infiltrate our culture or try to break our will from within.
It may seem a little quaint now, from the vantage point of distance and the far side of September 11, but it was deadly serious stuff back then. People understood, all too clearly, exactly how much was at stake.
Unfortunately, we at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are finding that's just not as true today when it comes to a threat just as blunt, aimed not at our borders and missile silos...but at the souls of our children.
For nearly 30 years now--in national gatherings and local papers, on network news shows and political platforms--activists promoting homosexual behavior and its corresponding legal agenda have been openly declaring their ultimate goal: the elimination of marriage and the deconstruction of families.
Neither their aims nor their tactics have been secret. Nor have they changed. Anyone who cared to pay attention, attend the events, or peruse the websites and publications of these advocates would find plenty of material outlining the social, political, and legal means of launching same-sex "marriage," civil unions, domestic partnerships, "psychological parenting," and many of the other legal assaults that have inflicted so much damage on American families.
But, of course, most people--certainly most Christians--don't peruse those websites or attend these events, and they find it easier not to pay attention to the stated intentions of those who despise their values and mock their faith. That hasn't slowed up the advocates of homosexual behavior though. They have been very busy doing exactly what they said they'd do.
And if you think their efforts aren't having a devastating impact...you haven't been watching the news from California.
A new state law there eliminates a school's ability to make distinctions based on biological sex...and opens the door for the wholesale moral subversion of schoolchildren.
Specifically, this law requires anything that might promote a "discriminatory bias" toward someone's sexual identity or sexual orientation be removed from the curriculum--all the way down to kindergarten. What's more, such wrongful behavior must be presented to young people as a choice just a legitimate and even desirable as God's plan for marriage and personal purity.
If these laws are allowed to stand:
...textbooks will be rewritten to eliminate any endorsement of sex roles.
...teachers cannot teach that a student's sex at birth is a student's true sex.
...on demand, boys can now be homecoming "queen" and girls can be homecoming "king."
...schools that want to protect students from restroom and locker room intrusions by people of the opposite sex will be faced with a choice--either violate the law and refuse to allow boys to use the girls' restrooms or spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build separate facilities for the small number of students who pretend to be the opposite sex.
Left unchallenged, this law authorizes public schools to force Christian families to embrace the homosexual legal agenda. Inevitably, it will change the attitudes of young people toward homosexual behavior...and that will change the whole moral future of America.
Yes, that's what makes it so dangerous...but it's also what gives ADF--by God's grace and with your strong financial support--a foot in the door to block this massive assault on religious liberty.
ADF is not a public policy organization--but once such a terrible bill becomes law, the momentum moves to the courts for enforcement--and there, ADF is able to bring our fullest resources to bear. Already, ADF has filed suit with our allies in federal court to challenge this California law, asking the court to declare it unconstitutional. If that effort fails, we will actively defend Christians prosecuted by the state for refusing to forfeit their religious liberties.
An Extraordinary Record
The very candor of the homosexual advocates about their intentions has enabled ADF and our allies to prepare well for--and win--these many legal battles. Your prayers and strong financial support equipped us to be at the right places, make the right arguments, and soundly shatter the best-laid legal plans of those who support the homosexual agenda.
Until recently, these advocates' best hope for accomplishing their long-term strategy was to force same-sex "marriage" on us through our nation's judicial system. If they could succeed in making marriage about anything, it soon would be about nothing.
Thanks to you, that tactic didn't work.
Over the past 10 years, ADF has been a part of 41 cases involving same-sex "marriage." Thirty-three of those we've won outright, two were a "tie," while we lost only one (in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth Supreme Judicial Court used international law to fabricate same-sex "marriage").
Decisions affecting marriage are still pending for cases in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but that's an extraordinary record of victories, won in the face of often overwhelming legal, political, and cultural opposition. But because the media minimize any mention of these wins, most Christians don't comprehend the full import of what's been accomplished: 45 states now legally protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And you may not even realize what a nation-changing difference your gifts have made.
But those pressing the demands of the homosexual legal agenda understand our success very well. Knowing they can't get judges to fabricate same-sex "marriage" directly, they've adjusted their tactical approach for the same end--the abolition of marriage and redefinition of the family.
More Insidious Attacks on Marriage and the Family
In the popular culture, those advocating same-sex unions like to wrap their agenda in words like "love" and "tolerance." In the courts and legislatures, they put on the mantle of "equality." Among the angles these advocates are playing, with varying success, are the following:
* ADJUSTING THE TERMINOLOGY.
The term "same-sex marriage" may not resonate with the voters, but "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" sound harmless enough. It's not as if they're really "married."
But these aliases have paved the way for advocates of same-sex "marriage" to secure from their employers the same financial benefits traditionally provided to married couples. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) recently issued its "Corporate Equality Index," detailing more than 500 major American companies that now grant full benefits to employees (and their partners) who practice homosexual behavior--as well as nearly 200 cities and more than one-third of U.S. states.
This widespread embrace of same-sex unions effectively blurs the definitions of marriage and obscures the true agenda of those promoting homosexual behavior--which is why ADF is working so diligently in courts all across the country to oppose these judicially imposed "redefinitions of marriage."
* SAME-SEX "DIVORCE."
Same-sex couples "married" in Massachusetts and Canada are asking their home states to grant them a "divorce," knowing that no state can exercise the authority to dissolve a homosexual "marriage" without assuming the authority to grant it too. ADF helped stop this effort at the Rhode Island Supreme Court and is currently involved in another case in Oklahoma.
* REDEFINING THE FAMILY.
In several states, advocates of homosexual behavior are petitioning courts to grant parental rights and authority to an adult who is a "legal stranger" to the child over the objections of the child's legal parents--to win tacit endorsement for same-sex parenting and, by extension, "marriage."
* COERCING THE CHURCH.
Those advocating homosexual behavior present their case as a simple plea to "live and let live." But in fact, the invitation is to "live and let die" --and these advocates are working aggressively to block churches from preaching the Scriptures, where those Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior. In Montana, we're defending a church under legal attack for speaking out on God's plan for marriage and in support of a local referendum defending marriage.
Meanwhile, these advocates of homosexual behavior are moving to legally force churches and ministries to open their facilities to civil union ceremonies. ADF is currently combating this in New Jersey, where same-sex proponents are attempting to force a Christian ministry to use its facilities for civil union ceremonies and have even prompted the removal of some of the organization's tax exemptions to compel that compliance.
* EVADING THE LAW.
Although New York's highest court has ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage," the state comptroller continues to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples through the state retirement system and to legally recognize same-sex "marriages" from Canada. ADF has filed suit to block this blatant attempt to use tax dollars to subsidize homosexual unions in New York.
But looming on the legal horizon is a monstrous piece of legislation currently being pushed through Congress by the HRC--one of the strongest lobbying groups promoting homosexual behavior.
Attacking the Workplace --ENDA is Near
The Employment Non-Discriminatio Act (ENDA), now being debated in Congress, is about legally enforcing special privileges for those who practice homosexual behavior and sharply punishing any business or organization that opposes such behavior. Many ministries, including ADF, could be dramatically affected.
ADF has worked extensively with our policy allies to make them aware of the profound legal implications of this bill, and the good news is that President George W. Bush has promised to veto it.
And if at some point ENDA or similar legislation does become law, ADF will be ready to file suit to stop its enforcement and to defend Christians prosecuted for resisting the unconstitutional dictates of the homosexual agenda.
A Fundamental Question
All of the tactics being employed by those promoting homosexual behavior--and the terrible consequences of their success in California and potentially (through ENDA) in the rest of the country--have again raised the already-high stakes of the battle over same-sex "marriage."
For thoughtful Christians like you, the fundamental question is not just whether homosexual couples should be able to "marry."
The question is: "What kind of country is my family going to live in?"
I can give you a pretty good idea. If what they're trying in California is any indication and if the homosexual agenda succeeds, we're looking at a nation...
...where federal judges decide how your church is led, who it can employ, and how much of the Bible your leaders can teach.
...where you don't have any say at all in what kind of moral and sexual indoctrination your kids receive in school--public or private.
...where you can be compelled to financially support homosexual behavior, whether you believe in it or not.
That's only part of the agenda of those promoting same-sex "marriage." But thankfully, it's an agenda God has equipped ADF to fight tooth and nail for 14 years, with astonishing success.
We've been there, by God's grace and with your help. Time and again, all across this country, we've won the battle for marriage (see John 15:5).
Please pray and give generously. Stand with us to stop the legal tide that would deny religious liberty and engulf our culture, our churches, and our families with the self-destructive impact of the homosexual agenda.
And may God bless our efforts to defend religious liberty, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Yours for religious freedom in America,
Alan E. Sears
President, CEO & General Counsel
*******
ADF is always looking for potential precedent-setting cases and for attorneys who could help our cause. If you wish to refer an attorney or a potential case to us, please see notify us.
Copyright ©2008, Alliance Defense Fund. All rights reserved.
Permission to reprint this and other documents as noted in their entirety is granted to ADF ministry friends.
**********
February 2008
Dear Friend,
"We will bury you!"
It has been more than 50 years since then-Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev swore that solemn oath to a group of Western ambassadors...long enough now that many Americans don't remember how deadly seriously their parents and grandparents took the threat.
But in the thick of the Cold War--three long decades before the Berlin Wall fell--most Americans had no doubt that Khrushchev meant what he said and that he and his fellow Communists would do their best to make good on the threat.
Our nation's leaders planned accordingly, and people go used to building backyard bomb shelters while children practiced diving under desks during atomic bomb drills. Spy movies became all the rage as people strained their imaginations to think of clever ways the Communists might infiltrate our culture or try to break our will from within.
It may seem a little quaint now, from the vantage point of distance and the far side of September 11, but it was deadly serious stuff back then. People understood, all too clearly, exactly how much was at stake.
Unfortunately, we at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are finding that's just not as true today when it comes to a threat just as blunt, aimed not at our borders and missile silos...but at the souls of our children.
For nearly 30 years now--in national gatherings and local papers, on network news shows and political platforms--activists promoting homosexual behavior and its corresponding legal agenda have been openly declaring their ultimate goal: the elimination of marriage and the deconstruction of families.
Neither their aims nor their tactics have been secret. Nor have they changed. Anyone who cared to pay attention, attend the events, or peruse the websites and publications of these advocates would find plenty of material outlining the social, political, and legal means of launching same-sex "marriage," civil unions, domestic partnerships, "psychological parenting," and many of the other legal assaults that have inflicted so much damage on American families.
But, of course, most people--certainly most Christians--don't peruse those websites or attend these events, and they find it easier not to pay attention to the stated intentions of those who despise their values and mock their faith. That hasn't slowed up the advocates of homosexual behavior though. They have been very busy doing exactly what they said they'd do.
And if you think their efforts aren't having a devastating impact...you haven't been watching the news from California.
A new state law there eliminates a school's ability to make distinctions based on biological sex...and opens the door for the wholesale moral subversion of schoolchildren.
Specifically, this law requires anything that might promote a "discriminatory bias" toward someone's sexual identity or sexual orientation be removed from the curriculum--all the way down to kindergarten. What's more, such wrongful behavior must be presented to young people as a choice just a legitimate and even desirable as God's plan for marriage and personal purity.
If these laws are allowed to stand:
...textbooks will be rewritten to eliminate any endorsement of sex roles.
...teachers cannot teach that a student's sex at birth is a student's true sex.
...on demand, boys can now be homecoming "queen" and girls can be homecoming "king."
...schools that want to protect students from restroom and locker room intrusions by people of the opposite sex will be faced with a choice--either violate the law and refuse to allow boys to use the girls' restrooms or spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build separate facilities for the small number of students who pretend to be the opposite sex.
Left unchallenged, this law authorizes public schools to force Christian families to embrace the homosexual legal agenda. Inevitably, it will change the attitudes of young people toward homosexual behavior...and that will change the whole moral future of America.
Yes, that's what makes it so dangerous...but it's also what gives ADF--by God's grace and with your strong financial support--a foot in the door to block this massive assault on religious liberty.
ADF is not a public policy organization--but once such a terrible bill becomes law, the momentum moves to the courts for enforcement--and there, ADF is able to bring our fullest resources to bear. Already, ADF has filed suit with our allies in federal court to challenge this California law, asking the court to declare it unconstitutional. If that effort fails, we will actively defend Christians prosecuted by the state for refusing to forfeit their religious liberties.
An Extraordinary Record
The very candor of the homosexual advocates about their intentions has enabled ADF and our allies to prepare well for--and win--these many legal battles. Your prayers and strong financial support equipped us to be at the right places, make the right arguments, and soundly shatter the best-laid legal plans of those who support the homosexual agenda.
Until recently, these advocates' best hope for accomplishing their long-term strategy was to force same-sex "marriage" on us through our nation's judicial system. If they could succeed in making marriage about anything, it soon would be about nothing.
Thanks to you, that tactic didn't work.
Over the past 10 years, ADF has been a part of 41 cases involving same-sex "marriage." Thirty-three of those we've won outright, two were a "tie," while we lost only one (in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth Supreme Judicial Court used international law to fabricate same-sex "marriage").
Decisions affecting marriage are still pending for cases in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but that's an extraordinary record of victories, won in the face of often overwhelming legal, political, and cultural opposition. But because the media minimize any mention of these wins, most Christians don't comprehend the full import of what's been accomplished: 45 states now legally protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And you may not even realize what a nation-changing difference your gifts have made.
But those pressing the demands of the homosexual legal agenda understand our success very well. Knowing they can't get judges to fabricate same-sex "marriage" directly, they've adjusted their tactical approach for the same end--the abolition of marriage and redefinition of the family.
More Insidious Attacks on Marriage and the Family
In the popular culture, those advocating same-sex unions like to wrap their agenda in words like "love" and "tolerance." In the courts and legislatures, they put on the mantle of "equality." Among the angles these advocates are playing, with varying success, are the following:
* ADJUSTING THE TERMINOLOGY.
The term "same-sex marriage" may not resonate with the voters, but "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" sound harmless enough. It's not as if they're really "married."
But these aliases have paved the way for advocates of same-sex "marriage" to secure from their employers the same financial benefits traditionally provided to married couples. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) recently issued its "Corporate Equality Index," detailing more than 500 major American companies that now grant full benefits to employees (and their partners) who practice homosexual behavior--as well as nearly 200 cities and more than one-third of U.S. states.
This widespread embrace of same-sex unions effectively blurs the definitions of marriage and obscures the true agenda of those promoting homosexual behavior--which is why ADF is working so diligently in courts all across the country to oppose these judicially imposed "redefinitions of marriage."
* SAME-SEX "DIVORCE."
Same-sex couples "married" in Massachusetts and Canada are asking their home states to grant them a "divorce," knowing that no state can exercise the authority to dissolve a homosexual "marriage" without assuming the authority to grant it too. ADF helped stop this effort at the Rhode Island Supreme Court and is currently involved in another case in Oklahoma.
* REDEFINING THE FAMILY.
In several states, advocates of homosexual behavior are petitioning courts to grant parental rights and authority to an adult who is a "legal stranger" to the child over the objections of the child's legal parents--to win tacit endorsement for same-sex parenting and, by extension, "marriage."
* COERCING THE CHURCH.
Those advocating homosexual behavior present their case as a simple plea to "live and let live." But in fact, the invitation is to "live and let die" --and these advocates are working aggressively to block churches from preaching the Scriptures, where those Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior. In Montana, we're defending a church under legal attack for speaking out on God's plan for marriage and in support of a local referendum defending marriage.
Meanwhile, these advocates of homosexual behavior are moving to legally force churches and ministries to open their facilities to civil union ceremonies. ADF is currently combating this in New Jersey, where same-sex proponents are attempting to force a Christian ministry to use its facilities for civil union ceremonies and have even prompted the removal of some of the organization's tax exemptions to compel that compliance.
* EVADING THE LAW.
Although New York's highest court has ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage," the state comptroller continues to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples through the state retirement system and to legally recognize same-sex "marriages" from Canada. ADF has filed suit to block this blatant attempt to use tax dollars to subsidize homosexual unions in New York.
But looming on the legal horizon is a monstrous piece of legislation currently being pushed through Congress by the HRC--one of the strongest lobbying groups promoting homosexual behavior.
Attacking the Workplace --ENDA is Near
The Employment Non-Discriminatio Act (ENDA), now being debated in Congress, is about legally enforcing special privileges for those who practice homosexual behavior and sharply punishing any business or organization that opposes such behavior. Many ministries, including ADF, could be dramatically affected.
ADF has worked extensively with our policy allies to make them aware of the profound legal implications of this bill, and the good news is that President George W. Bush has promised to veto it.
And if at some point ENDA or similar legislation does become law, ADF will be ready to file suit to stop its enforcement and to defend Christians prosecuted for resisting the unconstitutional dictates of the homosexual agenda.
A Fundamental Question
All of the tactics being employed by those promoting homosexual behavior--and the terrible consequences of their success in California and potentially (through ENDA) in the rest of the country--have again raised the already-high stakes of the battle over same-sex "marriage."
For thoughtful Christians like you, the fundamental question is not just whether homosexual couples should be able to "marry."
The question is: "What kind of country is my family going to live in?"
I can give you a pretty good idea. If what they're trying in California is any indication and if the homosexual agenda succeeds, we're looking at a nation...
...where federal judges decide how your church is led, who it can employ, and how much of the Bible your leaders can teach.
...where you don't have any say at all in what kind of moral and sexual indoctrination your kids receive in school--public or private.
...where you can be compelled to financially support homosexual behavior, whether you believe in it or not.
That's only part of the agenda of those promoting same-sex "marriage." But thankfully, it's an agenda God has equipped ADF to fight tooth and nail for 14 years, with astonishing success.
We've been there, by God's grace and with your help. Time and again, all across this country, we've won the battle for marriage (see John 15:5).
Please pray and give generously. Stand with us to stop the legal tide that would deny religious liberty and engulf our culture, our churches, and our families with the self-destructive impact of the homosexual agenda.
And may God bless our efforts to defend religious liberty, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Yours for religious freedom in America,
Alan E. Sears
President, CEO & General Counsel
*******
ADF is always looking for potential precedent-setting cases and for attorneys who could help our cause. If you wish to refer an attorney or a potential case to us, please see notify us.
Copyright ©2008, Alliance Defense Fund. All rights reserved.
Permission to reprint this and other documents as noted in their entirety is granted to ADF ministry friends.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Book Review
Last week I read an absolutely phenomenal book, "The Marketing Of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguiesed as Freedom" by David Kupelian. First off, I would like to thank Christine over at the TalkWisdom blog for recommending this book to me.I think that most Christians can easily see quite a bit of the things that are wrong with our culture today. We can even see and know that there is a great deal of evil, which is very prevalent throughout a great deal of our current culture. But did you know that this did not happen by chance? Did you know that much of this is driven by people who have an agenda of thier own, and have sold us on things that just a few short decades ago would have been unimmaginable?
Upon reading this book, even more than the evil that has been clear to me in our culture, there was quite a bit of stuff I hadn't known, and evil which I hadn't considered before, but which is very real none the less.
I strongly recommend this book, as I feel that it is a very important book. More than that though, I really feel that this is a book that all Christians should read, and even more than that, I feel that it is CRITICAL that all parents, and even grandparents, read this book ASAP.
For me personally, for a long time I read a lot of novels, thinking that non-fictions books would be boring to read, however, I have found this not to be true. I started reading non-fiction last year, with "Crazies to the left of me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost It's Mind, and The Other Side Lost It's Nerve," By Bernard Goldberg, and several others since then, and now, I have trouble getting involved in a novel. I find myself far more interested in non-fiction books about important things in daily life. If you haven't tried reading any of this kind of book you should try it. Trust me, you won't believe how great they are, and you can start with "The Marketing of Evil."
As a side note, with tomorrow being Super Tuesday, let me say, we need people to get out and vote, but more than that, we need people to NOT vote for John McCain. We as a nation cannot afford him as President. The fact that the media is building him up, and more than that, the fact that the Ultra-Liberal "New York Times" has endorsed him, should tell you quite conclusively what kind of President he would be.
Also, I appologize if my spelling hasn't been so hot these last few days, as there is something wrong with the blogger Spell Checker at present. Hope I haven't been doing too badly.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Story Of Betrayal
More and more things are coming to light about John McCain, but, for the most part, you have to go looking for them yourself, because you're not going to see them in the mainstream media. There is a very good reason for this, two reasons actually. First, the media loves John McCain because even if he becomes President, they get the liberal President that they want. The second reason why they want him to be the Republican nominee is because he has enough skelletons in his closet to keep them in scandal stories clear through November. This is something that can't be said of Mitt Romney, who is a pretty clean guy, and they have already dug up about as much dirt on him as they can. Basically, all Romney has against him is a few issues with his record which he will talk candidly about when asked, not something to get the media excited. Besides, if Romney becomes President they fear that he might actually be what they fear most, a real Republican. Now on to my story.
The story of betrayal begins with McCain losing the GOP Presidential Primary bid to George W. Bush back in 2000. Due to this, John McCain felt betrayed by the Republican party, but that's not what this story is about. I'm not going to cite sources for all of this, but with a few google searches you can find this information on your own. When faced with this defeat, and feeling rejected for not being selected as the Candidate, McCain became very angry with the Republican party. He was angry with the GOP from the top down. In fact, some news stories are reporting that he seriously considered leaving the GOP altogether. McCain denies that he ever entertained the notion of switching party affiliation, either to Independent, or to Democrat, but the evidence in pretty overwhelming. Both McCain and persons in his staff had conversations with prominent Democrats regarding the possibility of McCain pulling this switch, and what it would mean for his possitions on Senate committees. The reason why he didn't switch in the end is simple, in the midst of the firestorm of controversy following Jim Jeffords departure from the Republican Party showed him that such a move would prove to be Political Sucicide, and, as is obvious now, he still has designs on the Presidency, and didn't want to kill any chance he might have had. But that's not the whole story, if it were, the story wouldn't mean a lot... enough that hopefully most wouldn't vote for him, but it's still not the whole story.
Even though John McCain decided to maintain his GOP affiliation, he didn't let go of his anger, and he hatched a plan to punish the Republican party for what he percieved as their betrayal of him. What he started doing, even moreso that he had in the past, was co-authoring bills with Democrats, and the farther to the left the better. Some of the most famous of which are in regard to campaign finance reform, which he was sure to craft in such a way that it would deal serious damage to the GOP, but not so much to the Democrats. Mostly, this is because the media is controlled by far left, ultra-liberal loons, who give the democrats a leg up to begin with, though there are some other factors. Of course, there was also his amnesty bill, which he denies was amnesty, but all you have to do is care a little about the truth, and you know that it was amnesty. And his current bill on the Environment, which would hurt all Americans, and not just Republicans, but it does get him in good with the Democrats being that it employs some of their favorite evironmental nonsense, such as "Cap and Trade" which is nothing more than a scam which they hope we re too stupid to catch on to.
All of these thing would be bad enough if he had done them in a spirit of honest ignorance, thinking that he was doing the right thing, but it's even worse knowing that he really did it out of anger and for the purpose of punishing Republicans for not selecting him in 2000. The question is, has he punished us enough, or is he still looking for ways to hurt the GOP, even if he has to do serious damage to the nation as a whole to accomplish this?
These are things that people need to know. John McCain is no Conservative, he is no longer a Republican, and, most sadly of all, he is no longer a friend to the United States of America. That's not to say that he doesn't love the USA, or that he's not a patriot, at least in his own mind, but the problem is that he has proven that he cares more for personal revenge against his percieved enemies than he does about the good of the Nation.
I still can't figure out why people haven't woken up to this. John McCain is a very angry, vengful man, and not someone who you would want to have representing you on the world stage.
Please, please, don't vote for this man.
The story of betrayal begins with McCain losing the GOP Presidential Primary bid to George W. Bush back in 2000. Due to this, John McCain felt betrayed by the Republican party, but that's not what this story is about. I'm not going to cite sources for all of this, but with a few google searches you can find this information on your own. When faced with this defeat, and feeling rejected for not being selected as the Candidate, McCain became very angry with the Republican party. He was angry with the GOP from the top down. In fact, some news stories are reporting that he seriously considered leaving the GOP altogether. McCain denies that he ever entertained the notion of switching party affiliation, either to Independent, or to Democrat, but the evidence in pretty overwhelming. Both McCain and persons in his staff had conversations with prominent Democrats regarding the possibility of McCain pulling this switch, and what it would mean for his possitions on Senate committees. The reason why he didn't switch in the end is simple, in the midst of the firestorm of controversy following Jim Jeffords departure from the Republican Party showed him that such a move would prove to be Political Sucicide, and, as is obvious now, he still has designs on the Presidency, and didn't want to kill any chance he might have had. But that's not the whole story, if it were, the story wouldn't mean a lot... enough that hopefully most wouldn't vote for him, but it's still not the whole story.
Even though John McCain decided to maintain his GOP affiliation, he didn't let go of his anger, and he hatched a plan to punish the Republican party for what he percieved as their betrayal of him. What he started doing, even moreso that he had in the past, was co-authoring bills with Democrats, and the farther to the left the better. Some of the most famous of which are in regard to campaign finance reform, which he was sure to craft in such a way that it would deal serious damage to the GOP, but not so much to the Democrats. Mostly, this is because the media is controlled by far left, ultra-liberal loons, who give the democrats a leg up to begin with, though there are some other factors. Of course, there was also his amnesty bill, which he denies was amnesty, but all you have to do is care a little about the truth, and you know that it was amnesty. And his current bill on the Environment, which would hurt all Americans, and not just Republicans, but it does get him in good with the Democrats being that it employs some of their favorite evironmental nonsense, such as "Cap and Trade" which is nothing more than a scam which they hope we re too stupid to catch on to.
All of these thing would be bad enough if he had done them in a spirit of honest ignorance, thinking that he was doing the right thing, but it's even worse knowing that he really did it out of anger and for the purpose of punishing Republicans for not selecting him in 2000. The question is, has he punished us enough, or is he still looking for ways to hurt the GOP, even if he has to do serious damage to the nation as a whole to accomplish this?
These are things that people need to know. John McCain is no Conservative, he is no longer a Republican, and, most sadly of all, he is no longer a friend to the United States of America. That's not to say that he doesn't love the USA, or that he's not a patriot, at least in his own mind, but the problem is that he has proven that he cares more for personal revenge against his percieved enemies than he does about the good of the Nation.
I still can't figure out why people haven't woken up to this. John McCain is a very angry, vengful man, and not someone who you would want to have representing you on the world stage.
Please, please, don't vote for this man.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Tax Sniping
Action movie star Wesley Snipes was found NOT GUILTY of any Felony charges in his tax evasion trial. He was convicted of 3 lesser charges, and potentially could face jail time, but not nearly as much as he deserves.
This is just one more case of a celebrity getting to do as they please, and not being held to account for it. The sickening part is that this was done by a jury this time, and not just one idiot with some power.
We have a serious problem in our Celebrity obsessed culture. You have to look at what happened here. Snipes refused to pay MILLIONS of dollars in taxes that he rightfully owed under the current tax code, not because he was trying to lead some sort of protest against the crazy tax code in the country, which, admittedly, needs an overhaul, but simply because he didn't want to pay his taxes. The taxes that he failed to pay is more money than most of us will make in our lifetimes, and yet if you or I failed to pay our taxes, we would not recieve such lax treatment, and we would get far more than a symbolic slap on the wrist.
How can we demand fairness from our Government when we are unable to dispense fairness when we are ones doling out the "justice''???
This is just one more case of a celebrity getting to do as they please, and not being held to account for it. The sickening part is that this was done by a jury this time, and not just one idiot with some power.
We have a serious problem in our Celebrity obsessed culture. You have to look at what happened here. Snipes refused to pay MILLIONS of dollars in taxes that he rightfully owed under the current tax code, not because he was trying to lead some sort of protest against the crazy tax code in the country, which, admittedly, needs an overhaul, but simply because he didn't want to pay his taxes. The taxes that he failed to pay is more money than most of us will make in our lifetimes, and yet if you or I failed to pay our taxes, we would not recieve such lax treatment, and we would get far more than a symbolic slap on the wrist.
How can we demand fairness from our Government when we are unable to dispense fairness when we are ones doling out the "justice''???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
