I Don't Quite Understand

OK, that's not true, I do understand. Why is it that President Obama and his people are putting lobbyists into the administration? If you look back at some of the things that I have said in the past, you will see that I'm not automatically against lobbyists in Government, but I do have a serious problem with liars, and Obama talked a lot during the campaign about not having lobbyists in his administration. Quite a few have shown up despite the campaign pledges. This is what is known as a lie. This I have a problem with.

Treating the Symptoms and the Disease

Treating the Symptoms and the Disease

Gregory Koukl

Followers of Jesus Christ face two extremes in the discussion of Christianity and citizenship. Do we aggressively invade culture, offering political solutions, or divorce from culture, trusting the Spirit to change hearts? The biblical approach is not one or the other; Christians must do both.

Followers of Jesus Christ face two extremes in the discussion of Christianity and citizenship. One side seeks a divorce from culture. Arguments don't persuade, they say. That's the job of the Spirit who works most effectively through the simple preaching of the Gospel. Let God first change the hearts, then the culture will follow. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Radical activists, on the other hand, aggressively invade culture with political solutions. Christians are to be politically active, is their motto, salt and light to a dying world. Return America to its Christian roots and restoration will follow. Don't ignore the symptoms. Change hearts by providing the proper political and moral climate. The biblical approach, though, is not either one or the other. Christians must do both. When a patient is sick, a doctor's ultimate goal is to bring healing by curing the disease. Yet, he doesn't ignore the pain, anguish and debilitation the disease causes. He must treat the symptoms and the disease. Both are necessary for a suffering patient. In the same way, we must recover an interest in our culture, becoming involved citizens seeking not a Christian nation, but instead establishing a just government. As Christians we must also be fully committed in word and deed to our creed, reliably outlined for us in the Scriptures. Evangelical author Michael Horton has said, "Political solutions are not ultimate for the same reason that medical solutions are not ultimate. In the end, we all die from something. That does not mean that we ignore the symptoms, nor that we refuse to follow the doctor's instructions and do what we can to remain alive, but it does mean that we do not treat them as the answer to life's greatest questions." [1] In short, government cannot can't cure the disease by making people good in an ultimate sense. It can, though, control the symptoms somewhat by restraining sinful men from being as bad as they can be. And this is a good thing. The Difference Between Symptoms and Disease Sometimes well-meaning Evangelicals confuse things by campaigning for political solutions to solve what are essentially spiritual problems. The way to avoid this is to carefully distinguish between Gospel, moral teaching, and partisan political viewpoints. Gospel defines what is necessary for Christians to believe in order to attain salvation. It answers the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The answer is not political, but personal and theological. Moral teaching consists of conduct that is obligatory for obedient Christians, yet does not determine their salvation. Christians are saved by God's unmerited grace, not by properly casting their vote in an election. Political viewpoints are developed by applying moral convictions and personal preferences to issues of the public good. Confusion results when Christians hold political views that seem to be inconsistent with biblical principles or morality. The temptation is strong to make "Christian" political correctness the litmus test for faith. No particular political view, however, is a requirement for salvation. Our Christianity is determined not by our view of the deficit, or taxes, or even of abortion, but by our view of Christ. One caveat here. Though political viewpoints per se should not be a test of the faith, there are some positions that seem to be profoundly un-Christian since they conflict so directly with a biblical view of the world. Abortion and homosexuality immediately come to mind. It's possible to be a Christian and hold these views, but something is clearly wrong. If their Christianity completely fails to inform their political life, then it may not be relevant to the rest of their life, either. If this is a pervasive pattern, their claim to be Christian is meaningless. Interacting Positively with Culture While Speaking the Truth Christians are not going to "take America back." America is lost and only God can save it. Christians can be used by God, though, to treat the symptoms through positive interaction with culture. They can also play a redemptive role in the lives of individuals to cure the disease by being faithful to speak the truth. This does not mean making a "Christian nation" in which the theological doctrines of the Bible are explicitly woven into the fabric of government, or by giving Christians a preferential place in the public square. Rather, it involves working together with our neighbors to create a just nation concerned for the common good. Acrimony and shrill histrionics won't accomplish that. Instead, we must recover the art of persuasion. Moral and rational appeals done incisively, yet graciously, can go a long way to replace coercive political action. The Bible has been rejected by many as an authority. Merely quoting chapter and verse amounts to throwing Scriptural rocks at people's heads. It just makes them angry. Paul told the Colossians to, "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person" (4:6). This is good counsel for us, too. We can form our arguments on the basis of common grace and natural revelation, rather than on the basis of church and redemption. We can make our point in public by natural law and not by Scripture. It's the same truth, just a different tactic. We can accommodate our language, though not our message. We can blend with our culture and become "all things to all men," yet still maintain the values and conduct of the Christian faith. Christians have no trump card in the debate on public policy. The legitimacy of our views in the public square comes solely from our appeal to the common good and justice for all in faithfulness to the commands of Scripture. Yes, we must continue to proclaim the simple Gospel--the faith of the Fathers--which alone can cure the disease of sin. When it comes to politics, though--to treating the symptoms--our message isn't the faith of our Fathers, but rather the moral and political philosophy of our Founders. [1] Michael Horton, Beyond Culture Wars , (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 59.

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

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

Who Needs The Constitution Anyway?

Have you ever noticed that Liberals hate the very idea of States Rights when there is an issue that clearly falls under the domain of the Several States? And yet, when something comes up, like it now has, with individual states wanting to set their own emissions standards for cars, which would clearly fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Liberals all cry out for States Rights.

It is the legitimate duty of the Federal Government to regulate such things, being that a car will be built in one state and sold in every other state, or nearly so, and so the elected officials of one state should not be able to impose their will on the people of the other states in which they were not elected. And in the case of emissions standards, that is what will happen, the auto makers will, out of necessity, comply with the most stringent standards, because they won't be able to afford to make 37 different engines for the same model of car, so the most extreme State Government would decide for the entire nation what the standard would be, and this would jack the price of a car up well past what is reasonable, just to comply with Government mandates, and those mandates put in place by people elected in only one state.

It's too bad that the Obama Administration is already looking to tighten the Federal Governments strangle hold on the auto industry, by cranking MPG requirements even higher than they already are, at a time when they have just given them billions of dollars because they can't make ends meet. Who, exactly, thought that it was a good idea to take actions that will make cars more expensive and less safe? Yes, that's right, less safe, the current standards cost thousands of lives every year, the evidence is clear, every time the MPG requirements are increased highway fatalities increase also. That's not to say that there are more accidents because of this, but that the accidents are less survivable. Why is that? It's because you reach a point, and we have been there for some time, where the only way to increase gas mileage is to make the cars lighter, and that means that they do not offer as much protection in a crash, because some of the safety features were sacrificed in order to get the MPG rating up. The Liberals are literally willing to risk killing you and your family in order to "save the planet."

So, let's take an industry that the Government has regulated nearly into oblivion, that we the people have been forced to give billions of our hard earned dollars to in order to keep them afloat, have the Federal Government kick them while they are down with MPG requirements, and then sucker punch them by allowing each state to require different levels of standards from them. How long is it before our Government beats the auto makers into another bailout? I fear it may not be long.

The great Ronald Reagan once said, "Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Pigs On No-Doze

Economic Stimulus, Rescue and Recovery Package, Bailout, Reinvestment, or Massive Pork Barrel Spending. To paraphrase Shakespeare, what we call pork, by any other name, would still be pork. And that's what the Obama administration is pushing through Congress, a massive Pork Barrel bill that will do nothing to boost our economy in any way. In fact, what they are trying to do will be a massive drain on our economy. You simply cannot spend your way out of a recession. In a recession revenues drop off, which means that you have less money to spend, so, when in a recession, if you wish to spend, there are only two options, you must a) increase taxes, which history has proven over and over again is an economy killer, and/or b) you must borrow that money from somewhere which is also an economic killer, if not now, then down the road.

There was a Liberal Democrat on Hannity last night (and I forget her name) who kept repeating over and over again, the same line we here from Democrat politicians, "But we have to do something." As I have said many times in the past, and will continue to say, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

Many times we have heard Democrats, from President Obama on down, talk about setting up "New Deal" like projects, because they worked so well for FDR. The fact of the matter is that they didn't work so well for FDR. When FDR took office the unemployment rate was 17.4%, after five years of his "shovel ready projects" and economic policy, and massive pork barrel spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the unemployment rate was 17.4%. FDR was a complete failure when it came to dealing with the depression. It was our entry into WWII that finally got our economy going again. Obama wants to go down the FDR road, does that mean that he wants to start another Global War? Or is he after something else?

The answer is quite simple, he's after something else. Social change. Like most other liberal democrats, Obama cares only for furthering the cause of the far left, which is Socialism, in some form or another. From listening to Obama, he personally favors Marxism. Now I know that most people don't want to hear such talk, but the fact is that either you listen, get motivated and get involved, or one of these days you wake up in a Country that you don't recognize at all. You're liberties will be gone, the Constitution will be no more, and it will be too late. So wake up, start to listen, start to read, don't just accept what you are told by the media, do your own thinking. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, read the Communist Manifesto, and look at the raw facts of History. Don't be a drone, be an American.

Be Courageous, Mr President

Clearly I was not one of those that wept for joy at the inauguration, but that's ok, the message of this video is still very powerful, and well worth considering.

Such A Centrist

I just wanted to take some time to talk to all the idiots who kept proclaiming that Obama is really a centrist, and he won't be as bad as everyone was thinking. Let's take a look at all the "Centrist" things he's done so far.

He appointed far left ideologue Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Now I know, lots of people want to say that she's a centrist to, but that's also crap, she's as big a liberal democrat as they come.

He appointed another big lib, one who fought hard to get pardons for Terrorists under President Clinton, because he's a favorite of the far left.

He appointed another favorite of the far left for the Treasury department, and who cares if the man who will be running the IRS couldn't be bothered paying his own taxes until after he was caught. And it clearly wasn't an honest mistake, the guy is a liar and a deliberate tax cheat, but let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and he really did make a mistake, do we really think that someone who is so stupid that they can't do what millions of regular folks do every year is really the one to take over Treasury?

He signed an order to close Club Gitmo (as Rush Limbaugh calls it accurately) where no one has ever been tortured, defining torture as 1/1000 of what the terrorists themselves do to innocent people every day, we didn't even come close. But since we were keeping the terrorists locked up where they couldn't kill us, it had to be shut down, you know, in the interest of getting them back on the battle field where they can start killing Americans again.

Despite the fact that last years "stimulus" package did nothing to help the economy, and the emergency bailouts of the past couple of months have been total disasters, he and the other dems are pushing hard to do both of these things again.

Despite the fact that socialized medicine has failed horribly everywhere on earth that it has been tried, and despite the fact that anyone with any common sense knows that what it really amounts to is rationing of medical care, and not care for everyone that needs it as it has been pitched, he is still pushing hard to have it imposed on the American people.

Barack Obama has been President for less than a week and he's already the most Marxist President in the history of our great nation, this is not good, and it certainly is not centrist.

Just Dreaming

President Big Bird?

It is sick to see how the media types are fawning over President Obama. They don't seem to want to have anything to do with actually reporting any news, as long as they can talk about how wonderful Obama is.

On Tuesday my wife wanted to see if there was local news on in the evening, and of course there wasn't. But while she was checking it out I hear supposed news people on CBS talking about how much kids love Obama, and how Obama is such an easy word for them to say, as if they got all tongue tied trying to say Bush? Then he says, oh yeah, Obama is so wonderful to them, he's like Big Bird. I was like, wait, what? Did this guy just hear himself? President Big Bird? Really?

how about if we get over all the nonsense, this man is the President, what he does will affect all of us, so how about we actually take a hard look at where he stands, and what he will really mean.

History Matters

Did anyone else (I'm sure lots of other people did) catch President Obama open his inaugural Address with a flagrant historical inaccuracy? He stated that 44 men have taken the oath of office. That's wrong. While our 44th President was busy doing Cocaine some of us were learning History, and learned that Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms and is considered to be both the 22nd President and the 24th President.

I know that some people are asking why this even matters, or thinking that I'm just nit-picking, but it does matter because it shows a complete lack of knowledge, or even concern about the knowledge, of our national history.

Obama has stated on more than one occasion that we need to break from our History (or fancy words which mean that) and now we find out that he doesn't even know the History that he wants to break from. Nor does he care.

I don't much care what anyone else thinks, I think it's disgusting.

Our New President

It's now official, we have a new President as Barack Obama took the oath of office today. I thought it would be an appropriate time to share a few thoughts on this.

First, a lot of Christians seem to be asking other Christians, especially those like me who have made our feelings clear, if we plan to pray for our new President. While I can't speak for anyone else, what I can say is that, of course I'll pray for him. I'll pray that God keeps him safe and guides his steps, and that he will preside over the Government during a great time for the USA.

Second, I also keep hearing people ask if we want President Obama to succeed. Well, I have to ask what exactly is meant by that question. Do I want the Country to be successful while Barack Obama is President, even if it means that he gets the credit for it? Of course I do, even though I understand that Obama will be seen as a successful President regardless of if he is or not, I still want the Country to do well. If the question is, do I want Obama to be successful in bringing about all the things that he talked about in his campaign, then my answer has to be no, I am still diametrically opposed to his ideology and philosophy, if I weren't, I probably would have voted for him. If the question is, do I want him to fulfill God's plan for our Nation, be it for good or for ill (from our perspective), then again, the answer would be, of course.

Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing how Obama will do such a great job, and we just need to give him a chance, especially from the same people who never gave George W. Bush a chance, or the benefit of the doubt, a single day in the entire eight years that he was President. Given Obamas' stated intentions during the campaign, we cannot afford to give him a chance, it's just that we don't have a choice now.

I am also disgusted by the people who couldn't seem to spend enough time downing President Bush about the cost of his second Inauguration ($43 Million) and yet have not uttered a word about President Obama and the cost of his ($173 Million).

I'm also wondering why every time I type Barack or Obama blogger underlines them in red as though I've misspelled a word, I think it's time to get that taken care of.

I did not watch the inauguration today, understanding that I will probably see it and hear it 100,000,000 times over the course of the next few days, pretty much everywhere I look, but I kinda have to kick myself, not that I wanted to see it, but because I was at the school, and should have gone and watched it with my daughters' class, but didn't think of it in time.

Also, regardless of how much I disagree with Barack Obama on the issues, he is still my President, and if some schmuck ever throws a shoe at him, I'm going to be seriously ticked. I certainly won't laugh about it like those butt heads in the media did about that guy throwing his shoes at President Bush.

How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation

Desiring God Blog

How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation Posted: 17 Jan 2009 10:03 AM CST (Author: John Piper) At Barack Obama's request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, Gene Robinson, the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off. This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men. It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson's sex with men. The implications of this are serious. It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like atheism) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation. The apostle Paul says, Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves , nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As J. I. Packer puts it, "They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation." (Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48). In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation. The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ. It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray. One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don't approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation.

Sea Kittens

The PETA people are at it again. They want to change the name of fish, wanting them to be called "Sea Kittens" instead, because they feel that people would reject eating something with a name that reminded them of their beloved family pet. Total lunacy you say? Well, maybe, but I think it might be interesting to go along on this one and see if it backfires, it is at least possible that instead of making people stop eating fish it actually encouraged them to start eating cats. More likely though, it would simply cause the less nuts among us to simply roll our eyes while we enjoy some fish, whatever the name.

Now, if you should happen to run into to one of these PETA nut jobs, and you feel like having a little fun say this, "Oh, PETA, yeah, I thought about joining once, until I found out it didn't stand for 'People Eating Tasty Animals'." You may want to have your guard up when you say this.

Seriously though, the groups' name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" doesn't even make any logical sense. This is a radical group who believes that animals are fully equal to humans in every way, so how do they justify differentiating them in the name of their group? Doesn't their very name imply that humans are superior to animals? Shouldn't they call themselves "Human People for the Ethical Treatment of Non-human People"? Not as pretty and acronym, but at least it would accurately reflect what they believe.

A Little Civics Lesson

Just the other day I was listening to a local radio show, one of those where they discuss politics and current events and such, and this guy calls in and asks how it is that there are things that are clearly wanted by large majorities of the American people, and yet those things are not being done. Then he says, "Since we're ruled by the majority..." and the host cut him off and said basically, hold on there, we're not a democracy. The guy reacted with shock and says "We're not?" The host explained, no, we're a Representative Republic, which means we vote for the people who make the decisions, but we don't vote to decide every individual decision that comes along. Of course the host was exactly right, but this exemplifies just how ignorant many Americans are about how their Government works.

I have had people before, who seemed to be fairly well informed, who were just totally convinced that we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a total Oxymoron, such a beast cannot exist, and yet, they are committed to the idea that such is our Government. No, as stated above, we are a Representative Republic, or, it could also be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, the only thing thing that we do that bears any resemblance to democracy is the way that we vote to elect our leaders, but that does not somehow stamp us with the identity of a democracy.

A democracy is a fearful master, for the rights of any minority can be utterly trampled by the majority at any time. It is, simply put, majority rule, which often would lead to mob rule, and anyone not in the mob would simply be trampled underfoot. Democracy is the antithesis to liberty, or, at least one of them.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

The Strength of God & the Problem of Evil

The Strength of God & the Problem of Evil

Gregory Koukl

What makes you think the ability to take away evil from the world has anything to do with God's strength?

I was thinking about this issue of the problem of evil. I've read a number of books on it. I've done a whole teaching on suffering, evil and the goodness of God. I wrote an article called Sophie's Dilemma which we'll have in our journal coming out in July called Clear Thinking . We had Doug Geivett on four weeks ago, who has written a whole book on the problem of evil and we talked about the ins and outs of the issue. I was thinking more about this the other day. I often try to think through some of these issues to see if there is a shortcut to the solution that won't undermine the argument, that won't rip the guts out of it. When we talked to Dr. Geivett, he spelled out the classical objection to the problem of evil, the most damaging objection, potentially, to Christianity. That objection is this: there is something inconsistent in what Christians believe about the nature of the world and the nature of God. In other words, the Christian belief is contradictory. As Dr. Geivett pointed out, having an argument that is contradictory is the worst thing that could happen to you, because it means your view is false. Period. So if it can be shown that the Christian view is contradictory then at least at that point the Christian world view is false. Here's how the objection is usually stated: If God were all good, as you say, He would want to deal with the problem of evil. And if God were all powerful, as you say, then He would be able to deal with the problem of evil. Obviously, evil exists, therefore He is either not all good or He is not all powerful, or maybe He is neither. In any case, the presence of evil in the world disproves the Christian view of God. See how that argument works? It is called a defeater. This observation of an apparent contradiction defeats the Christian's view of God. Now of course if the argument is sound, then Christianity has been defeated. I think that is fair to say. I don't think the argument is sound, though. And we've talked in different ways about how Augustine has argued and C.S. Lewis has argued and others have unfolded this particular argument and for some it might have been complex. Well, I'm going to give you a short cut, because what Doug Geivett said really stuck in my mind. In his response Dr. Geivett questioned both of the premises. His question was, "What makes you think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's strength?" Here is how it can be played out. This will make it very clear. When this comes up again I'm going to tell this story. Let's pretend that you claim to be the strongest person in the world. More than that, you are the strongest person in the universe. You can pick up an entire building. You are so strong that you can pick up an entire city. You are so strong you can pick up an entire country. In fact, if you had a place to stand, you could lift the entire planet, even the solar system. You have so much strength, you can do anything that strength allows you to do. This is your boast to me. "OK," I say, "let's see if you can prove it." "Just give me any test you want" you respond. "If you are so strong, then make a square circle." "I can't do that." "You're not very strong, are you?" "This has nothing to do with strength, does it? Because no matter how strong I am, I could never make a square circle, because making a square circle has nothing to do with power. It is a self- contradictory concept, having square circles. They can't be made by anybody regardless of how strong they are. This test is unrelated to the issue of power." Now, how does this tie into our discussion of the problem of evil? Simply this. God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place. No question about that. But let me ask you a question. Is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices? It strikes me that the answer to that is yes. Because God is good--which is one of the things in question here--God created free moral creatures. But this changes everything, doesn't it? What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong? You see, now we're back to square circles. It's just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle. The task has nothing to do with His strength. It has to do with the nature of the problem. If you're going to have morally free creatures--that is, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves--and if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that will be truly morally free. But that entails, of necessity, at least the possibility of evil in the world. This has nothing to do with God's power. It is unrelated to the issue of power just like making square circles is unrelated to the issue of power. It relates to the nature of the good universe that God created, a universe that was populated by beings that were morally free. Morally free creatures by necessity, by definition, have the possibility of going bad. Now you know why this is not a good argument against the existence of God. It just doesn't apply. One could even argue there's a kind of category error here because in this particular case, according to Christianity, dealing with evil has nothing to do with strength. It has to do with the nature of the game itself. What's neat about the Christian point of view, is that God did the good thing by creating morally free creatures that went bad, yet still did the loving thing by cleaning up the mess man created in such a way that greater good results. Now that's the result of a Master mind.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

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

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel was CINCPACFLEET (Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet) on December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There has been much research done on the events leading up to the attack, and most of that can be found using a simple Google search, but in short, Admiral Kimmel as a scapegoat, blamed for not taking action on intelligence that he never received (that's still somewhat debated, but I'm quite convinced that it is a true statement). He was removed from his office and reduced in rank to Rear Admiral (from 4 stars back to 2 stars) and his name was marred by this great injustice.

In 2000 the US Congress passed a bill, and President Clinton signed it, authorizing the President (any President, not just Clinton) to restore Rear Admiral Kimmel (now long deceased) to his rightful rank, and to clear his name. For some reason, though he signed the bill, President Clinton did not take the next logical step of restoring Kimmel's name and rank. But it's not too late.

With President Bush being in the waining days of his Administration, the time is now right to urge him to restore the name and rank of this great man, and do justice to his memory.

I would encourage you all to take a few minutes, as I have done, and write an email to President Bush (president@whitehouse.gov) and Vice President Cheney (vice-president@whitehouse.gov) and ask for consideration for restoring Rear Admiral Kimmel's name and rank. It should be noted that in time past, as Secretary of Defense, Vice President Cheney endorsed the idea of clearing Kimmel, and restoring his rank.

Please take a moment and help us correct this great injustice.

Some Leader

President Elect Barack Hussein Obama (it's OK, he's now decided that he likes his middle name) has stated that we are just going to have to accept that we will run Trillion Dollar per year deficits for the next several years. So, out grossly irresponsible Government has put us in a deep hole, and very, very deeply in debt, and he's telling us that the answer to this problem is going to be to dig this hole so much deeper that we will never be able to get out of it. Wonderful, just wonderful.

He also stated that this problem is so big that only the Government can solve it. Of course he fails to mention that the problems we are facing as a nation are primarily Government caused. This would be akin to a builder who did such a poor job of constructing a building that it was on the verge of collapsing on a school and a nursing home and the builder saying, yes I know we screwed this up, but this problem is so big that only I can fix it... and I'm going to fix it by putting massive weights on top and blowing out the foundation!

No, Government is not the solution, and we don't have to accept Trillion dollar deficits (that means debt people, with interest) for years to come. We need lower taxes, lower spending, and for the Government to get the heck out of the way of the American people and the free market. And please don't give me that nonsense about the free market having caused this crisis, Government interference in the free market caused this crisis, and more Government interference will only make it worse.

Not Proportional

I am really sick and tired of hearing people saying that yes, Israel has been attacked a little, but their response has not been proportional. Well, that statement is half true, while being completely false. Let me explain.

To say that Israel has been attacked a little is a horribly gross understatement. In the last 6 months the terrorists who reside in Gaza have fired over 6,500 rockets into Israel, destroying property and killing innocent people. Besides that, these attacks have been going on for many, many years.

As for the second part of the statement, that they have not engaged in a proportional response, well, that is true, but not the way these morons mean it. Since these terrorist cowards fire their rockets and then hide behind their women and children, and manufacture these rockets in schools and orphanage basements, Israel has been stunningly restrained and careful about their response, trying to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, but at the same time realizing that they have no choice but to take action to stop the attacks on their civilians.

All of these people who support the terrorists in this conflict should be very thankful that Israel has not engaged in a proportional response, because to respond proportionally to what they have been subjected to would mean the complete and utter destruction of all the peoples in Gaza and the West Bank. I have stated before, and I still hold this position, that it would be impossible for Israel to over react, given what they have been put through, not only since the official formation of their nation in the modern age, but also over the past 5,000 years of their history. I can't imagine that I would show such amazing restraint in the face of such attacks. The Israel haters should be really happy that I'm not in charge of the IDF, because there would be nothing left of the terrorists by now.

American Royalty?

With Hillary Clinton looking to be Secretary of State, the unelected Governor of New York is looking for someone to appoint to fill her remaining Senate term. Of course, we don't know all of the names that he is considering, but we do know one person that seems to be high up on the list, and that is Caroline Kennedy Schlosberg. Of course, she can't go by her married name, Schlosberg, because that would take away her fame, and that may well be all that she has. Of course, she also has absolutely zero qualifications for the job, she is simply trading on her name, and because of that, she feels that she deserves the office. Being elected with no qualifications is one thing, then at least the people are the ones making the really bad decision, but for a Governor to appoint someone who has no qualifications is really beyond reprehensible.

The media are also treating her as if she is some kind of Royalty, even though we once fought a war to remove ourselves from such a system, they act as though she really does deserve the position, based only on the history of her family, not even anything that she has ever done herself. These are the same people who were screaming that Governor Palin wasn't qualified to be Vice President, even though she is a sitting Governor, has served on Government boards, been a Mayor, a city councilwoman, and run a small business, besides being a wife and mother, but none of that was good enough for them. Of course, Mrs. Schlosberg is also a wife and mother, but other than that has never held a job. The media says that she has worked for New York City in the education department, but that only involves some fund raising, never "working" more that just a very few hours a week. Not only does she have no experience in Government service, she has also never held an actual full time job of any kind at any point in her privileged life.

This is part of a letter written to a newspaper in New York State regarding this issue:
"Say no to Kennedy

"In response to Ellen Goodman's Dec. 23 commentary on Caroline Kennedy, and the headline, "JFK's daughter shows reawakening to public service": To be reawakened, you must have been awake in the past. The term "public service" usually means elected official - not just fundraising. What public service has Caroline ever done to be reawakened to?

"I was angered to read about her "coming home to the family business". The Kennedy's don't own the government. We, the people, own it. Senators, even presidents, are our employees.

"If Paterson is so interested in her "draw" that he gives her the seat, I'll offer to perform any upcoming surgery he might need. After all, I'm qualified because my father was a surgeon, my grandfather was a surgeon, my uncle was a dentist, my mother was an operating room nurse, my two sisters are nurses. Even though I have no medical training or experience, I must be qualified. Medicine is my family business!"


This was a great letter, and I hope that Patterson will understand that Schlosberg is not a Princess, is not heir to this Senate seat, and should not be appointed to it. We don't have royalty in America, people do not come to power based on their parents having been in power. Our system is not based on having an aristocracy, or an oligarchy, that's just not how things are done here.

Seven Pounds

This weekend we went and saw the new movie with Will Smith titled "Seven Pounds." Even after seeing the movie we couldn't figure out what the "pounds" part was about, apparently it's an obscure reference to Shakespeare. Perhaps not so obscure if you give a hoot about Shakespeare, but as I don't, I'm calling it obscure. Anyway, it was a good movie, and an interesting, and somewhat moving story... but LONG! I'm not just saying that because it's 2 hours long, I've set through 3 hour movies that didn't feel nearly as long as this one. But I'm not sure everyone felt that way.

I guess the problem for me is simply that the movie is supposed to be suspenseful, with the audience not understanding what is going on. For me though, I suspected what the plot was when I saw the TV spot, and it was confirmed for me in the opening moments of the film, so, without the suspense, it was a VERY LONG, yet still good, just long, movie.

At one point, I figured we had to be getting close to the end, so I stole a look at my cell phone and realized that we were only about half way through... did I mention it was long?

I can't really tell you anything about the movie, because, to tell anything is to give away everything, as far as I'm concerned, but I will say that I found it very interesting. The actions of the main character do not fit with a Christian Worldview, which would be my worldview, and so, from that angle, it really was a very interesting movie. Seeing what this man was doing, and felt that he had to do, and pitting that against what would be the appropriate actions for a Christian gave me a lot to think about.

Really, this was a good movie, and I enjoyed it... for a really really long time. I did stay awake for the entire (extremely long) movie, so that tells you that it wasn't boring... just long. But, if you don't see what's coming, you might find that it doesn't feel as long to you as it did to me, either way, I think you would enjoy it, I know I did.

Marriage Musing

I was thinking a little bit earlier today about how much I love my wife. It occurred to me that I really love everything about her, from her very best qualities all the way to her outstanding stubbornness. From her faithfulness and dependability to her tendency to be pretty demanding with me. From her exceptional baking and above average cooking to her occasional absentmindedness. I love her emotionally, intellectually, physically, and any other potential area that you might think of. Every bit of her goes into making her who she is. Even when I get upset with her about something, I wouldn't have her to be someone other than who she is. Besides, she tolerates me, and that alone should tell you what a remarkable lady she is. The only change I would be interested in for her is the same I would wish for any Christian, and that is Spiritual growth (Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:").

As I thought more about this it occurred to me that this is right. This is how it should be. Ephesians 5:25 (NKJV) says: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her," and then goes on to talk about bringing His bride (the Church) to perfection, but after the fact, not loving because of the perfection that He will ultimately bring us to, but loving us now in spite of our imperfections. As I thought about this, the part that really struck me was the part about loving my wife the way Christ loved(s) the Church, in spite of all of our imperfections and problems, He loved us so much that he suffered one of the most horrific deaths imaginable to redeem us from eternal damnation, and instead bring us into eternal Glorification. Speaking for Husbands, we are being commanded to love our wives completely, not only to be willing to sacrifice for her, even to the point of laying down our lives, but to love her completely and unconditionally.

Clearly we, being humans ourselves, are not capable of loving as perfectly as Jesus Christ loves us, but that is the goal, that is the measure. In today's culture we tend to spend a lot of our time looking for things that we could use to get out of a marriage if we decided we wanted to, but this isn't the picture that Jesus paints for us, in John 6:37 He says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Or in the ESV, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." This is that unconditional love, remember that whenever we sin, we are being unfaithful to Jesus, basically, we are cheating, having an affair, betraying Him, but even for all of that, he will never cast us out, he will never Divorce His Church, that's how much he loves us. That's how much we are to love our wives. Not stubborn commitment, not resigning oneself to stick with it because it's the right thing to do, but a choice to love, because that is the model that Jesus Christ has set for us to follow.

I'm not claiming to have all of this down pat. I've been married now for almost 10 years, and I really wish that I had known all of this 10 years ago, I should like to think that I would have been much less of a jerk over these years.

Again, that doesn't mean that we don't see the imperfections, after all, if you're in love with some puffed up false image, then clearly you would not be loving according to Christ's model. He sees us clearly as we are, and yet loves us, so it's quite alright for us to see and acknowledge the imperfections in our wives, this just means that we are in love with the true woman, and not a false image. I would think that this is part of loving our wives as Christ loved the Church.

Don't wait for her to be perfect, just love her, every day.

Happy New Year

Ok, so I know I'm a day late, but that's ok, yesterday we were traveling back from Pennsylvania, and having been up all day on the 31st, then driving all night, I was a little out of it. I did sleep very well last night though.

It is a little hard to believe that 2008 and gone already, and 2009 is already here.

Personally, I'm not very big on new years resolutions, though I know they are very important to a lot of people. I don't like them because I figure that if something is worth doing, you should just do it, without needing a day for an excuse.

2008 was quite a year, and while 2009 promises to be different, it seems that it will be no less eventful.

I know that recently I have focused very hard on politics, what with the big election, that I have excluded almost everything else. Since then I have cut way back on my news consumption, and so, I'm not sure what I'll focus on here in 2009, but then, I had no idea what I was going to blog about in 2008, so, I guess I'll just have to take it day by day, and hope that you'll come along with me.