Those Who Can, Do...

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle For The Beginning

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

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

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

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

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

On Unions

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving

Philippians 4:4-9 (ESV)

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

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

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

Fat People On Planes

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

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

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

Where did the common sense go?

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving

Gregory Koukl

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

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

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

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

The Great Lie Begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Quotes To Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the best one for today:

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

Auto Bailout--Prolonging Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They Will Do Anything, Won't They?

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

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

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

Worlds Easiest Job

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion and Human Rights

Abortion and Human Rights

Gregory Koukl

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

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

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

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

Overreact Much?

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

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

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

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

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

Ice Cream

Got this email today, it's too bad people didn't understand this before they voted a couple of weeks ago.

****************************

This is so true that it's just scary!! It's all about the Ice Cream

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade in 2008. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.


The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were
good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots
of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived
when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific
ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising
to do his very best. Every one applauded.

He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise.
She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat
down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know.

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth, he offers ice cream, and sixty
percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream.

The other forty percent know they're going to have to feed the cow.

Just Thought You Should Know

Remember that $700 Billion bailout? Remember that I talked about what a terrible idea it was, and that it's a huge amount of money? Are you aware that these things tend to take on a life of their own, and seldom stay in their cages? Did you know that now, just a few short months later, the price tag has risen to around $3.5 Trillion? And they're not finished yet! Just thought you should know.

Fetal Personhood: It's Simple

Fetal Personhood: It's Simple

Gregory Koukl

What makes a person a person? Does a fetus qualify?

I'm asking for people just to work hard to get some clarity on this issue. It's not that hard. If I've heard this once, I've heard it a dozen times: "This is a difficult issue. It's a confusing issue. It's hard to come to a real, proper understanding." The abortion issue is not a difficult issue. It is not a confusing issue. It is a very simple issue when it comes to the facts themselves. And I'm trying to urge people to have some clarity based on what is true here and what is moral and right; not based on what we want for ourselves. That's what makes these kind of issues complicated. The truth is self-evident but we don't like what is true because it makes a moral demand upon us, and that moral demand frequently is uncomfortable and inconveniencing. When we face discomfort and inconvenience, then we want to change the rules; and we try to change the rules by using contorted, disfigured arguments and we claim that it's a difficult issue. It's not difficult at all. The abortion issue is not a difficult issue. It is not a confusing issue. It is a very simple issue when it comes to the facts themselves. I talked with a young lady last night who made the point that she thinks that. She used the illustration of snapshots. If you took a photo of the developing fetus at every stage of development you would see something different; therefore the fetus is a different thing at each different stage of development. Well, that's an idea, I guess. That's a way of looking at it but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It doesn't mean because you can take a picture of me at six, and ten, and twelve, and twenty-four, and forty-four that I am somehow a different being. I'm the same being talking on this show right now that graduated from Simon Greenleaf University two weeks ago, and graduated from York High School in 1968, even though I don't look the same as I did back then. I still have my girlish figure, but I look different. Does that mean I'm a different person? I'm a different being? All these gradualism arguments fail because they don't have a clear fix on what it means for a thing to be a thing. It sounds like double talk, but it's not double talk at all. It's very simple. A thing is itself and not something else, and it remains itself as long as it exists. I am Greg Koukl. I was Greg Koukl when I was born, and I'll be Greg Koukl when I die. I am Greg Koukl from beginning to end. I am Greg Koukl the whole time through even though my body changes form. Beings don't transform into different beings. They are what they are. When does an acorn become an oak? Well, no one knows for sure. Of course we do! An acorn never becomes an oak. An acorn is an oak. Period. That's what an acorn is. It's an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it's an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, acorn doesn't describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It's kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn't a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age. If a person is willing to sacrifice the life of a child based on its nonpersonhood, it seems to me they ought to have a fairly clear idea of what personhood actually is. Now some people try to get around this by saying, "Okay, I'll give in. An unborn child is a human being, but it's not a person." And I have a very simple Columbo for you in that situation. It's very, very easy to use. When someone lays this on you, ask them a very fair question: What's the difference? They will say absolutely nothing. There will be a long, embarrassing silence and don't you dare open your mouth because what this person has just said is that they are willing to sacrifice the life of a human child because it's not a person, yet they are not in any position whatsoever to tell you the difference between the two. It's kind of like saying why are you killing those children? "Well, it's because they don't have a high enough I.Q." Well, how high of an I.Q. do you have to have to live? "Frankly, I don't have the faintest idea, but I know these kids are pretty dumb." What is that? That is exactly what this response implies. Nonpersons shouldn't be allowed to live. What's a nonperson? "I don't know, but they're not one of them." If a person is willing to sacrifice the life of a child based on its nonpersonhood, it seems to me they ought to have a fairly clear idea of what personhood actually is. But of course nobody does in a clear fashion. It becomes arbitrary at that point. The fact is that human beings are persons. They are personal kinds of beings whether they are in an early stage of development or a later stage of development. That's what a human is and it remains itself from the beginning to end. It's very simple. It's not hard. It's not complex. We've known it for ages. This personhood argument is only 10-20 years old, since Roe vs. Wade , Frank Beckwith says. Before then there was never a personhood argument. It was introduced after Roe v. Wade to make the decision to have an abortion a little more palatable. The same thing happened with Dred Scott. He's not a person, he's black. He's not a person, though he's a human technically; but that's just a little detail. It's not significant. It's simple, folks.

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. ©1994 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

Return Of The Book Reveiw

I have just finished an absolutely outstanding book. "Suffering and the Sovereignty of God" by John Piper and Justin Taylor. Actually, there are quite a few authors in this book, John Piper writes a couple of sections and he and Justin Taylor edited and compiled the work.

The book is kinda heavy, certainly one that I will have to read again someday, to see what else I can get out of it. It's informative, deep, moving, thoughtful, dogmatic, and compassionate, all rolled into one. (And I don't mean dogmatic in a bad way, I understand that it can be a bad thing, but it can also be appropriate at times.)

One of the great things of this book is that you are not only learning what the Bible says about suffering from great Bible teachers, you are, but you are also learning about the Bible's teachings about suffering as it is lived out in the lives of real people.

I don't know all of the contributors to this work, but they include, Stephen F. Saint, whose father, a missionary, was killed on the mission field trying to reach a tribe, known to be violent to outsiders, with the Gospel, and how, through his death, and the deaths of the men with him, those people were ultimately reached, and many of them did embrace Christ. Also, you get to see what he learned, many years later, through the death of his own daughter. A truly remarkable chapter.

Also included is Joni Eareckson Tada, who is generally fairly well known in Christian circles, as she has long tried to use her disability for the Glory of God. She tells how, in the early days after the diving accident where she broke her neck, God brought her through that dark time, and what he has done with her life since then.

This is a really remarkable book, and I would highly recommend it.

Here's A Thought

Maybe someone out there can give me an answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it. My wife just turned on the TV and it was on the History Channel initially, and I caught something about what was being said. They were talking about some Star or stellar phenomenon that's 64 Billion Light years away. A light year is a measure of distance, namely the distance that light can travel in one year. That would mean that it would take 64 Billion years for the light from this object to reach Earth. However, the Big Bang Theory says that the Big Bang occurred, starting up the Universe, around 14 Billion years ago. So, how is it that light from this star, or whatever, is reaching us on Earth today? Seems to me that the nearest light from this object should be 50 Billion light years away still, right?

Now, that being said, I know how ascribing to the Biblical account of creation would deal with such a question. To answer the questions about the apparent age of the Earth, you would look at the fact that God created Adam as a full grown adult, with the appearance of age. Likewise, you would say that God created the Earth with the appearance of age also. So, why not take it one more step, which would actually fit logically into the rest of this, and say that God created the entire universe with that same appearance of age, including the light that already reaches Earth (and beyond) even from 64 Billion light years away.

So, if someone from the evolutionary side wants to give an answer to this, that would be great, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, and anyone else who wants to weigh in is welcome also, of course.

Job 19: 25-27

25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Thank You

I just want to take a moment on this Veterans Day to say thank you to all those who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, and all who have served.

We know that our freedom is not free, and no one knows better than our veterans the incredible price that has been paid to protect those God given liberties for us.

I never served myself, but have the utmost respect for those who have. My family has a long and proud Military tradition, going back to the Revolutionary War, fighting to ensure our Liberty.

So many have given so much for God and Country. On Memorial day we honor those who have died. Today we honor those who are still with us. So, to those who are still here to hear the thank you, I want to say Thank You, from the bottom of my heart, for all you do and have done. Truly the world is a better place because of your service.

Parenting Counts

I had laid down the couch this afternoon, and was drifting in and out, when I heard on the news something about a boy who had been picked up by an adult male, and touched inappropriately, but apparently escaped. I was half asleep, so I don't know what the whole story is, but I remember thinking, why would the kid have gotten into the car with the guy, he should have known better than that. And that was the thought that woke me up, for a few minutes anyway.

Kids won't automatically know that they shouldn't trust someone, they simply don't have the judgment or experience to know that some people can't be trusted. They don't know what they don't know, and that's something that parents have to teach them. This is why parenting really counts.

Teaching our children about how to interact with the world is our job, it's something that we have to think about and make a priority, because after something happens may well be too late.

I'm not criticizing the parents in this particular case, because, as I said, I was half asleep when the story was on the news. What I wanted to share here today is just the thoughts that what I heard brought into my mind. I want all of us who are parents to think about some of these hard things from time to time, not because it's pleasant, but because it's necessary.

God has entrusted our children to us, and we are responsible to do everything that we can to ensure their safety. Ultimately it will be in His hands, but our responsibility is to teach them all we can, and watch out for them all we can.

Parenting really counts.

Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives

I thought I would take a moment today and tell you about one of my favorite shows. Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives on the Food Network.

Guy Fieri travels around the country trying out little out of the way eateries. Usually single location mom and pop operations.

It's a great time, watching him go back in the kitchen, learning a little of the history of the place, and how some of their signature dishes are made, and then going out into the dining room and checking in with the customers, which really makes for some good realism, and getting a feel for what regular folks think about a certain place. Most of the time anyway, there was that one time he found Gene Hackman enjoying a little place down in New Mexico, but I think that's the only celeb I've ever seen on the show.

Guy is a lot of fun, and the show probably wouldn't work without him, he just brings such high energy and such a great sense of humor to the table.

Take a little time, it's just a half hour show, and check it out. I think you'll be glad you did.

In Reagan's Words

In his speech, "A Time For Choosing," in 1964 Ronald Reagan said this:

"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth."

The truth of those words should speak to each and every one of us. Freedom has a price, it is a very costly thing, and yet worth the price. Freedom is not a something that we can allow to be choked out of us, bit by bit until it is no longer ours. Nor is freedom something to be hoarded and kept only for ourselves. We must, instead of allowing despotism to creep in from the rest of the world, cause liberty and freedom to spread out from us like a burgeoning flower.

The time is now, it really is "A Time For Choosing," will you continue to be complacent and simply sit back and allow freedom to be destroyed, piece by piece until it is gone? Or will you educate yourself, learn form the past, and stand up and say too those who would destroy our liberties, "Enough!"

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Defending Sarah

Some people from the McCain campaign are out trying to blame his loss on Gov. Palin. They are claiming her to be stupid, or like a diva, or several other things. But don't be fooled, these stories are not true. I know that's a strong statement, but really, there's no credibility to them. First, the person making all of these wild accusations has chosen to remain anonymous, which is enough to make you wonder right there. Then there is the fact, as Bill O'Reilly pointed out last night, that when Senator McCain announced Gov. Palin as his running mate, the media sent an army of reporters and researchers to Alaska to dig up any dirt on her that they could. They even sent people with money, willing to pay for any negative stories, and the left Alaska empty handed. If she were all the things being claimed by this staffer, these reporters wouldn't have had a problem finding people to lay it all out for them.

So why would they be doing this? There are two reasons, really. First, some in the McCain campaign are stinging from the loss and unable to admit that their own inept handling of the campaign was a huge factor. Some other people in the campaign were angry over the Selection of the Alaska Governor, because they were Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee supporters and wanted them to be the VP selection. These are the people who tried to hurt Gov. Palin during the course of the campaign, and are now hoping to destroy her so that she won't be able to run in the future. These people are truly despicable.

The fact is that Governor Sarah Palin did not, in any way, shape, or form, cost John McCain the Presidency. In fact, she gave him his only viable shot at victory, which he, and his inept campaign staffers, sufficiently blew. If not for the selection of Gov. Palin, the election wouldn't have been even remotely close, McCain would have suffered the most staggering and crushing defeat in both the Popular and Electoral vote since Ronald Reagan trounced Walter Mondale in 1984 (winning 49 states!).

If you have been reading here for any length of time, you would know that I did not come on board with McCain until he selected Gov. Palin, and I can tell you, from people I've talked to personally, plus other blogs I've read, and listening to talk radio, I am not alone in that. In fact, millions upon millions of people voted, like myself, not for John McCain, but for Sarah Palin.

These losers that McCain surrounded himself with in his campaign are exactly what is wrong with the Republican party today. The time has come, Mark Levin is starting the process of reviving the Conservative movement. Once successful, we will have two options, to clean out the GOP, and get rid of the spineless liberal appeasers, like those McCain staffers, or to start a third party, which would be harder, but if the movement gains enough steam, could be done.

Sarah Palin stands to be a shining light for the future of the GOP and the Conservative movement, and these losers that want to destroy her had better watch out, because their footing is not as solid as they would like to think. Rank and file Republicans are too smart for their games.

A Few Follow Up Thoughts

In reference to yesterday's post, why would we have need of suffering? Well, there are several very important things that God uses suffering for, and sometimes we can see the fruits of it in this life, and sometimes we can't. I just want to bring up one possibility, that is really a beautiful possibility. I have read, and heard it suggested, that it is at least possible that those who suffer in this life, for the cause of Christ, might even more fully enjoy the wonders of Heaven, and have a greater reward there. So, if you must suffer in this life, and you are doing so for the cause of Christ, even if you can't see the fruit of it here, it is still worth the ordeal, and God knows what is best for you, even if it seems to be the worst at that time.

On another note, if we are called upon to suffer, let us not squander that suffering on self pity, and feeling sorry for ourselves. Let us use it to grow in our relationship with God, and for the spreading of the Gospel.

My daughter came home from school, and she was upset that they had been talking about Obama on the radio on the way home, and I told her that she couldn't get upset when she hears people talk about him, because he's going to be our President for at least four years, and so, we're going to be hearing about him. That's just reality.

Our Great Sovereign God

We must first understand that God is in control, and that Barack Obama won the Presidential election last night because God ordained it. It could not have happened otherwise. I do not pretend to know the plan of God, or to question His will.

I think that the book of Job gives us some great answers with regards to this situation. After all the terrible troubles and loss that befell Job, we find his reaction:

Job 1:20-22 (All Scripture contained herein is from the ESV)

20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.

Job 2:9-10

9 Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die." 10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

In both of these passages we see that Job does not ascribe these evils to the devil, or to the men who killed his servants and stole his livestock, but he ascribes the acts directly to God, and the scripture makes it clear that he has not done so falsely, or in sin, or accused God of doing wrong. (I'm not saying that Obama's victory is on the same level as what befell Job, my point here is regarding the sovereignty of God.)

This is just one place in the Bible where we see that God is Sovereign over all, and nothing can happen without God first ordaining it to happen, not that God has done wrong, or done evil, but that for His own reasons, and to His own purposes, He has done these things to Job.

When the time comes and Job begins to question why God has acted as he has, we find God Himself talking to Job:

Job 38:1-15

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11 and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It is changed like clay under the seal,
and its features stand out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
and their uplifted arm is broken."

It goes on until the end of the following chapter, but the point is clear, we have no standing to question the will and the actions of God.

This same thing rings true here. I do not know why God has ordained that Barack Obama is to be the next President of the United States of America, but He has, in fact, done so.

Let us assume that I am correct in my predictions of all the bad things that I have said will happen as a result of both the Democrat controlled Congress, and the Obama Presidency, how can I square that with my assertion that it was God's plan? It's really quite simple.

Philippians 4:19 says, "And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus."

This does not say that God will give us all of our wants, or do things according to our wishes, but rather says that He will supply our needs. It also does not say that God will supply what we perceive to be our needs, but what our needs actually are. Nor is it limited to our physical needs, but those spiritual, or eternal needs, which are far greater.

If all the extreme cases of what could come about as a long term result of this election, we may end up in suffering, but it may be that God knows that we have a need of suffering, and if He didn't supply that, He would be breaking His promise.

And another silver lining, if the worst extremes of all of my predictions come true, it will crush the "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity" movement.

My trust is in the Lord my God. I will continue to fight for what is right, and if I fail, I can know that it is part of God's great plan, but I will also know that I have fulfilled my responsibility of doing what is right.

I have heard from some other Conservatives that they were not able to sleep last night, even that they were up all night crying over the election results. As for me, while I felt some sadness for my Country, I shed no tears. I watched President Elect Obama's speech, and then I went outside and took down my yard signs, and took the bumper stickers off my cars (I refuse to be a sore loser like those people still driving around with "Kerry/Edwards" stickers) made my daughter a sandwich for school, and went to bed, nor did I have trouble sleeping. I slept like a man secure in the knowledge that the Almighty Sovereign God has everything under control.

A Truly Historic Election

I have a policy not to go back into a previous post and change what I actually said, except for spelling, so I'm adding this after the fact: I don't mean to say that Obama being the first black President is nonsense, that was too strong. That is a historic thing, and I can't take that away from him. For me, it is a side issue though, as I was raised to evaluate each person individually as a person, and not based on race or sex, or whatever, so I have never thought in terms of race or racism. I also have never thought it impossible for a black man, or woman for that matter, to be elected President, in fact, I have always thought that it would happen at some point, and I didn't know when. Race does not enter into my thought process about Barack Obama at all, I object to his stances on the issues, that is all.

****************

Prospects for John McCain are looking pretty dim right now, though the election isn't quite over yet. However, regardless of tonight's results, whether McCain pulls off an upset and comes out ahead, or if it continues as it looks at this moment like it will, and Obama comes out on top, this is a truly historic election. Let me explain why.

If you know me, you know that I'm not going to say that it's historic because of a black man either winning, or coming very close to it, because that's all nonsense, and even talking about it bears a measure of racism. The reason that this is a truly historic election is that it is the first time in the history of the United States certainly, and possibly the world, that a free people have voted in such stunning numbers to abdicate their liberty.

If Obama does indeed win the White House, which, as I said, seems very likely now, and the Democrats control the House and the Senate, which also appears nearly certain, it will be stunning how much, and how fast, our nation will change, and it won't be for good.

They will implement a Socialist system of redistribution of wealth, which will destroy our economy, and cost us millions of jobs.

They will implement socialized, top down, Government run health care, which will destroy the health care system that we currently have, and lead to health care rationing, with those who are deemed less valuable being left to die, if not actively killed (through assisted suicide measures).

They will pass FOCA (The Freedom Of Choice Act) which will repeal all Federal and State restrictions on abortion of any kind, including the ban on Partial Birth abortions that we had to fight so hard for a few years ago. That will all be gone in the new Government that we are likely looking at. As if the millions upon millions of children that have already been killed are not bad enough, they will kill millions upon millions more that otherwise could have had a chance at life.

We will see more social programs put in place that will purport to help the poor and needy, but will do nothing more than to keep the impoverished in poverty, and fully dependent on the Government.

These four points listed here only just scratch the surface of the changes that we will see as a result of the 2008 election, again, assuming that don't see a miraculous turnaround during the night.

And listening to the Democratic rhetoric and the democratic crowds, I can't help but be reminded of the words of Senator Amidala from Star Wars, in Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith, "So this is how liberty dies... to thunderous applause."

For all of those who voted for McCain/Palin, and fought so hard on the side of the right in this campaign season, do not feel that your time was wasted, we have fought the good fight, we have been on the right side of the issues, and will continue to be. Our cause is just, and our principles and ideologies are right, true and good. So, why might we have lost?

Clearly the apparent outcome of this election is not good for our Country, but as our Country has morphed into and increasingly Godless nation, we may not be getting what we want, but we are getting exactly what we deserve.

Join Me, My Brothers And Sisters!

Don't be discouraged, don't let the polls and the news media get you down. John McCain and Sarah Palin can win this election. The key is YOU! You must VOTE! The only way McCain loses this election is for Conservatives to sit home or vote for an also ran.

Voting for McCain/Palin is not voting for the lesser of two evils. It is voting for the greater good. It is voting for the future. It is voting for the United States Of America. You must get out and vote! We need you, now more than ever. Forget the spin, forget the media, forget the polls, you know what's right, you know that McCain/Palin is the ticket for the future!

Get up, go out, VOTE, WIN!!!!

Today Is The Day

Today is the day we go to the polls, the day we make our voices heard. I have made a very strong case as to why John McCain and Sarah Palin are far and away the better candidates than Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Let's make the choice for a strong defense and strong national security. Let's make the choice for lower taxes and a thriving economy. Let's make the choice for real, achievable energy independence. Let's make the choice for life. Let's make the choice for liberty. Let's vote McCain/Palin '08!

A Must Watch Election Video

My Sympathy to Senator Obama And Family

Putting politics aside for the moment, I want to offer my sympathy to Senator Obama as his Grandmother (in Hawaii) has passed away today.

I am sure that she was very proud of her Grandson and all that he has achieved in his life, and, being that she helped to raise him, I am sure that this is a big loss for him personally, and, as she was very involved in raising him, I am sure they were very close.

I am very glad, as I'm sure he is, that he took the time to go and see her last month.

Even though I have been hammering away at Obama as the election gets closer and closer, as I have so many disagreements with him, and I stand by all of that, my prayers are with him and his family at this time of loss.

And Then There's This

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."--Barack Obama (Emphasis Mine)

Is it just me, or does this sound frighteningly similar to the Second Chief Directorate of the KGB?

Considering that the Obama Campaign froze out TV stations that asked tough questions, and kicked newspapers off the campaign plane for endorsing McCain, it's clear that they don't have anything good planned for anyone who disagrees with them.

You think about that.

Fire In His Belly

I just happened to watch a McCain rally on TV, and it was a privilege to watch it.

McCain was strong, vibrant and showed some fire that most of us have been waiting for. I am convinced that if he had been this strong for the past several months, he would have a crushing lead now.

I have felt for quite some time that McCain and Palin can still win, but seeing John McCain this morning, I am far more optimistic than I had been.

I'm no prophet, and I'm not clairvoyant, but I do know that this election is still not over. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I know that McCain and Palin can win, and it is my hope and Prayer that they will.

Let us do the right thing and vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin! The future of our Nation may well depend on it.

More Food For Thought

Tomorrow we will select a new President. Obama says that he will stimulate the economy with big infrastructure projects, which will create 6 million new jobs. That is to say, 6 million more Government jobs, or jobs with Government contractors. In other words, 6 million jobs paid with tax dollars. So, just the payroll from those jobs will be huge. Even if we extremely low ball the pay of these jobs and say that they would be for $20,000 a year, the cost would be $120 billion. If we make this more realistic, like $30,000 to $40,000 a year, we would be looking at $180 billion to $240 billion, in payroll alone! Of course, the other expenses that will go into these projects will make them cost several times that, and where does that money come from? Increased taxes? Huge debt? Probably both. How does that help our economy? Frankly, it doesn't. Obama's plan to bolster the economy actually will serve to kick out economy while it's down, and possibly, even probably, usher in the depression that he's out doom saying about.

Beyond that, he has stated his intention of destroying the coal industry, which alone would cost many thousands of jobs, and seriously cripple our ability to produce electricity, which further damages our ability to create and maintain jobs. He also has stated his intention to increase taxes on corporations forcing them to increase prices, and/or cut jobs. How does this help our economy? Again, it doesn't.

Barack Obama has worked for ACORN, the organization that is currently engaged in voter fraud, trying to cancel out the votes for free Americans. This is a form of voter suppression, and this is the legacy of Barack Obama, while John McCain has gone to war, and suffered to protect our right to vote. We believe in freedom, one person, one vote, and only one vote.

The choice is clear, John McCain and Sarah Palin are ready to work for the future of our Country. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not. Please vote for McCain/Palin '08.

I'm Hopping Mad

A few weeks ago in an interview with a local talk radio host, the Democratic Candidate for the Florida Senate was asked if he would consider a State income tax. He basically replied that, while he didn't think that an income tax was a good idea, he tries to listen to all ideas that people bring to him, and doesn't ever want to say that he wouldn't hear someone out, no matter what they are presenting to him. OK, I would have preferred him to say, "No, Never, not on my watch," but clearly he said that he does not like the idea of a State Income tax.

So, I get home from work this morning, and there is a campaign brochure sitting on the table trying to get people to send in a signed petition card to tell the candidate that we don't want an income tax, and saying that he is pushing for a State Income tax. This is a flat out lie! It's disgusting.

Maybe it's a bias, but I tend to expect things like this from Democrats, but when it's the Republicans lying, and on top of that, they want people to waste stamps on this lie! It's an outrage! His opponent is one Republican that I will never vote for, for any office, anywhere. If he's willing to lie so blatantly during the campaign, how could I ever trust anything he ever says.

Not to mention how stupid he must feel we all are not to catch onto such an obvious lie. I'm truly disgusted.

Another Attack

I just love having a spirited election, and vigorous debate about the issues. Too bad that's not what we've been faced with this time.

When I talked to my wife from work last night, she told me that my McCain/Palin sign had been pulled up and thrown onto the lawn, but that my McCain sign seemed ok, of course, it was dark, so she couldn't see it that well.

When I got home, I put my sign back together and put it back out in the yard, but I could see something was wrong with the McCain sign too, so I walked over and saw that someone tried to pull it out too, but were apparently they were too weak. Actually, since it was attacked with the stick a week or so ago, I had to put the support sticks in at an odd angle, which made it really hard to pull out, so all they managed to do was to bend the top bar.

I have been hearing a lot of stories of McCain/Palin supporters having their yard signs and such stolen or destroyed, but I haven't heard the same thing from Obama people. It's not that I don't think it has happened in that direction at all, but I do think that it's happened far more against McCain supporters.

This bothers me because I can argue the issues all day long, and if people wanted to talk to me about those issues, I would be more than happy to. Unfortunately most Obama supporters don't really care to talk issues, because the facts are not in their favor, so, instead, they try to simply destroy or shout down all opposition.

These things are important, but when your level are argument amounts to attacking yard signs, you really can't be taken seriously.

Vote McCain/Palin '08!