Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The State of the Union --Bush's Address--Excellent!

What did you all think of the President's State of the Union Address?

I wonder if the speakers have teleprompters for their speeches because Bush never seemed to be looking at anything –not even teleprompters –or reading –and it was a well-articulated, polished delivery. With all the pressures of that office and all the negative publicity, one wonders that he could memorize such a speech –or even deliver it so well –if he were the dolt his opponents claim him to be.

Did anyone see the Democrats’ follow up? I went to finish some dishes and missed it, I guess –or if it was much later, I went to bed. Who gave it?

I don’t think the dems do themselves any favors when they look frosted over by everything the pres. says –even things they should agree with politically. They did manage to give a standing ovation to our troops and supported the almost 100 per cent increase in Veterans’ benefits ushered in during Bush’s term. I think they also stood for his statement on research and cloning –and the protection of human life in research. If they did, that’s surprising, because they so want to protect abortion as a right that they have trouble acknowledging the sanctity of life in general as regards research, e.g.

At least , our behavior in congress is far better than the British parliament –what a circus they have with their personal insults to each other and making fun of each other!

What conservatives wonder about is Bush’s compassion that leads him to offer big gov’t solutions with big price tags –at the same time offering to shut down wasteful spending. He boasts of the money we have earmarked for compassionate causes –and he spoke of a humane remedy needed for problem of illegal immigration. He told of a plan to balance budget by 2012 --or was it debt? if we stay on his course. I think it was budget and I don't recall any solution offered for the debt. But I was a bit distracted at some points.

But he said no tax increases –and that he will veto any of those along with any un-voted earmarks sneaked into bills –and one of the interviewed focus group ladies afterward said we have to increase taxes for the debt and the deficit –increase them on the rich, that is, and the corporations, etc. –And others countered with the fact that EVERY time taxes are lowered, the economy gains –and thus the tax coffers of the gov’t get more money than they get if they tax us higher –and there are more jobs as well when lower taxes stimulate the economy.

I do think that our gas companies, however, should ignore the market and lower prices just to help their country –because, as I understand it, they have made an additional killing over the high prices –no matter what they claim dictates the prices.

I don't like to hear about exorbitant severance packages for CEO's whose companies bankrupt --I assume the boards that vote these packages also made a killing --and the workers are just out of luck. Even as a Republican, I don't like excesses of corporate greed -- or Congressional greed. What one term members of congress get for retirement is ridiculous. We should make them reform, bring it to a vote, and throw out everyone of them that votes himself a raise or refuses to reduce their exorbitant pension plan.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Monday, January 7, 2008

Obama is Angry --to think Clinton is Accusing him of being Pro-LIFE! Of all the nerve....

It seems that the Clinton campaign is blasting Obama for not being strong enough for abortion! And the irony is that his campaign is offended --after all, he is as willing to shed innocent blood as the next Democrat!

Source: The Omega Letter, published daily by Jack Kinsella at www.omegaletter.com:

... I read on Sunday of a campaign mailer going out on behalf of the Clinton campaign criticizing Barak Obama's record on abortion.

... Barak Obama has received a 100% rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion 'rights' issues.

So Obama is not some closet 'right-to-lifer' -- which is the impression the [Clinton] mailing is designed to create. Indeed, Obama voted against a measure that would require medical care for babies who survive an abortion attempt.

...Obama is as much a supporter of in-vitro murder as Hillary or any of her political challengers are, but Hillary doesn't think so.

"A woman's right to choose," the mailing says on the front, then flips to the back, "demands a leader who will stand up and protect it."

The mailing boasts that Hillary has a record of fighting "far-right Republicans" to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice."

"Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois state Senate," it says. "Seven times he voted present - not yes or no, but present. Being there is not enough to protect choice."

The "choice" involved, I hasten to remind you, is a woman's right to choose to kill her own baby.

Amazingly, to a Democrat, being charged with opposing the murder of the unborn is classified as a "negative attack ad" -- and that is exactly the way the Barak campaign characterized it -- as if, if true [that he were too pro-life], it would somehow be a badge of dishonor.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire."

Somehow, in some deep, visceral way, this numbs the mind, even though championing abortion has been the bedrock issue of Democrats since the early 1970's.

There is something about opposing medical care to an abortion survivor not being pro-death enough that screams out at me.

If turning one's back on a helpless, dying human being isn't pro-abortion enough for the Democrats, then we need a new word to describe 'red-meat politics'.

Psalms 106 is essentially a retelling of the history of the Israelite people from bondage in Egypt and their resettlement in the Land of Canaan, where, the Psalmist lamented, they disobeyed God's command to destroy the land's current inhabitants.

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works." (Psalms 106:34-35).

What 'works' did they learn? The Psalmist charged them with, "shed[ding] innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood." (Psalms 106:38)

For this offense, God exacted judgment in the form of Israel's destruction, the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the loss of Jewish national sovereignty that lasted two and a half millennia -- from the Babylonian Conquest until the restoration of Israel as an independent sovereign state on May 14, 1948.

By conservative estimates, Americans have shed the blood of more than 25 million (25,000,000) of their own sons and daughters since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

Indeed, the willingness to approve, and even participate legislatively in the blood-letting is considered a political plus among almost half of Americans -- if Hillary Clinton is to be believed. And this is one of the few times I believe her.

I find it interesting that Hillary chose to highlight 'seven' chinks in Obama's baby-killing armor.

God has a seven point list He keeps, as well.

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-18)

That leaves us with two questions to ponder. The first is, "which of these is NOT a major plank in the Campaign 2008 platform?" The second is, "Where is America in Bible Prophecy?"

I don't like either of the answers I came up with. What about you?


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Saturday, January 5, 2008

GOP "CROTCH POLITICS" --Mudrake's term, as it pertains to homosexual unions

A fellow blogger wrote elsewhere:

They [gays] aren’t going to change their lifestyles simply because we disapprove of it. That’s a fact, so some sort of accommodation must be made.

First statement is probably true–though there are many ex-gays today who say they found they were able to enjoy heterosex after all. Second statement is NOT a necessary conclusion. We don’t legally accomodate statutory rape (girls being too young for older men) –pedophiles –adulterers –bigamists, polygamists –etc. All of these have sexual proclivities that society prosecutes or frowns upon –rather than accommodating. Gays are looking for legitimacy for inclinations that should have been rejected in the mind at the first thought –and rejected at the first opportunity for intimacy. They want (and are gaining) societal legitimacy and approval for their activities, some of which are very dangerous and harmful and disease-prone –and addictive and promiscuous. They want approval for same-sex relationships and activities which most parents dread for their children.

As parents, we’d be furious at any older (or even same age) homosexual that lured a young son into that life and contributed to a gay self-image and gave him AIDS –and we probably wouldn’t want the old gink admitted to his hospital room where he lay dying of AIDS –and we’d probably want him buried in a plot of our choice instead of Chester the Molester’s. However, by current law, if he is 18 or older he could make his own living will and determine who visits and who buries him –he can keep the will in the medical chart and discuss it with his doctor. Granted, if he hadn’t gotten his “crotch” alligned with some gay guy’s posterior, he wouldn’t be dying of or spreading AIDS or putting the health care team at risk from his body fluids. I think homosexuality is at least a public health risk. (This was hypothetical, BTW, as I don't have any gay children.)

I’m more willing to accommodate illegals –accommodation to people who sneaked in here to work and make a better life than they had in Mexico–than accommodating people’s illicit sexual proclivities.

Call it “crotch politics” as the blogger Mudraker does. Sex is a powerful drive, responsible for much good in the world (including the proliferation of the miraculous human race and the pleasure factor) –and it has also been a powerful force to control with the discipline, bliss, and societal benefits and restrictions of solid hetero marriages which may or may not be blessed with children.

Children are for society’s benefit; when raised to be respectful of their parents, they grow up to care for the elderly parents, bring joys that help to dispell depression and loneliness, provide the social security for the aged and others in need, provide national defense, and they provide a safe haven for THEIR offspring growing up in a sometimes lonely, cruel world. A functional home is the best mental health center for its members and friends–along with good church community. Functional hetero marriage with kids is the gift to oneself that keeps on giving, generation after generation. That's the one that deserves the perks for the sacrifice of raising a family --or for at least following God's bio-design by marrying the opposite sex.

Yes, there is misery in human families, but much less so when all are seeking to be disciples of Christ and students of the Word of God--when they love and parent wisely. And yes, there is poverty with indiscriminate baby-making–especially when fathers abandon the mothers. The Protestant church typically does NOT oppose some kinds of birth control. They have a different view of God’s sovereignty usually –believing we are stewards of our own fertility, to some extent. They don't have a negative anti-pleasure view of marriage --as is sometimes said of their Catholic monastic brethren.

The gay couples can provide their own accommodations through all the legal means available to them –namely WILLS, joint ownership by names on deeds, naming each other as beneficiaries, etc. They don’t NEED our accommodations same as hetero couples get, they WANT them! No one would say they can’t have all the benefits of best friends who share housing and expenses because they never found hetero spouses –But we don’t want to hear about their sexual activities, implicitly or otherwise. They want to be viewed as “normal” having sex when the sexual aspect of that lifestyle is neither normal or necessary or productive nor, in most cases, are they even “financially needy for family perks” –since, being childless, both can work full time without the additional constraints, requirements and huge expenses and complications of child-bearing and child-rearing.

As for equal rights, gays have the same rights as other people --to marry someone of the opposite sex and pro-create or adopt children into a family with a Mom and a Dad.

There is no societal obligation to re-arrange itself so gay couples can adopt, since there are plenty of hetero couples wanting to do so. However, even if they do, those children will be provided for on insurance policies of at least one parent –or by the real father if adoption is not recognized. There is no evidence to date that adoption by a gay couple is advantageous to children compared to adoption by a mom and dad.

And gay couples don’t, by definition of their union alone, NECESSARILY QUALIFY for family and marriage benefits which are designed to protect children and mothers, who either need help with child care or have to stay home with their children. They are not just LIKE a man and woman who are designed to go together biologically since the dawn of time –whose unions have been recognized as the basis of the FAMILY –and SOCIETIES are made of FAMILIES with providing fathers and nurturing mothers (and vice versa) who confine their “crotch access” to each other, sanctioned by most cultures’ marital laws, traditions and religions.

There isn’t any reason for one of them to be dependent on the other –whereas in normal marriages, many couples still choose the traditional at-home role for MOm, helping to guide, nurture the children and grand-children, and run the house –if the husband can afford it. Some find it is more expensive to have mother work outside the home. Transporting kids to schools and school events, lessons and sports, becomes a big part of a mother’s fulltime job –and running the car to repair –taking care of family business and mail –volunteer work –keeping up the kitchen, laundry, house– Stay at home MOms find plenty to do –and many are home-schooling, following the school schedule and providing excellent education –in great part because they don’t want their childrens’ faith and Christian values undermined by educators like Mudly who have agnostic atheism and moral relativity as part of their teaching agenda., who bear hostility toward people of faith and their moral convictions which they have a right to pass on to their children without interference by liberal educators wanting to liberalize other people’s children. An available grandmother is a real blessing to a young family for counsel, problem solving, baby sitting, emotional uplift for all –and in turn, we are blessed and feel purposeful to a whole lot of people.

I’ve heard women insulted on blogs for the luxury of “sitting on their fat A’s” –because their husbands can afford them to be home. If I would take a fulltime job, I would take that job from someone who needs it. We don’t really need it at this stage of our lives. I have plenty to do and my husband can afford the luxury that is ME! LOL! Besides, after bearing and raising four nice, law-abiding citizens all the way through and beyond college and helping with grandchildren, now, I deserve "early retirement." I'll be 62 this year --and may finally have an empty nest this year. Thanks to grandchildren, I don't think I'll get depressed! or lonely!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Thursday, January 3, 2008

YOU GO, HUCK! Tonight Show Gives Huck a Boost

Did you see Huckabee on Jay Leno last night? I was surprised at the boost Jay gave him by having him on his program when he did. Maybe it's a secret liberal agenda to make sure Huck is the nominee --because, when he is the candidate, perhaps they intend to dig up old sermons to scare away the alleged, so-called "moderate" voter --who is leery of real believers.

Huck was impressive -likable. He played bass guitar with the band quite well.

He said the nation was overly polarized between left and right and he looked for a candidate who could take the nation vertically, not horizontally to the right or the left--but up, not down.

He spoke against negative campaigning --but said it is important to defend one's record against exaggerations and lies --and out of that defense comes counter-attack --but he told how he pulled a negative ad for his own campaign. He complimented John McCain as a great American hero --and spoke positively of Obama as a sincere person, I guess --and didn't bad mouth any opponents. Good move!

Some will recall the cross made by the window panes behind him in his Christmas greeting commercial. He has also campaigned with "Christian" as label. And probably should not, per se. We know. Don't hit us over the head with it, Huck.

They will be all over him like rats on cheese if he is the candidate --for his 12 years in the pastoral ministry before he was lt. gov. and then gov. for 12 years of state administration. He lacks foreign affairs experience, but most of the candidates do, including Hillary. Very funny that she tried to get mileage out of a visit to a war zone --not mentioning she was with entertainers for the troops.

About taxes, he favors a consumption tax. I thought he was a little fuzzy here, though I think that's the way to go. Seems he said the poor wouldn't pay taxes that way--but of course, they would actually pay MORE taxes than they now do as they pay no income tax as it is.

There was weak applause when Jay announced Huck was on the show. But when Huck talked about gov't being the biggest competitor to small business with all their taxes and forms and fees, etc. --he got huge spontaneous applause.

He also takes flack for aiding Hispanic illegals in their college pursuit in his state --when they were raised here but not born here. There needs to be a more compassionate conservative solution for illegals who have been here a long time, who are assimilated and productive citizens --a better plan than deportation. Let the Labor Union Democrats bear the stigma of Grinch for promoting deportation. I should think we would all agree to secure the borders against potential terrorists and people who are criminals, who flout all our laws even after they get here.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Tuesday, January 1, 2008


Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, was interviewed by Newsweek for their last October 22 issue, 2007. Here are some quotations:

"[the Justices on the Supreme Court] get along just fine as an institution, as friends, as colleagues --it's a wonderful place. The mere fact that people disagree doesn't carry over into how they treat each other. That is what I thought Washington was going to be when I came to town. I didn't think for a moment that because I didn't agree with somebody meant I was going to be hated.....

"...throughout the hearings, the summer, everything...I asked my wife, 'Why? I just disagree with them I don't even know if I disagree with them on specific issues.'"

"My goal is, I will never treat anybody the way I was treated in this city. I also will never do my job as poorly as people did their jobs when I was at their mercy." [referring to the Senate hearings and those in charge.]

I agree with his goal --for my blog, etc. in 2008. I will never treat any bloggers or commenters as badly as I've been treated just because people disagree with me about anything. Ad hominem attack is so uncalled for --whereby we call people haters, bigots, mentally ill, liars, etc. just because we disagree about morals, religion, and politics.

Some avoid such topics always--knowing how emotional others get about disagreement. But that is really closed-minded. It was Allan Bloom who said that today's students are so steeped in moral relativism that they think there is something wrong with being opinionated about anything. "Who am I to say?" they think --and thus avoid debates where people get emotional. A free society, however, must entertain the discussion of the pros and cons of various views. But we see where some bloggers only want their view discussed from their point of view and get livid if opposition is too effectively presented.

Another fact is that NO ONE in the world truly appreciates criticism--no matter how it is given. People in churches or businesses --any organization, in fact --resent disagreement and criticism. And most of us hate confrontation --we know it will not be received well. We don't like the emotions that rise on either side of a concern brought up. But sometimes confrontation is part of our job in leadership --or just necessary in order to make improvements, attain goals, bring healing or justice to others, etc.

We do well to be gentle in our approaches as the critics --and to be thicker-skinned in our responses when criticized.

As Jesus would say, "Let those who have ears to hear, HEAR!"

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

A Toledo Tragedy --Drunk Driver Kills Five --Christians, Arise! Alcohol "is a mocker" --says the Bible.

Did you all see the news account about the Mr. Gagnon who killed five members of a family traveling for the holidays from Maryland? One account told how some drive-thru employees recognized this driver was drunk and called the police --but they arrived 3 minutes after he left their establishment. And another driver said he reported him as soon as he saw him get on the freeway the wrong way. There are vigilant people sounding the alarms, but it takes such short time to have an auto accident.

We don't hear much about the "evils of alcohol" (or gambling) anymore. It used to be that the fundamentalist Christians railed against these substances and activities --so much so that they were a political party, the Prohibition Party, and while the historians say prohibition "didn't work," it did slow down per capita consumption for 4 to 5 decades --we retained our pre-prohibition
(1920's) level of consumption in the 1970's. And have probably exceeded it since --as many of the conservative churches have moderated their stance.

My husband tells me that official prohibition was successful in reducing drinking as proven by the cirrhosis of the liver stats --which improved dramatically when liquor was illegal. (Even though it was still obtainable through illegal means and became the focus of crime-stoppers activity like the drug trade today.)

How much of a role does alcohol play in family abuse of all kinds? And is it not responsible for MOST traffic accidents?

Perhaps it's time for Carrie Nation to rise again! Few remember this lady who took her followers and baseball bats into the saloons and destroyed all the demon rum and evil spirits! That was a righteous demonstration!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Inspirational E-cards --to cheer the soul and make you think

Here is an e card source with several inspirational short musical messages to send to others and it's free. These are excellent and user friendly. They really are wonderful --a must see.


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

What is Wrong with People These Days?

A good blogger at www.uncommonsqualor.blogspot.com asked this question after pointing out a horrific newstory. To him, I replied:

What is wrong with people these days, you ask. Good question.

If we are really a worse culture, breeding crazy people, I would attribute it to the decline of the role of the church in the average family and community --or in too many families and communities if not the average. Perhaps the average family still goes to church; I don't know.

We are defining deviancy down, also. Our TV shows --the reality shows which feature gays, cross-dressers, trans-genders, young people's promiscuity as normal and shameless, the horrible cattiness and selfishness of shows like Survivor and The Bachelor and other dating shows and even the shallow make-over shows--all cultivate a trend toward shallow values, calloused personalities, hedonists and egotists and perverts and people who say whatever is on their mind, no matter how rude.

The demise of marriage and family cohesion, and probably the lack of a parent at home when the kids are home --all contribute to the rearing of little Hellions. Pornography and internet sexual liasons are hard on marriages and have led to a generation of single (and some married) men being caught on the Sexual Predator show --and they are probably the tip of the iceburg of that problem.

More important than the ever-present Mom in the home is the teaching of guiding principles --which give kids both conscience and love for goodness/righteousness. Children who are taught the Golden Rule, the principle of putting others first, the principles of honesty, fairness, kindness, respect for others, obedience to proper authority, courage to stand against an evil tide and peer pressure, a good work ethic --kids who are raised on these time-tested virtues will surely be better off than otherwise.

but too many are not taking care of their marriages and their kids and rearing them in churches that teach the Bible and provide wholesome activities for kids.

And even when families and parents are the best, the internet prostitutes and floozies are out there luring adolescent boys --and the boys are tempted by what is too easy to find.

So goodness is in ever shrinking supply --as evil is allowed by lax legislatures and lenient judges to flourish. As for the abusive adults, abusing kids --too many of them were abused as kids themselves --but it's not a good excuse. As the Bible says, the sins of the fathers (adults) are passed on to the 3rd and 4th generations --and on and on and on....

I say, we need to run to good churches as fast as we can and insist that all our children are brought up in such a church.

The challenge to the churches is to stay true to the Word and see that it is taught--and to practice what we teach and preach --the pursuit of holiness.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible