Monday, November 17, 2008


Bush kept a lot of babies safe by being pro-life, by not encouraging the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) legislators --they knew he would veto FOCA. If the GOP had not dropped the ball, by not pointing out how radically pro-abortion Obama was, we might have ended the abortion holocaust with a GOP president in the next term. Bush gave us two good judges on the court. We needed one more, but Obama will give us activist judges who legislate from the bench like the judges in California. He described the liberal judges on the court to Rick Warren as the ones he admired.

The Bible says a lot about "unjust judges." We'll be getting more.

Though Obama SAID out of one side of his mouth that he wasn't for gay marriage or abortion, he told his party that he will not support DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) --and said he WILL sign FOCA right away--Freedom of choice Act, striking down all state and other restrictions on abortion. I hope I'm wrong!

The Christians who supported Obama or 3rd party candidates made a disastrous mistake.

Too many listened to the devil's lies (he is a liar and the father of lies) --still being put forth by the likes of bloggers Engineer and Mudrake --the lie that the GOP lost because they didn't move far enough left. No, they listened to that lie and didn't go all out to find out and tell the public what Obama's stands really were --considering that HE LIED and people believed him. He IS for abortion and gay marriage to a radical degree --as he demonstrated when he opposed 4 times the "born alive infant protection act" to favor the "mother's choice" to have a dead child.

Would he dare to oppose DOMA before a 2nd term? considering that 30 out of 30 states have voted for DOMA in their constitutions? I think he will wait --unless his Congress stupidly pushes it in his first term.

He lied about his association with Ayres --saying something like, "he didn't give me a fund-raiser to kick off my campaign," in his debate (meaning Ayres didn't kick off his Presidential campaign; it was an earlier one. It was a deliberate deception, and McCain should've followed up on it.) Ayres is typical of our university faculties --ex hippie radical terrorist demonstrator --who is unrepentant about his youthful misbehavior. Obama knew this and knew him well.

And now he says we need a new national security force in the states. Why? More money and personnel for police and national guard, fine. But that's not what he said. Who would head his new force? No one coming up through the usual military ranks. The Commander in Chief in our country does not rule the military promotions --that's done from within the military. But who would run this new national security force? Someone hand-picked by Obama??? Why do we need this instead of just beefing up what we have? We have the Homeland Security Division which was to coordinate the various home security branches and efforts which were already in existance.

Why did the democrats sit there and blindly applaud this July, '08, suggestion for a new national army larger than the other 3 put together? Shades of history repeating itself? Hitler had his own private army --in case the national army would turn against him. They rounded up, not only the Jews, but any Hitler critics, and took them away.

Both political parties had stealth candidates --seeming to move to the center in their ideology with their rhetoric --avoiding the hot button issues and waffling on them.

When the LEFT moves to the center, they are both deceptive and more acceptable. When the RIGHT moves to the center, they lose their reason for existance.

They'll wake up. Too bad it will be too late for many unborn children and for the culture's decency when we have more men kissing each other and playing affectionate games with their hands like a man and wife sitting on their bed --as I glimpsed last night on network TV. Ycchh. SO AGAINST NATURE! Perversion was role-modeled as normal for the majority of young people who are allowed to see any TV they wish --who even have TVs in their rooms.

For the fatherless kids, they may not see how ridiculous gay coupling is because they haven't seen normal relationships --or perhaps the normal couples they knew were dysfunctional. We have a generaion of youth coming up (the few that are being born) who will not know that sex with your own sex is verboten and unnatural --who will not know that it is sinful, if the church is muzzled by Obama's support for a liberal "hate crimes bill," which will eventually attempt to curtail free speech and hiring discrimination by churches. The Constitution will be dead at that point--as it is already dying when we don't recognize the "right to life." Unconstitutional denial of religious liberty is next with respect to the gay agenda.

Gay hostilities are definitely directed at churches, as seen since the election. On the Huckabee program on Fox News last night, we heard that an elderly couple was beat up by demonstrators because they had a poster or bumper sticker or something supporting Proposition 8. Another was knocked down and their head was injured. We saw on national news how the gay demonstrators knocked a cross out of an old woman's hands and trampled on it --as she tried to counter-demonstrate in favor of traditional marriage and the church's stance. We heard about the gay demonstration in a Lansing church. Is this the future of the gay movement? In response to this childish and dangerous behavior, will the gov't see the radicalness of gays?? NO, they will muzzle the church.

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


mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

You've got a point there, Mudly. Sex entails a lot of responsibilities and risks --has so many consequences --immorality causes a ripple effect of despair through Am. society.

Sexual morality is part of America's success and stability --the value placed on family, marriage, chastity --by our churches --has affected the moral climate of the nation. We find that sexual immorality goes hand in hand with abortion, crime, drug and alcohol abuse, STD's, family violence, fatherless homes, divorce, and poverty. IN contrast, families who live by God's standards of morality tend to do better on every social measurement and avoid a lot of the troubles listed above.

But of course, sexual conduct is only one aspect of morality. America is also one of the most generous of nations and we were one of the two first nations to abolish slave trade --which existed worldwide. Of the western nations, we are ahead of Europe in having a black president. We also value honesty --or used to --and integrity. We need to reign in the corruption and greed of both the unions and union bosses, the corporate heads, and politicians.

I also have a post on the Holy spirit, Mudly. You could read that. And one on gas prices. So I don't just post about "crotch politics" as you so indelicately term the issue of sexual immorality and abortion promoted today by gov't. but those are the issues that make you the maddest --the crotch politics --and yes, I'm very concerned about those issues because they cause so many problems in our culture.

ShitStirrer said...

K. I don't care abortion but I care about collateral damage as examplified by thousands of Iraqu kids murdered by Bush, so I voted Obama. I guess it means I didn't make a "big mistake", right?

Barb said...

Everyone who discounts life in the womb is making a grievous mistake, SS. 1.6 million babies per year on average.

I am sorry about what you call "collateral damage" of war --We do everything to save those who are injured. Babies in Iraq would not be killed if the terrorists didn't commandeer the houses of the Iraqis and hide behind women and children. If they didn't bomb their own people. Our troops do everything they can to avoid death to civilians --but Sadam killed thousands of his own before we went there and he wasn't going to quit until someone stopped him. The people we fight in the middle east would just as soon cut off your miserable head as to look at you.

You seem to want to close your eyes to what terrorists and tyrants do to their own people and their neighbors and even, us. While also closing your eyes to the Liberals' War on the Womb.

There is almost never any necessity for abortion, SS, considering the widespread availability of birth control. Women don't have to be pregnant--but if they are, they are no longer one person, but two. And the one has no right to kill the other who is a separate being from her body --a human life--a child.
We need these children.

kateb said...

My daughter looked at me one day and stated that more than 4 million of her generation are missing.

A society is known by how they treat their weakest members.

Barb said...

Yes, I read where Bonhoeffer said that, also--about children in particular.

Barb said...

you know, Kate, it takes an evil people to knock a cross out of an old woman's hands just because they want legitimacy for sodomy. What brats, those Peter Pans in California.

It takes screwed-up thinking to justify abortion with the infants killed in war.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Sigh....YOu are the one lacking in skills of thought and understanding, Mudly. Of course, I said no such thing. Your arguments are childish--or adolescent at best.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

YOu're wrong again, dear Mudrageous. I've been explaining things to you for a couple of years, I guess --and you still have no idea what "a right-wing dolt" like me believes and supports. You make up stuff all the time that isn't true.

We need the children to supply the national defense and security systems. We need the children to be consumers and workers and tax payers-- to help the economy and fund the entitlement programs like S.S. and Medicare for the Baby Boomers. We need their entrepreneurship and their genius and talents and inventive, creative possibilities.

We need them to help us mature and grow up.

You think most people who abort are those who would raise kids in poverty? Not necessarily. Besides, being poor is not a curse --look at Obama. I think his mother was not well-heeled as a single mom most of the time.

Look at those AFr. Am. brothers raised by the single Detroit mother who held 2 or 3 jobs to feed her kids. One is a famous surgeon with a movie coming out about him; the other brother is a lawyer. Their mother stressed learning and reading --though she was illiterate and hid that fact from them.

I surely do not hate the entitlement programs --except when they penalize people for working and trying to get out of poverty. I know a situation where the teens should probably have jobs --but they might not pay as much as they get now from parental disability. They'd lose the larger gov't. freebie which their family needs if they work for less money.

That's one good thing about the Earned income tax credit --which is a freebie that tries to offset that imbalance between gov't aid and low pay that destroys incentive to work.

At the same time, people will work just under the line to make sure they get their EITC. As with Social Security --people don't want to work too much if it means they will lose their freebie.

I'm not one who thinks the church can afford to pay the rents and utilities for all the single mothers and elderly poor. I'm glad for gov't programs --but there are downsides when people who COULD work feel entitled to other people's money through Uncle Sam. Of course, paying taxes is supposed to entitle the elderly to ss and medicare --and we are finding that there are too many elderly, and not enough young people to pay taxes to support the elderly. Whereas a dozen workers paid into the system for every one retiree, now it's 2 or so workers per retiree. So the system is broken and in debt --the biggest part of our deficit spending as I understand it.

My mother thinks she would have been money ahead if her husband had not had to pay into Social Security,etc. --if he had been able to invest that tax money for retirment. I doubt it. She was very critical of the ultimate outcome of FDR's socialistic plans. And it looks like she was right. The system cannot sustain itself --but especially in a country that doesn't produce children.

I'm all for publically funded education--and vouchers for school choice.

I never deride anyone as a useless member of society. However, there is no justification for healthy people being indolent and relying on gov't --if they could get a job suitable to their abilities. Granted, it's not always easy to match up people with jobs --and some people prove to be poor risks to hire, sad to say. And there are times when it is more cost effective (and good for kids) for a woman to live on her husband's salary --if working outside the home means childcare, unsupervised teens at home, maid service, wardrobe, car and gas that eat up all or most of her earnings.

steve said...

"Babies in Iraq would not be killed if the terrorists didn't commandeer the houses of the Iraqis and hide behind women and children."

I just have to say that there were no terrorists in Iraq, Saddam made sure of that, prior to our invasion. So the babes of Iraq were pretty much universally safe until the bombs started falling; just because they were unfortunate enought to be born atop "our" oil. (you've said those very words on this blog -- protect OUR oil supplies... which happen to be under THEIR feet. That's just crazy talk!

Barb said...

I guess you don't know Sadam's history of baby killing in front of parents who opposed him and his people-shredding, feet first through industrial shredders, evidently --or about the huge fields of thousands of buried people whose relatives wondered what happened to them within the last 10 years or so--fields uncovered after we went in.

Sadam was a hitler of the first order. We did good to take him out.

And yes, people died. And terrorists came in. But Sadam was a terrorist who waged war on his neighbors in Kuwait --hated us for defeating his effort there so would surely help Al Quaeda --and was in fact treating one of their big wigs in the Iraqi hospital before we went in. Sadam gased the Kurds in his nation, killing thousands in a genocide attempt--and he killed thousands who opposed him in a Shihite uprising after the Gulf War --when the Shiites hoped we'd come and help them --but we didn't. An Iraqi scientist says he was to help Sadam get nuclear capability--though some say he gave it up in the 90's --but for how long with his hostile neighbor Iran working on nuclear capability?

There are many nations that need intervention because of the death toll by their own leaders. Iraq was one of these --and it was a stratetic risk for the U.S. to let them develop nuclear capability next to Iran doing the same thing --and all targeting each other and Israel--whom we are sworn to defend.

Bush did a good thing. Now I hope Obama doesn't turn the Taliban loose from GITMO --back into AFghanistan. They said that 50 who were taken back, were immediately armed and drawn back into the remnant of Taliban troops. It's stupid to close GITMO. Did we do anything to rehabilitate and reorient the thinking of the Taliban at GITMO? I always said we should have put them through a crash course in western values and western civilization, etc. Tried to humanize them through compassion-inspiring movies, e.g. There are many.

steve said...

If you are championing an interventionist foreign policy based on humanitarianism, then why don't we intervene in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, North Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Somolia, ect...

Nobody disputes Sadaam was an evil dictator who did evil things, but his evil may have amounted to a few thousand deaths a year.. -vs- almost 100,000 souls slaughtered due to the war. Face the facts, the United States of America has brought unimaginable tragidy to the Iraq people. Sure, we may fix the mess eventually, but at what cost. Lets say the converse applied to the US and some foreign army decided to invade and intervene and 80 Percent of the Rohr family became victims of "colateral damage" and ethnic cleansing. How would you feel then?

steve said...

The definition of empathy, is to place yourself in someone else's shoes, something that the people of the US don't seem to have the ability to do.

Barb said...

ON the contrary --living under Sadam was no life which is why he had so many internal enemies who welcomed us. Guys from Iraq surrendered to our troops in the Gulf War --because they wanted out of Iraq.

My terminex guy told how this Iraqi girl he knows went home to visit and was so pleased at the improvements in her town --things they never had before are there. Same story with an arabic translator from Waterville who went to help our military and came back so moved at the generosity of our troops and our country. She was moved to tears telling of it --and honored by the Waterville Council.

YOU must be listeing to the malcontents in Iraq whom the liberal press interviews--the Sunnis who thrived under Sadam --instead of the majority Shia who pounded their shoes on his statue to show their joy at his defeat because he was a cruel dictator --keeping the people poor in their oil rich nation.

Bush was far-sighted --Imagine Sadam and Iran both building nuclear weapons and aiming them at each other and Israel. Imagine Sadam allying with AlQuaeda --who were also Sunni -- and providing safe haven for terrorists.

NO, we can't go to every country that's got a mess and tyranny --that would be half of them in Africa --and India currently. But imagine the Middle east with nuclear power and most of our oil coming from there because the dems won't let us drill --we were headed for a situation --and still aren't safe if we don't get oil of our own. We need peaceful friends in their region --like Kuwait --and probably Iraq now.

Our army and air force, etc. can't go electric and green overnight and compete with those enemy armies who are fueled by oil. If the Middle east decides they don't need our money, they can choke off our oil--and leave us vulnerable to any rogue Islamic or Communistic nation that has declared death to the U.S.

We get oil from Saudi Arabia --which nation also grows the Wahabi terrorists who believe America is the Great Satan. They provide the radical Wahabi textbooks to Islamic schools all over the world --which books (in the DC school included) referred to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs. Their leaders have trouble of their own with their religious extremists. So they have alliance with the extremists and our friendship with them is comparatively tenuous--despite Bush having them visit him at the ranch.

Bush took out two enemies --Taliban and Sadam. But the Taliban are resurrecting --which is why we should try to re-educate the GITMO boys before we would ever let them out. WE need to detain those guys until Afghanistan can defend itself from the Taliban and Al Quaeda. In Germany, the Nazis gave up once defeated. In the Middle east, the bad guys are ever-ready bunnies.

Empathy isn't an excuse for naivety about evil in the world --evil in the middle east --and its relationship to the United States. We are the world's only hope. If we fall, I can't imagine the future world. Except by Biblical prophecy which says the people will clamour for a one world leader and a one world gov't to deliver them from their messes. And then will come sudden destruction.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

See, you say stuff like that Mudrake and sound so ...vacuous. You can't rebut what I'm saying so you just name-call. You are the blog equivalent of a big, dumb schoolyard bully.

Can't you help yourself and CHANGE??? Only God could do it.

matthew said...

Steve's post from 11:15 a.m. made a lot of sense. I'm really growing weary of our interventionist foreign policy.

How can we say that Iraqis had "no life" under Saddam? Isn't that the logic many use to justify killing innocent babies in our country? They say they can't afford him and he would just have a terrible life.

It's a false dichotomy to say that we must choose between invading Iraq and condoning Saddam Hussein. George Bush campaigned in 2000 on what he called a "humble foreign policy." Can anyone call the last eight years a humble foreign policy?

Barb, the title of your post is correct. Obviously, it is. But the only way one supported Obama is if they voted for him. Voting third party was not a vote for Obama. Couldn't the Chuck Baldwin supporters accuse me of throwing my vote away by pressing McCain?

This was a very rambling post, I know. I don't have time tonight to do any better, though. I just feel like everyone here except Steve has lost his/her mind. Now if only I could convince Steve to change his profile picture to something less blasphemous...

Barb said...

McCain had a chance; Baldwin did not. A vote for Baldwin was a throw-away as he would never have a remote chance to win and to choose constructionist (life-friendly) judges for the Supreme Court. He would never have a chance to oppose FOCA and support DOMA in the White House. McCain had the better chance.

We went to Afghanistan because we thought the AlQuaeda terrorists were in them thar hills. We knew the Taliban were tyrannizing that country (even Mavis Leno was on the band wagon against the oppression of women in that country--which used to have women doctors and teachers --who were all sent home by the Taliban.)

I think we went to Iraq for good reasons related to a long range view of Sadam having nuclear weapons and us having no oil resources in that region for our own national defense. And because the Shia wanted us there earlier and we had let them down.

I think we had reason to believe that Iraqis wanted Sadam out and could be mid-east allies of ours--which is still possible. We had reason to fear Sadam with WMD --because the UN inspectors couldn't get in to inspect --and because all the intelligence said he had WMD and we knew sadam was crazed and would use them --in a middle-east war with Iran, Israel , Kuwait --drawing in the whole middle east ultimately and cutting off our oil --which we were and are in no way ready for.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Matthew wrote, "How can we say that Iraqis had "no life" under Saddam? Isn't that the logic many use to justify killing innocent babies in our country? They say they can't afford him and he would just have a terrible life."

I believe, Matt, if you ever had to live under tyranny and terror, you wouldn't think it was the same as being born into poverty as an unwanted child in the United STates. Besides, if the woman who wants an abortion doesn't want a child, someone else will raise it in the U.S. She and her abortionist are without excuse. I know you agree about that --but you are using one half of the liberals' favorite argument: "We are against war because of the death of innocents --but we support abortion which is the death of innocents." (they do so by denying the humanity of the fetus, of course --still, despite all the evidence to the contrary.) "Abortion is good for the killing of innocents; war is bad for the killing of innocents."

The American army going to Iraq is in no way like an abortionist.

I still say freedom sometimes costs bloodshed -- just as God chose Christ's sacrifice for our atonement. We don't understand the latter --why death for salvation? I don't know why. Do you? Other than God's sovereign will.

If you have a bully in the neighborhood who is also an armed sniper, picking off people every week --and let's say he's preventing you from getting to the gas station and going to work. Should we intervene or ignore him? when we have the capability to stop him with force --even though it may be dangerous and some of us may be caught in the crossfire --especially since he's holed up in the local kindergarten. Everything will be done to spare the children, we know. But they can't let him continue. He's a local Hitler, a local Sadam, and someone with the power to do so should stop him --though it may be risky to life --before he kills all the children.

Sadam was a murderer who needed someone from outside to stop him. We did it.

matthew said...


Do you, also, think I'm an idiot? I know Mudrake does.

Obviously your anti-third-party argument is one I've considered. I know Baldwin didn't have a chance which is why I almost didn't vote at all this year. Now that the election is over, though, the Baldwin people have the right to accuse you of throwing your vote away. Your guy didn't have a chance, either, after all.

As far as your foreign policy ideas, I couldn't disagree more. It's ridiculous to stomp around the globe freeing the world of ruthless dictators while we slaughter exponentially more in our own country.

You praise our founding fathers as wise and righteous men. Rightly so. Do you really think they would support this interventionist neoconservative nonsense?

matthew said...

Steve asked a good question: Why don't we stop all the other dictators, then? If you think the answer has much to do with anything but oil you've been duped.

Barb said...

McCAin DID have a chance. One wonders if he really won if they hadn't registered phony names and voted them--and sent out duplicate absentee ballots,etc. They could catch the absentee ballot errors --eventually--because they had to be registered in the precinct books. they haven't even counted them all, I assume.

But the phony registrations and the same day voting and the provisional ballots. They could never figure out all the possible fraud there.

They weren't making people have valid addresses --the park bench last used by the homeless guy would be sufficient. How many times could he vote around the city! They stopped mailing notices to new registrants to see if their addresses were valid. They let people register and vote on the same day. How can they then verify their addresses and see if their names are legit and not made up with phony ID? They might figure out after the fact that they had a phony registrant--but they wouldn't know which ballot and votes were his, would they --in our secret ballot system? !

But I assume Obama really won --just judging by the crowds he drew --but that's the difference between GOP and Dems. ON average, we have better things to do than go scream maniacally as worshipers at a political rally.

One other post-election gripe of mine --they said 59 percent of those polled said palin wasn't prepared to be vice president. Duh! 52 percent of those were democrats, weren't they??? Of course that's what they'd say. If they asked if obama had the experience to be pres., 48 per cent would have said no --i.e. all those who voted republican.

I think our founding fathers would have agreed --if they knew what Bush & Co. did about the potential of nuclear arms in the hands of Sadam and Ahmadinijad --and the friendship of Sunni Sadam with Sunni Saudis with Sunni Al Quaeda -- We need to have a presence in the middle east --especially since dems haven't let us drill for our own oil supplies --and since we aren't ready for the all-green army and air force.

Barb said...

NO, I don't think you're crazy, Matt --though I don't understand such thinking as yours on war. Of course we can't intervene in every international dispute. We have neither the man power or the money. We are focused on those that have the most to do with our national security --the middle east.

I said I DO think it had to do with oil--and our national defense. We're finished without oil --thanks to dems stopping our drilling.

But oil wasn't the only issue. And it's not that we were going to take Iraq's oil from them, either, as some crazy people think. We need to have some US presence in the middle east --and some allies like Kuwait and hopefully Afghanistan and Iraq ultimately.

If the Wahabis take control of the Saudis someday --they fuel AlQuaeda --if Iran and Sadam both had nuclear weapons and turned on israel and/or each other --that whole place could go up in smoke --and cut off our oil supplies.

If we let Iraq fall --and Afghanistan as well, I predict doom for the U.S. because we can't get energy-independent fast enough.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

First of all, I'm not saying we get oil from EITHER Iraq (who has it) or Afghanistan. I would guess that most of our oil comes from Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia --but that's not my point about the region. The way has to be clear and the political climate has to be such, that the whole Middle-East does not blow up and turn against us and Israel --which could include the obstruction of our access to oil if they ever thought they didn't need our business.

If Obama doesn't pull the troops from Iraq too soon, it will prove out to be constructive that we took out 3 dictators --Sadam and his sons who would have escalated his hostilities in the region for many years to come --hostilities that would make them natural allies to Al Quaeda and threatening to us and Israel and Kuwait--and their own.

My neighbor, by the way, whose career was with American oil companies in Saudi Arabia says they NEED us to get the oil, run the business. They don't have people with the expertise --yet. Our ingenuity with their oil has made them wealthy.

Notice in my posts you malign, that I mentioned Iraq having oil, not Afghanistan. I didn't "think" or "believe" that Afghanistan was oil producing. They are known for the poppies and the opium industry. Who knows what oil Afghanistan might have if exploration occured? Maybe some geologist; I do not.

If you're so smart and knowledgeable, how come we don't hear any refutation WITH facts --except one fact that Afghanistan doesn't produce oil. I never said they did, never thought it, never believed it.

They are just part of the whole middle-east/Islamic terrorist scene. We don't need ANY of those nations to harbor and train terrorists and to tyrannize their own and their neighbors such that they are unstable and possessing of the bomb right there in the center with India and Pakistan --who don't get along so well either. Poverty and oppression and lack of democracy (for some) and ignorance of western Christian values, make the area unstable --like Africa which is the worst --but their troubles are less apt to affect us than the Middle-east's troubles. It is from the Mid-east that we got attacked by Al Quaeda --we are sadly dependent on their oil --and we do have commitments to Israel and other allies in the oil-rich area.

If you spent more time thinking and believing, Mudrake, and more time reading and listening to what I read and listen to, I wouldn't have to keep making these elementary clarifications regarding my posts.

If the founding fathers were attacked as we were in 9/11, they wouldn't sit and wait for the next shoe to fall. They were willing to go to war and lose life for liberty and the right to life--even though it cost life to do so.

Our founding fathers went to war over TEA & TAXES, for goo'ness sake. I guess they would try to kwell terrorism wherever it posed a threat to our long-range security.

Those who choose pacifism as a national strategy would let the bullies have the world. I don't think Jesus intended that with the "love your enemy" teaching. "Liberating the oppressed" and "setting captives free" (not criminals) is necessary for stability in the world. It's a shame that there is a limit to our riches and our manpower --such that we cannot bring peace and prosperity to the whole world through our might.

I will be vindicated someday in my belief that Bush did right to go to the middle east. The Iraqis themselves will say so. Yes, it took the Petraeus strategy and surge to bring some measure of peace to Iraq. But you go look at Sadam's death toll, Mudrageous, and you'll see that he didn't just kill a few thousand per year --but hundreds of thousands over time, including the Kurds.

You say, Steve, "a few thousand a year" dead from Hussain. Good grief! That's a lot of murder for a small country! And yet you defend a right to 1.6 million Americans dead a year from abortion?

How many dead would it take to justify our intervention or a change in the constitution???

We know that there will always be "wars and rumors of wars" until Christ comes and brings a 1000 year reign of peace upon the earth --or upon a new earth.

Now, that's where I will admit ignorance --Biblical prophecy. NOt my area of study. But I know more than you do, Mudly, which is not your fault exactly. I BELIEVE and THINK you have not done as much Bible study or heard as much Biblical teaching and preaching as I. It had to do with how you were raised in a church that only recently has encouraged its laity to know the Bible.

I remember when a Catholic congregation asked our church to lead a Bible study with them. It was a friendly exchange. Mudly's anti-protestant father would have rolled over in his grave!

Barb said...,opinion,saddam-era-the-death-toll

This is a record of deaths and torture methods under Hussain compiled in 2006 --plus the death toll from 03 to 06.

kateb said...

Interesting thoughts Barb. It would be so simple if stability in the Middle East were just who had oil reserves and who didn't.

I envy those who's world revolves around such simplicity.

Afghanistan is the site of another war at this point in time. It hasn't anything to do with oil but the willingness of that country to host and protect our enemies. And we're sworn to kill Osama bin Laden and destroy Al Quaeda. Bill Clinton first named this group after they bombed U.S. Embassies.

This group was birthed in 88 in
Afghanistan and has deep roots of support in that country.

Any person can look at a map of the middle east and easily see why these regions have to be stabilized to prohibit the training and feeding of more terrorists.

I had a debate with someone more than a year ago who said that the middle east was stable. That Syria, Turkey and Afghanistan were no where near Iraq. At that point I asked if I could show that person a map and he refused. He's rather not know any facts or geography so that he can debate and not be bothered by any facts.

Syria, Turkey and Afghanistan have long histories of hosting terrorists. All the way back to the Ottoman Turks and the Crusades.

Anybody who thinks any of this really has anything to do with gasoline is devoid of any knowledge of the facts.

Barb said...

Well, it DOES have to do with gasoline--in that we can't do without it yet. We don't have our own resources, thanks to the democrats. Oil access IS a national security issure for us. And the terrorists and rogue regimes could make it so we couldn't get it. That's why we can't just stay home while the messy middle east and radical Islamic mindset blame US for all their troubles --stirring up hatred for us, "the great Satan."

But what it's NOT about, as some have implied, is our desire to control these countries in order to "take" or "control" their oil markets. Their peace and prosperity are essential to ours.

Barb said...

It may be futile (prophetically so) in the long run to try to civilize and help a region that is militantly anti-Christian --we are seeing Christianity get a foothold in their nations because of our presence there through our military--not that our military is all Christian and righteous--but some are --and many American groups have followed the military into these countries --including missionaries and humanitarian aid workers. Our presence militarily opens these nations to the west and its values. The more TV's they get, the more Christian programming (created in Lebanon) is beamed into these countries in Arabic and Farsi through Sat-7 and other networks.

Our good works, building schools, hospitals, and parks --our humanitarian aid -- it's much different from Somalian Muslims stoning a rape victim to death as 1000 onlookers crowd the stadium to watch. The lack of empathy and compassion in an extremist Islamic culture is very different --the lack of freedom and free thought--very oppressive. MISERY!

and all defendable by the Koran which the Wahabi folks memorize --as do devout Shia in Iran. i shared with my Sunday School kids the story of an Iranian girl who was in a devout Islamic group for girls --and she would lead her group in singing funeral songs for the dead leader of the Shihite branch of Muslims (either the son or the brother inlaw? of Mohammad --not sure which) --and then hit herself with the microphone until she bled. She tells how some men hit their foreheads over and over on the ground until they have a permanent bump there --in worship of Allah.

One day she stepped into a little Christian church in the city and wept at a picture of Christ on the wall --and just knew He was the truth. She felt such peace --and her own chronic headaches went away after she fully gave her life to Christ.

She now leads a house church in a hair stylist's business --they close the place on Monday for Bible studies. And other house churches. She tells of the beatings girls and boys receive from family if they convert --and the jailings. But she is boldly confident in God and her place in Heaven, come what may. She witnesses to strangers on buses --and says people are hungry for the Truth about God and the good news that He sent Jesus to save us.

Whether Americans are Christian or not, most of them love to do good and be helpful. AT least, that used to be so. The vulgarization of our culture, the breakdown of family, has apparently inspired a lot of wife-killers, serial killers, thieves and so on. And our youth who would do the atrocities at Abu Graib.

We need to REVIVE THE SUNDAY SCHOOL! Support Christian ed. Revive the Golden Rule as a public school teaching and give Jesus the credit, incidentally.

And maintain our freedom to preach and teach the whole word of God --anywhere and everywhere.

We are getting to the place where free expression of religion and public celebration of Christmas,e.g. with its historical meaning, is under threat.

Can we carol as we ring the Salvation Army bell? some stores won't allow the bell-ringing --much less the public singing --for fear of offending the agnostic scrooges like Mudly.

We should all be so joyless and miserable as he!

kateb said...

Revive Sunday school...yes!

Here's the link of US total crude oil from the EIA. Iraq is but one of many oil producing countries that make up our oil supply.

We'd have to have a world war to threaten our oil supply, many of the countries on this list would be happy to increase the oil supply to replace that of Iraq's if they stopped selling to us.

We do need to become energy independent as soon as possible. It's an urgent matter. But there are many countries selling us oil other than the middles east. And those 67 or so other countries than the middles east - why they'll be happy to fill in any void that occurs. Although it could be expensive - we will be able to buy as much oil as we need for quite some time to come.

It just isn't smart to keep buying foreign oil. We need new energy solutions and we need to start using the alternatives available to us now. there are 4 cars in the new Readers Digest that are alternative fuel cars. Some are available now!

kateb said...

Forgot the link! Sorted by annual thousands of gallons.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

On the contrary, you almost never challenge anything I say. You just make insults.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

Mudrake was deleted for duplicate post --which means spam. Also off topic. This deleted comment and my response can be seen in comments on the more recent "Thank God for Safety" post above.

Barb said...

Kateb--I rode in my brother's Prius this fall --and it was interesting as we had no noise and were electric part of the time.

The scary thing is tiny cars sharing the roads with huge trucks --our family has always favored the larger chunkier cars for safety.

Measure a year had an interesting suggestion --putting a load in the trunk to make a car heavier (and less cost effective, however) for safety on the road. My trunk is usually loaded with stuff I wanted to get out of the house and take elsewhere --and then it's out of sight out of mind!

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Who is showing OCD here with the multiple identical posts --I delete and you post again.

Phooey-go ahead and waste your time.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Deuteronomy 4 25 After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time—if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God and provoking him to anger, 26 I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. 27 The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the LORD will drive you. 28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.

29 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. 30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. 31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.

A God of righteousness, justice, and mercy if we repent.

Yes, that did me good to look into Deuteronomy. Good idea, Mudly.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

Mudly, I'll delete all but the one copy of John Lennon's "Imagine" --we don't need your OCD spam.

The song was played from the steps of the UN building one year by the UN, I believe. I don't recall the occasion. But it suggests that the UN thinks it would be good if there were no religion --and no separate countries --one world gov't under one ruler --the anti-Christ, I guess --as prophesied. The day will come--and it won't be good until Jesus Himself comes.