COMMON SENSE ON PALESTINE VS. ISRAEL

A blogger on Mohammad's blog (see my blog roll on the right for a link)posted the following:

Man's Kill-Culture ----

http://www.picturehistory.com/images/products/0/1/4/prod_1449.jpg

I tried to copy this photo from the above link onto this comment, but I was not successful. Maybe someone more computer literate can tell me how. Anyway, it is a photo of Chief Joseph, a great chief of the American Plains Indians, in December 1890, starved to death and frozen in a grotesque position in the snow, US Army soldiers in the background standing near their horses. He had been photographed many times in his prime in full Plains Indian regalia draped with beautiful blankets, in full feathered war bonnets. Now he lay in the snow in rags, disgraced, disrespected, his little rag-tag followers also dead, mostly women.

Whenever I look at this photo I feel a great sense of injustice, because I descend from Native Americans, and I can understand how Arabs would feel that their fellow Arab Palestinians had suffered an injustice. It is a sense of loss that is hard to accept, but accept it they must since they cannot change history no matter how they try to "review" it to come up with their own versions of the "resolutions" and agreements to make their case. The Jews feel a sense of injustice whenever they see photos of the piles of skeletal Jewish dead in the yards of Hitler's crematoriums. I can understand how the powers that be felt that sense of injustice with them and helped them gain a homeland.

Who do I blame for the injustice suffered by Chief Joseph and his people? The US Army and its "kill-culture" against Native Americans? No. The Americans fought the battles and won the war, and felt justified in making the land free and safe for themselves. After all, hadn't they purchased the land from Napoleon? But Napoleon never had title to the land either. So land belongs only to the victors for a time, and is lost again one way or another to a more powerful, more determined, better armed invader, time and time again throughout history all over the world. The losers wisely accept defeat and live on.

There have been bloody battles everywhere that man has settled. Those who defend Palestinians forget that before a Jewish homeland was declared, the Palestinian Arab tribes fought many bloody battles amongst themselves. That is an inconvenient truth the defenders of Palestinians choose to ignore.

I don't believe in Jesus as God, but He was wise to tell His followers to put away their swords; the Romans were too powerful and it would not serve their purpose to keep on fighting. His aim was for his people to keep the integrity of their ancestors' beliefs and not fall in with the Romans as the Pharisees did. He spoke not too far from where the current skirmishes between Palestinians and Israelis are going on now.

The Palestinians would do well to put down their weapons and make peace. They revere Jesus as a prophet, same as the Jews do. They both revere the old Scriptures no matter what they call them or who they claim had them first. Jesus lived as a Jew who actually walked that land, He was not a Muslim, and Mohammed only went there in his dreams while still in Medina or Mecca, and so the land is holy to the three major religions and it should be made safe for anyone in the world to come there.

Surely life is easier now for everyone in America more than 100 years after Chief Joseph's demise since there has been peace for that long, but at the loss of the original culture that was there. The defeated that wished to keep their culture gave up everything and stayed together in reservations set aside for them so they could be protected from their enemies and keep their language and some customs and part of their religion, though they were pressured to take Jesus as their Savior in order to show gratitude to their "benefactors". Most have assimilated and share in the bounty that we know now, and we are free to practice whatever religion or to not practice any.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Palestinians were no more a nation than the followers of those Native American chiefs so long ago. The American tribes had their kill-culture too, and took land from each other. The Palestinians are Arab tribes, with opposing Islamic creeds, not sovereign nation states. The American Indians warred amongst the other tribes and never joined forces to beat back the enemy, and doing so would not have accomplished much owing to the fact that the invaders had the latest technology and financial support as Isreal does now.

However the Palestinians lost the land they thought was theirs is a moot point now. They are facing too determined a people who feel as much a historical claim to the land, and much of the Western world agrees, though Israel has been cautioned to stay within the first agreed upon borders. It is a historical fact that most Jews were taken out of the land they have reclaimed, and in truth share common ancestors with the Arabs. Mohamed makes much of "Zionists" and Jews, but Zionism was a movement in the late 19th Century to establish a homeland for Jews. Of course the Palestinians don't want any new borders, but the Israelis have not only taken an inch, they have taken a mile, many miles, and they will not give them up due to the incitement from their radical Zionist element. They have not only won the battles, they won the war, and most of the world recognizes their hard-won state.

Who amongst the Arab states has made a determined effort lately to oust the Israelis? The Palestinians once had the support of their Arab neighbors, but that is lacking now. Their neighbors fought with them at first, but they lost too. It would be best to stop these ineffective suicide bombings and missile firings that cause the Israelis to retaliate. It is the Israelis who react, and it is the Palestinians that are the agressors. The Israelis also could make quite a case for themselves if they had someone like Mohamed to enumerate all the killings and injuries their innocents have suffered from the Palestinians. We here could make a case for Shiites who have suffered loss of life at the hands of Sunnis and vice-versa, but Muslims ignore that.

Arab Muslims have made the Palestinian situation such a bone of contention, that they are obsessed by it to the extent that they are willing to re-invent history and provide weak arguments as justification. Palestinians have not been alone as residents of that land all those generations that they claim; there were Jews and Christians in that land, and there still are.

So, yes, I wonder why Palestinians continue to agitate only because I see that it has been futile to do so for so long. That land is so small compared to other vast nation states like the United States, so people have nowhere to run. There could be peace there if only the Palestinians would stop their attempts to oust the Jews by suicide bombings and missiles that kill and injure innocent Jews and cause the Israeli army to try to disarm them causing death and injury to the Palestinians in turn.

I think that the leaders of other Arab states have tried to broker a peace, but the Palestinians refuse. Only Arab leaders can try to control the Palestinians, since they choose to ignore the UN, and only Israelis can control their own radicals. The rest of the world just seems to want to stay out of their affairs.

I printed out Mohamed's essay, all five pages of it, and I am sorry to say that his arguments do not convince me that it is a good idea for the Palestinians to continue their skirmishes. I feel he is just reiterating what he hears from his elders who have picked up the situation in Palestine as an Islamic cause. As a devout Muslim, he will not contradict what his elders teach him. In his culture it would be unthinkable to have an indipendent thought that goes against the beliefs of the culture.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

I posted something similar prior to her post and a disagreement following. I repeat them as comments to this blog topic.

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

Address to Video on Canadian Healthcare

This is a web address to a utube video on Canadian healthcare. We don't want their single payer system!


http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/02/03/57867.aspx

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

NO, HILLARY! NO, OBAMA! NOT YOUR "UNIVERSAL" HEALTHCARE!

I just heard Hillary speak shrilly today about universal health care. She said of health ins. companies that, "We [democrats] want to take away their power!" --and I thought, "You mean JOBS!" And I heard the real meaning, "WE WANT GOV'T TO HAVE POWER!" She said we want the ins. companies to stop controlling health care. So there go THEIR jobs--and to whom? gov't bureaucrats who know NOTHING about efficiency of health care.

Look at the VA hosptials. That's gov't. Look at the runaway costs of medicare and medicaid --That's gov't. Gov't's best isn't good enough. Gov't is about endless record-keeping of minutia and paper, paper and more paper --or in this case, maybe computer data. Gov't is about inefficiency, waste and waiting, also.

My husband's PA didn't get a letter and form from the state for updating his license. The Columbus office said, "Oops. We'll send it right out." Monday came. No letter. "Oops, somebody left it here on the desk. We'll get it right out." This form could've been faxed and mailed back, but NOOOO! that wasn't their way. So the PA couldn't see patients for 3 days until they got him reinstated. Meanwhile, he is on salary and unable to work, a loss to the business and 75 patients not seen. Gov't doesn't think that way and doesn't care. There will be lots more of such waste of personnel and tax dollars and people waiting longer for care if feds get the power over all of U.S. healthcare.

What people have to do to qualify for their Medicaid, SSI and Medicare --it's all so BURDENSOME --like IRS forms are. And that's all government.

Why would we want to eliminate competition between health providers for our health care dollars? Free enterprise is our friend, People! Government will give us no affordable CHOICES --just whatever they want to give us for our much higher taxes in order to have more inefficient, bureaucrat-laden, holiday-laden gov't programs --that grow ever and ever larger, filled with people who don't have to be efficient or think about being diligent or profitable or even courteous and caring in order to keep their positions.

Keep those insurance companies and providers small and regional, competing with each other, under local control, and that will do us more good than any federal healthcare plan.

That's not to say that big insurance can't be just as frustrating as big gov't. But I do NOT trust the democrats' view of utopia. It's socialism, pure and simple. It's nanny gov't and we will not like it after having the best health care in the world --where even the poor don't have to wait for open heart surgery and new knees if they need it. Yes, health care costs need addressed --and there may be SOME kind of role for gov't to play -- but when I hear Hillary say, "WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR POWER" --yikes!

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

About Obama's "Yes, We Can" Speech

I like the idea that "WE CAN" -- if it means change within ourselves as individuals -- change to be committed to study in school, to develop individual initiative and a good work ethic, --change to the kind of tolerance that leaves hatred at the door with a willingness to hear and help others --change that minimizes the greed of people at both ends of the economic spectrum --change in those who don't want to help the needy --change in those who want Big Gov't to take from the entrepreneurs and job providers in order to make more people dependent on Big Gov't.

I'm for change if it means we start reserving sex activity for marriage, commiting to our spouses and children so they may have the blessing of two parents to raise them, so more families may know the security of domestic tranquility, i.e. happy homes.

Real change starts in the heart that asks Jesus Christ to be Lord over all our ways and choices --instead of looking to other working people to enable and compensate for the economic blight of sinful and addicted lifestyles. NOt that all the poor make themselves that way, by any means --but we know that divorce and single parenting are a pretty sure path to economic deprivation in America--as are addictions.

Golden Rule Jones, former mayor of Toledo, was a good example of a rich man who had the right philosophy --who put Christ's Golden Rule in signs around his workplace --and challenged people to let that wisdom rule their hearts. He provided for his workers without the hindrance of big, impersonal, wasteful gov't intervention and high taxes.

Does Whoopi Goldburg want her savings taxed again before her daughter can have them? No, she said not. She said, "down with the death taxes." Would anyone want their legitimate earnings taxed again and again and higher and higher by a confiscatory gov't. known for waste and bureaucratic redundancy and impersonal dealings with the people it's supposed to serve? I think not.

What puts more money in the gov't coffers for their aid programs? lower taxes, not higher.

I fear the kind of change that will come with Democrat Party president and Congress.

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

WHEN A LIBERAL BLOGGER IS CALLED "LIBERAL"

"Liberal label. Dismissive. Unworthy of holding worthwhile ideas and ideals? Sorry, Baldspot, but your labeling of those who disagree with you is nothing more than bigotry, as is your bigotry of gays and lesbians.

Funny that you couch your bigotry as: "the filter of my religious experience colors what I think." Interestingly from all that I have read of the words of Jesus, he was the most unbiased, welcoming person in the history of mankind. He strongly disliked bigots, especially the ‘churchy’ kind, as exemplified in the Sadducees".

This quote is by the blogger, Mudrake, on a French blog which has banned me recently. So another conservative Christian is bearing light over there now named Baldspot. The above was Mudrake's reply to some things Baldspot wrote so effectively.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do find it peculiar that Liberals feel insulted when they are called "liberal." I don't feel insulted when called fundamentalist, conservative, Christian, evangelical --(as long as fundamentalist is defined as believing that there are certain "fundamental truths" which define "Christian.")

In fact, the irony is that Mudrake used to call himself "Liberal Democrat," but he seems to resent the label if a conservative uses it to describe him. Yet the term really means something in American politics and/or religion. Liberals today tend to be atheistic or agnostic --or at least religiously liberal about Biblical interpretation and Biblical claims and Biblical morality. Religiously, many or most liberals deny the truth and relevance of Scripture and the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are other ways to be religiously liberal, however. One might say it is liberal to believe that Christ doesn't care if we are sinful; liberal to believe He will forgive us no matter what, even if we are not remorseful about deliberate sin. Some are more liberal in their views of what a Christian lifestyle should be. Some people are more "legalistic" than others. The less legalistic, the more religiously liberal. So there are variants of "liberalness" among the religious. I am more liberal than some Christians in my views and more conservative than others. So the term is relative.

If one is liberal theologically, he is more likely to be liberal politically, seeing no reason for laws and traditions that we have inherited from our Judeo-Christian (and even Islamic) worldviews. In fact, to a liberal person, traditional religious views prevalent in Judeo-Christian culture are a violation of church and state if they have ANY influence on our laws --such as the historical, cultural view of fetal life, the definition of marriage and the discouragement of sodomy. They believe that since these ideas are religiously influenced, government should protect the opposite positions in the name of religious neutrality/church-state separation. This really isn't logical. Just because a law has historical Judeo-Christian Biblical support, doesn't mean the law is only valid in the church and for church people. For example, "Thou shalt not kill." That's a basis for something MOST of the free world considers a civil right to life. People on all ends of the political spectrum believe this is a good law against murder --in free countries. In other systems, Communism and Islam, there is no inherent right to life for innocent civilians who happen to disagree with the government --or proselytize about their faith.

Yes, Jesus is welcoming and unsnobbish and told us to be the same --to love brother, neighbor, and enemy. So we have no justification if we hate liberals --or hate conservatives. Right, Mudly? Yes, Jesus gave the proud and superficially righteous a hard time, THOSE WHO CLAIMED THEY HAD NO SIN --and for it, they gave Him the worst time of all--leading to the Cross. He told them that if they sinned in thought, they were as sinful as those who sinned in deed --and thus all need to repent and be saved.

Liberals today, by my definition, crucify Jesus all over again--by opposing the Church of believers in their efforts to be salt and light in the culture through political representation of the people's will. They crucify the Body of Christ --the Church, and for what reason? for believing and teaching that the Bible and its standards of right and wrong are true.

Christians are remorseful sinners who have embraced the more enlightened Way taught by Jesus Christ. They seek to resist temptation to sin deliberately. We ARE to pursue holiness in our own lives --which means we seek to live in blameless ways --but we know we are not God and do fall short. But we do have His Holy Spirit to teach and guide us in His way --the narrow road that leads to life --instead of the broad road that leads to destruction.

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

SCHOOL CLUBS FOR GLBT YOUTH --CONDONE AND ENCOURAGE UNHEALTHY SELF-IMAGE AND LIFESTYLES

Schools should not have clubs encouraging youth in their mis-identification as homosexuals. Data does not prove a genetic, con-genital, inevitable, immutable cause for gayness. Twin studies, for example, prove the opposite, though more twin siblings are gay than are non-twin siblings. It's more about being a twin than having a gay gene --because most often one twin is straight and the other gay --despite identical genes. Moreover, former homosexuals have successfully changed their orientation, so it can be done.

Ridicule can affect identity and is rightly disallowed by schools. Most youth, especially late-bloomers, are insecure about sexual self-image, attractiveness, and normalcy. This may be less true for those affirmed in their sexuality by their two original parents with whom they have good relationship. Not that parents alone are responsible for sexual orientation, but they play a huge role in cultivating normal self-image. But there is no denying the role of culture, peers, molesters, and rebellion in the formation of homosexual identity. Schools and entertainers seem determined to make homosexuality “trendy.” Youth can be lured into homosexual addiction because of encouragement and opportunity to “explore one’s sexuality.”

We now have another disease entering the population via gays, in addition to all the others that can be spread by immune-suppressed people. A new Staph “super-bug” (the “flesh-eater”) called “multidrug-resistant USA 300” is being disseminated in 38 U.S. states, Canada and 9 European Union countries. (“Men who Have Sex with Men,” Annals of Internal Med. 19 Feb 2008.)

Moreover, there is “conclusive evidence that HPV via oral sex causes throat cancers in both men and women.” Reporting in the May, 2007 issue, of The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center found that having multiple oral sex partners tops the list of risks for the HPV-related throat cancer.

It’s time to stop telling kids that pre-marital sex and sodomy are safe with condoms. They are created male and female; we should help youth feel normal and delay their urges for monogamous, hetero marriage for which they are designed. Sodomy will always, ALWAYS be unhealthy.

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

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

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

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

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

THE TOLERANCE-PROMOTERS CAN'T TOLERATE DISAGREEMENT --ABOUT ANYTHING

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.

http://www.e-water.net/index_en.php

"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

RADIO --Cantata --Agnus Dei

Our Sunday cantata performance may be on the air tomorrow morning --sunday, Dec. 30, 11:00AM, 102.3 FM --or www.wposfm.com. Click on the mic icons at the top center of the radio's home page. We had some glitches since we had not practiced for 10 days--and the person making the broadcast recording may have been clueless about mics and balances, etc. But it is what it is --beautiful music in any case with a beautiful message.

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

Gardasil Makes Thousands Sick

Gardasil, the vaccine for HPV prevention, prevention for a virus that could induce cervical cancer in women who have contracted the virus, has caused adverse effects for thousands of girls. The National Vaccine Information center has reported that 5 girls died, 31 girls had life threatening side effects, and 1,385 girls had to visit the emergency room.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/12/22/thousands-have-gotten-sick-from-gardasil-hpv-vaccine.aspx

This is for a vaccine that may prevent HPV infections but is not always successful. Still the question is how many cases of HPV these vaccines will prevent and further, how many cases of cervical cancer contractions and fatalities would be prevented. I'm not going to seek out and crunch these numbers except to say that the numbers above are not necessarily condemning alone if the benefits outweigh the risks.

There are other issues with this treatment. While some local and national governments consider making this vaccine freely available, there is the matter of cost. The series of vaccines all together cost $360.

http://cancer.about.com/od/hpvvaccine/a/drvaccine.htm

If we were to vaccinate every girl in the U.S. this would be just one more considerable strain on the medical system that is already at a crisis level. Since HPV is sexually transmitted, many object the use of a potentially dangerous and costly treatment for an infection that is perfectly preventable. Girls who practice abstinence and cautiously select a spouse who will be faithful will not contract HPV.

So we have two approaches to prevention here, one that carries some potential for physical harm and the other that not only carries no such physical risks, but also offers many benefits beyond mere disease prevention since teens who practice abstinence are emotionally healthier and academically better off than teens who don’t.

But of course, abstinence does have a risk. The risk is free will and responsibility. Not all who are taught to be responsible will be responsible, especially in a culture that praises rebellion like ours. Furthermore, while the debate continues on during a time when abstinence education programs are dominant, some teens will trust the licentious entertainment media and their friends for norms rather than educators and the message that the dominant entertainment culture promotes can be the easiest to hear when amplified by hormones.

Here it is most helpful when parents take it upon themselves to be the most important influence on their children. For this, there must be a balance of love, respect, and discipline and not only that, for many children, parents have to be informed about this to the degree that their word will not easily be undermined. Further, there should be an emphasis not on the negative aspect of sexuality, that it should merely be avoided, but there should be an emphasis on the meaning of sexuality itself. Sexuality for Christians is sacred and the bonding between man and woman uniquely reflects the image of the triune God himself as we read in Genesis 1, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

The Star, The Virgin,The Son of God -- All Historically Credible!

Three out of four Americans believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin. A Blade article about the star of Bethlehem was also interesting, as a couple of academics are taking the Biblical account seriously enough to put forth theories as to what the star might have been, scientifically speaking. They are at least smart enough to believe that the Biblical accounts have historical validity --or they wouldn't be working on this project.

As for the virgin birth, anyone who can raise Lazarus from the dead after 3 days, heal 10 lepers, feed multitudes with a boy's lunch, change water to wine, heal the blind and the lame, control the weather, etc. --such a man can be born of a Virgin. Since His life and His own resurrection were miraculous, why not His birth? There is no reason for the disciples and the Apostle Paul to be willing to suffer persecution, imprisonment and death for the story of Jesus Christ --except that they saw and believed. Many will die for a cause --like a radical Islamist --but these men died for the One whom they saw raised from death. They died for what they had witnessed and experienced. And they died for a message of love, joy and peace --not to bring death to others. That's unique.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL! REJOICE --THE LIGHT HAS COME! THE SAVIOR IS BORN --AND HE IS CHRIST, THE LORD!

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

Blade Writer has it Wrong --about Theocracy

Almost 4 centuries ago, Europeans began fleeing the religious intolerance of their homelands seeking freedom to practice their beliefs in the New World. It is sadly ironic that Christian extremists today are incrementally striving to change the U.S. into a theocracy similar to what their Christian ancestors sought to escape. by James Lefevre, letter to The Blade, 12-20-07

These people whom Mr. Lefevre considers extreme, are no doubt those who want traditional values to be upheld in our country. They realize that it is the agnostics, atheists, and liberals of any religion who are willing to see this country's social mores change dramatically -based on their unbelief or liberal beliefs. Therefore, the traditionalists seek candidates who appreciate the value of traditional faith and morals and free expression of all faiths -- which value has served our country well.

The Christians are not the extremists. They are for tradition, not extreme change. It is the other end of the spectrum which is radical, as represented in the new domestic partner registry for homosexuals in Toledo in 2007 and the abortion legality declared in 1973. These were extreme changes for our culture. The "war against Christmas" is also a reality, a war waged by ACLU and those who support their extreme view of church-state separation--that would take all the fun out of the holidays if they could--or at least, completely secularize it and try to make us have "affirmative action" for other religions --giving them equal time in school holidays, etc., even though they are not equal in numbers of followers.

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

BEWARE OF COMMITTING LIBEL and HARRASSMENT

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9821584-7.html

THIS link is very important for all bloggers. I can prove that libel has been committed against me. I was definitely misquoted in a blog topic as saying something I did not say and then called a racist for the fiction. It was not even a distortion of something I said. It was wholly fictional.

He has pulled that post finally, but I have a copy. Meanwhile he has posted my address in comments here and on his blog. The law says it is libel if it is damaging to my reputation and viewed by even ONE person as a published piece.

Some bloggers throw around the insult of "bigot" "homophobic" and "racist" --quite loosely --wanting to damage the reputation of conservative Christian bloggers and citizens--and if they attach these labels to your real identity and harrass you by posting your house photo, your church photo, your name and your address and threaten to post your unlisted phone number --and even write to your pastor --all as intimidation tactics against your views --that person is guilty of both libel and harrassment.

I have not been terribly secretive about my ID --I've even got old photos of me in 2 places --not with my name, however. But you'd think Mudrake thought he was announcing the access codes for Ft. Knox every time he announces my name. And I certainly am not in the phone book with my address and number and he has taken that private info of mine and blasted it about --although not the phone number --yet.

I can forgive most anything; but I want this guy to get over his obsession with me NOW. I would pay anyone for his identity --because I know that would stop him in his tracks --unless he's even more dangerous to me than already demonstrated to be. Respond here if you know who he is and I will establish and post a no-name blog email account to receive it. I don't have such an account now. I'm pretty sure I know him personally because of his obsession with me and his awareness of my past as a school board member, which he was writing about before I ever visited his blog. He's brave as long as he's anonymous. I'm not interested in revealing his identity on line as he likes to do --just in knowing who it is that I have to beware of if he shows up at my door or starts to park in front of my house.

I have never written to harrass him--but to honestly give my views on the outrageous things he says about believers --and his accusations of them. There is a defense to his frequent malicious charges, and it ought to be heard in a free country. I've tried to be good natured and teased him --but not with malice. I've tried to initiate better relationship with him, to no avail.

I finally told him in email that he was libelous and I would call a lawyer if he didn't remove the name --and he did do it. And tells of my threat in today's blog. By the law, he HAS committed libel and he has had a purpose of intimidation by harrassment.

As the article above said, it's not that hard to just "be nice" in our ideological disagreements, refrain from name-calling, insulting, lying, exaggerating, threatening and intimidating.

However, unfortunately, some people must be threatened and intimidated by the law to get them to QUIT!

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

Where is Kooz News!??

Kooz --when I click the link to your site, I get an energy drink site. Are you selling something? Where's your blog?

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