While most of our family is enjoying the lake, my husband and I are stuck here on Labor Day Weekend because he has to take some online tests for the American Board of Family Medicine --in order to continue as a "board diplomate." Some insurance companies require it of him --and hospitals, etc. Does it MEAN anything to how he practices medicine? No. The tests have two knowledge assessment sections in areas he chooses, and then have a ridiculous element called a "clinical simulation," where he treats an imaginary patient online. That's just tricky to do in a computer format. Treating the patient isn't the challenge; it's making the format work!
He is not a computer buff. What he knows about computers is that they are always "down" at hospitals and occasionally at the clinic --along with the failing phone systems. And that he often waits longer for windows to open than he'd like. So that means that Rob and I guide him on the internet into the ABFM maze of a website --with all its tutorial materials that confuse rather than clarify. We're on phone with the help-desk guy, saying, "NOW WHAT!!!" And then my husband takes the phone to rant to the poor tech about these lousy tests! Only thing, THIS year, the tech is on vacation just when we need him! I tell you, if anything can make a good Christian lose his sanctification, it's these tests!
A test can TEACH if it provides the answers with the questions as a follow-up convenience --but first we had to figure out how to down-load the questions --and then he took the test on line, and sometimes the computer balked and the system refused his answers. Eventually, he marked his answers --then he had to go back and re-mark the correct answers on the hard copy --so I held the book and looked up the questions --as they weren't in the same order as on the screen --and then he'd mark all the right answers after the test for future study --just in case they show up on the national board exam he has to take in 3 years.
This online system enabled him to have a 3 year extension on the testing --so he wouldn't have to go study for the boards at some hotel for a week, after having the study hang over his head for at least a year -- and then go to a testing site and have his livelihood up for grabs every 7 years. This way, with the online updates every 2 years, he gets tested at a testing site with a risk to his career every 10 years. If you fail, you take it over. I don't think they can take away one's license, but with out the ABFM seal of approval, he can fall out of favor --even though he thinks their tests are esoteric, out of touch, and unnecessary to the practice of medicine. He also has found errors in their "right" answers --outdated info.
Continuing education for him comes from the doctor's speeches on Audio-Digest --for which he pays nearly a thousand dollars a year and listens in his car. Those are followed by tests, too, but they are more user-friendly.
My husband is one of those people who is NOT a 'test taker.' But if you want good healthcare, there are hundreds who will attest that they get it from him. He put off taking these boards until 14 years ago --when all the provider-payers made it a requirement. He passed twice. Now he would have to take it next spring, if he doesn't pass these on line tests. You CAN keep taking until you pass, I guess.
But he thinks the test-makers like to play, "Gotcha!" instead of being practical.
So many doctors have complained, however. Hopefully, the current on-line tests are more practical than they were. We don't know about the clinical simulation yet, because he still has that to do.
We wonder if these specialty boards are providing jobs for doctors who probably can't build a practice. Doctors pay a huge amount to belong to this organization just to be put through this grueling, agonizing rigmarole which threatens their careers.
Yeah, yeah --I know --doctors wanted some way to weed out the charlatans --or to provide continuing education and evaluation so doctors would be current.
It used to be less painful --the drug reps would pay an MD speaker to speak at a dinner --and the doc would get continuing education credit for it. I think they STILL DO have to get CE credit --that's what the Audio Digest CD's do for my husband.
NOW, ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE!!! It's bad enough what doctors do to themselves with these tests, but let's get some REAL REFORM! TORT REFORM. Get the lawyers off the doctors' backs --and you'll see an improvment in the cost of healthcare. Less of this "defensive medicine" which causes so much office rigmarole.
CALL YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN AND DEMAND REAL REFORM. 1-202-224-3121 --and call the White House at 1-202-456-1111
People now know that all they have to do is sue and they and their lawyers will get a settlement --because the doctors do not want to risk a jury's sympathy for someone with self-imposed bad health or any condition regardless of the doctor's fault--a jury's exorbitant million dollar demand, thinking the insurance company should pay for a sad situation since the doctor has the insurance. Doctors would rather settle because of the hours away from their practices and the expense of defense attorneys. It may cost them more to defend themselves.
We need to enrich the economy, shame the lawyers, CEO's and the university administrations for their exorbitant salaries and bonuses while down-sizing and getting gov't subsidies --remove their gov't subsidies --make them return the bonuses--get back to fixed salaries for executives of subsidized companies who downsize. These CEO's don't need what they demand in order to stay in their jobs. If they threaten to leave, let 'em go!!! They are replaceable for a lot less money!!!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
World Net Daily article on Obama's "Army" for Change
MARCHING ORDERS
College kids recruited to join Obama's 'army'
Earn credit for pushing 'change,' working on president's 'agenda'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 25, 2009
9:03 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Organizing for America offers opportunities for college credit
President Obama's army of citizen volunteers is now actively recruiting college students in states across the country to "build support for President Obama's agenda" – and earn college credit while advocating for "change."
Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing for America, or OFA. The movement some call "Obama 2.0" is now recruiting students and offering to provide credits toward degree plans in exchange for their advocacy skills.
A message from OFA national volunteer coordinators announcing the recruitment campaign and internship opportunities has been posted on several websites and on Facebook.
"Students and young people were critical in building the movement that helped elect President Obama last year. By becoming a National Organizing Intern, you'll be part of the grassroots effort to make the change we fought for a reality in 2009 and beyond," it states. "As an Organizing Intern, you'll work side by side with OFA staff and community leaders to help build support for President Obama's agenda. You'll learn core organizing principles that are crucial for any campaign and play an important role in building our organization in your state."
The announcement continues, "President Obama describes his time as a community organizer by saying: 'It was the best education I ever had, because I learned in those neighborhoods that when ordinary people come together, they can achieve extraordinary things.'
"This is your chance to get that same education.
"If you're passionate about making sure every American has quality health care, reviving our economy, and building a clean energy future, don't miss this great opportunity. No previous experience is needed in order to apply."
Get the prescription for reclaiming America's heritage of liberty, justice and morality – Joseph Farah's "Taking America Back," autographed only at the WND SuperStore.
The group's website declares: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is empowering students across the country to build on the movement that elected President Obama and help bring about his vision for change."
Volunteers must commit to working at least 12 hours a week from Sept. 1 to Dec. 11 and, according to the OFA website, may receive college credit from their schools for doing so.
The Omaha World-Herald reported that OFA workers have been knocking on doors and making phone calls in Iowa and Nebraska to garner support for Obama's health care initiative.
"It is the first time in recent memory that a presidential candidate has maintained an active, grassroots presence in either state after an election," the newspaper reported.
"Iowa has almost nonstop presidential activity," said Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. "But the idea of having a sitting president continuing an organization is fairly unusual."
According to the Washington Post, Obama used the same standing political army earlier this year to gather signatures in support of his economic plan. The president asked his supporters to go "block by block and door by door" in every state.
In March, when volunteers canvassed high-traffic locations in Birmingham, Ala., to support Obama's health care, education and energy policies, one event organizer told the Birmingham News, "We are looking for supporters. We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
In an Aug. 5 e-mail, Obama once again urged his supporters to help him gain support for his health care plan:
… Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.
But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support.
Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in July that OFA has hired staff in 38 states and intends to expand to all 50 states. OFA announced that it has organized 1,906 local events in all 50 states – from press conferences to community discussions – since it launched its health care campaign in June.
As WND reported, Obama has been accused of "planting" OFA volunteers and supporters at many of his recent town hall forums so they may ask pre-selected questions. The White House insists that attendees are selected at random, but a closer look reveals many questioners range from Obama campaign donors and Organizing for America volunteers to single-payer health care lobbyists and Service Employees International Union members.
According to New Hampshire's DMUR 9 News, Obama health care supporters, including OFA members, are being driven to town hall meetings by the busload:
______________________________________________________________________________
YIKES! Is this creepy or what?? I surely hope no tax money is filtering into this OFA endeavor!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
College kids recruited to join Obama's 'army'
Earn credit for pushing 'change,' working on president's 'agenda'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 25, 2009
9:03 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Organizing for America offers opportunities for college credit
President Obama's army of citizen volunteers is now actively recruiting college students in states across the country to "build support for President Obama's agenda" – and earn college credit while advocating for "change."
Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing for America, or OFA. The movement some call "Obama 2.0" is now recruiting students and offering to provide credits toward degree plans in exchange for their advocacy skills.
A message from OFA national volunteer coordinators announcing the recruitment campaign and internship opportunities has been posted on several websites and on Facebook.
"Students and young people were critical in building the movement that helped elect President Obama last year. By becoming a National Organizing Intern, you'll be part of the grassroots effort to make the change we fought for a reality in 2009 and beyond," it states. "As an Organizing Intern, you'll work side by side with OFA staff and community leaders to help build support for President Obama's agenda. You'll learn core organizing principles that are crucial for any campaign and play an important role in building our organization in your state."
The announcement continues, "President Obama describes his time as a community organizer by saying: 'It was the best education I ever had, because I learned in those neighborhoods that when ordinary people come together, they can achieve extraordinary things.'
"This is your chance to get that same education.
"If you're passionate about making sure every American has quality health care, reviving our economy, and building a clean energy future, don't miss this great opportunity. No previous experience is needed in order to apply."
Get the prescription for reclaiming America's heritage of liberty, justice and morality – Joseph Farah's "Taking America Back," autographed only at the WND SuperStore.
The group's website declares: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is empowering students across the country to build on the movement that elected President Obama and help bring about his vision for change."
Volunteers must commit to working at least 12 hours a week from Sept. 1 to Dec. 11 and, according to the OFA website, may receive college credit from their schools for doing so.
The Omaha World-Herald reported that OFA workers have been knocking on doors and making phone calls in Iowa and Nebraska to garner support for Obama's health care initiative.
"It is the first time in recent memory that a presidential candidate has maintained an active, grassroots presence in either state after an election," the newspaper reported.
"Iowa has almost nonstop presidential activity," said Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. "But the idea of having a sitting president continuing an organization is fairly unusual."
According to the Washington Post, Obama used the same standing political army earlier this year to gather signatures in support of his economic plan. The president asked his supporters to go "block by block and door by door" in every state.
In March, when volunteers canvassed high-traffic locations in Birmingham, Ala., to support Obama's health care, education and energy policies, one event organizer told the Birmingham News, "We are looking for supporters. We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
In an Aug. 5 e-mail, Obama once again urged his supporters to help him gain support for his health care plan:
… Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.
But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support.
Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in July that OFA has hired staff in 38 states and intends to expand to all 50 states. OFA announced that it has organized 1,906 local events in all 50 states – from press conferences to community discussions – since it launched its health care campaign in June.
As WND reported, Obama has been accused of "planting" OFA volunteers and supporters at many of his recent town hall forums so they may ask pre-selected questions. The White House insists that attendees are selected at random, but a closer look reveals many questioners range from Obama campaign donors and Organizing for America volunteers to single-payer health care lobbyists and Service Employees International Union members.
According to New Hampshire's DMUR 9 News, Obama health care supporters, including OFA members, are being driven to town hall meetings by the busload:
______________________________________________________________________________
YIKES! Is this creepy or what?? I surely hope no tax money is filtering into this OFA endeavor!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Obama Lies about His Positions
Columnist Jack Kelly, in The Toledo Blade, today, quotes Obama in a town hall meeting,
But, in fact, he DID say previously that he was a single-payer supporter. According to Kelly, Obama said in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program." See video.
I heard him say with my own ears that a public tax-supported option in the healthcare system would be competition to bring prices down. But it's not fair competition considering that gov't is tax-subsidized without paying taxes. Oddly, today he cited the U.S. Post office as an example of a public service that is losing out to the private competition. Indeed! The Post Office is an example of how gov't does NOT work effectively or efficiently without continually raising the costs. The P.O. and Medicare/Medicaid being in the red are reasons to NOT have anymore gov't healthcare than we already have. If doctors and hospitals had to rely solely on gov't income, THEY would operate in the red, too. (After all, the litigious lawyers and their clients have to make a living, too! What will they do when no one can afford to insure gov't doctors?) So how do we put the whole country on medicare/medicaid and suddenly operate in the black??? He does a lot of double-talk to answer that question, but none of it sounds like a guy who has ever run a medical business --or any business, for that matter.
As for the so-called "death panels," Obama was right to say today in Colorado that conservatives have also said we couldn't possibly provide all that is technologically possible for all people at gov't expense. It's true that insurance companies now deny some care --and for sure, Medicare/Medicaid already refuse to pay the price tag for care. (My mother on Medicare had to pay at least $1500 out of pocket for a recent hospital visit.) We've been told by democrats that all people should have all the care they need provided for them--and conservatives have said it is impossible for gov't to pay for ALL the care that is possible to sustain people with very serious problems without our entire tax revenue going for healthcare.
That's why private insurers are the way to go; they have a profit incentive --but they also compete for our business. So people pay for the kind of care they can afford --and want to pay. Some people want to gamble and not pay much for insurance; they should get the results of their gamble --the minimal care they were willing to pay for --which is what gov't care will become --MINIMAL! Granted, however, we don't let the indigent and the children suffer.
Meanwhile, for whom will doctors work? the insurance that pays them the most --or the gov't that pays them the least?
They can't afford the malpractice settlements and attorneys if healthcare isn't profitable.
He clarifies that we would not be "forced" to use the gov't programs. Sure, we can always pay a lot on top of taxes for private programs. But once again, people will complain that the wealthier get better care because they pay for it --and so, socialists will always push to close private options and raise taxes to equalize poor care for all. (For all except the politicians --who already have the best plans and unlimited care.) Just like the Communist state and party.
Now about the so-called DEATH PANELS: According to Kelly, the president's medical advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, "touted the fiscal benefits of physician-assisted suicide" in a 1998 New England Journal of Medicine article. He said the following this past January -- which contributes to concerns about "death panels": he explained his "principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions: when implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughtly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated" [decreased, weakened, reduced.] Sounds to me, like Dr. Rahm is suggesting we may pull the plug on Grandma after all!
We know that England does not provide any extraordinary remedies for people in their 60's and above --and Canadians must wait until it's too late for essential care.
Again, we need to have some healthcare and social security reforms or watch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (our biggest budget items) further sink the financial U.S. ship--but we also need tort reform to get the lawyers off the doctors' backs --and that will be a major cost saver.
STIMULATE YOUR AILING ECONOMY, DR. OBAMA! INFUSE IT WITH TAX CUTS! THEN, LET'S TALK ABOUT PANACEAS FOR WHATEVER ELSE AILS US!
And one more thought: If you are so bent on taxing the wealthy, why are you letting corporate leaders get their millions in benefits before paying back the tax-payers who bailed them out????
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us, a transition to a system like that [ed. to a single payer system] I believe, would be too disruptive."(I guess he figured that out from all the hullaballoo the public is making.)
But, in fact, he DID say previously that he was a single-payer supporter. According to Kelly, Obama said in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program." See video.
I heard him say with my own ears that a public tax-supported option in the healthcare system would be competition to bring prices down. But it's not fair competition considering that gov't is tax-subsidized without paying taxes. Oddly, today he cited the U.S. Post office as an example of a public service that is losing out to the private competition. Indeed! The Post Office is an example of how gov't does NOT work effectively or efficiently without continually raising the costs. The P.O. and Medicare/Medicaid being in the red are reasons to NOT have anymore gov't healthcare than we already have. If doctors and hospitals had to rely solely on gov't income, THEY would operate in the red, too. (After all, the litigious lawyers and their clients have to make a living, too! What will they do when no one can afford to insure gov't doctors?) So how do we put the whole country on medicare/medicaid and suddenly operate in the black??? He does a lot of double-talk to answer that question, but none of it sounds like a guy who has ever run a medical business --or any business, for that matter.
As for the so-called "death panels," Obama was right to say today in Colorado that conservatives have also said we couldn't possibly provide all that is technologically possible for all people at gov't expense. It's true that insurance companies now deny some care --and for sure, Medicare/Medicaid already refuse to pay the price tag for care. (My mother on Medicare had to pay at least $1500 out of pocket for a recent hospital visit.) We've been told by democrats that all people should have all the care they need provided for them--and conservatives have said it is impossible for gov't to pay for ALL the care that is possible to sustain people with very serious problems without our entire tax revenue going for healthcare.
That's why private insurers are the way to go; they have a profit incentive --but they also compete for our business. So people pay for the kind of care they can afford --and want to pay. Some people want to gamble and not pay much for insurance; they should get the results of their gamble --the minimal care they were willing to pay for --which is what gov't care will become --MINIMAL! Granted, however, we don't let the indigent and the children suffer.
Meanwhile, for whom will doctors work? the insurance that pays them the most --or the gov't that pays them the least?
They can't afford the malpractice settlements and attorneys if healthcare isn't profitable.
He clarifies that we would not be "forced" to use the gov't programs. Sure, we can always pay a lot on top of taxes for private programs. But once again, people will complain that the wealthier get better care because they pay for it --and so, socialists will always push to close private options and raise taxes to equalize poor care for all. (For all except the politicians --who already have the best plans and unlimited care.) Just like the Communist state and party.
Now about the so-called DEATH PANELS: According to Kelly, the president's medical advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, "touted the fiscal benefits of physician-assisted suicide" in a 1998 New England Journal of Medicine article. He said the following this past January -- which contributes to concerns about "death panels": he explained his "principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions: when implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughtly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated" [decreased, weakened, reduced.] Sounds to me, like Dr. Rahm is suggesting we may pull the plug on Grandma after all!
We know that England does not provide any extraordinary remedies for people in their 60's and above --and Canadians must wait until it's too late for essential care.
Again, we need to have some healthcare and social security reforms or watch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (our biggest budget items) further sink the financial U.S. ship--but we also need tort reform to get the lawyers off the doctors' backs --and that will be a major cost saver.
STIMULATE YOUR AILING ECONOMY, DR. OBAMA! INFUSE IT WITH TAX CUTS! THEN, LET'S TALK ABOUT PANACEAS FOR WHATEVER ELSE AILS US!
And one more thought: If you are so bent on taxing the wealthy, why are you letting corporate leaders get their millions in benefits before paying back the tax-payers who bailed them out????
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, August 14, 2009
I'M TIRED OF HIS VOICE!!! Obama's
My brother says to me, "Barbara!!! That guy is on TV e-va-ry DAY!! I tell ya! O he's a genius. Just watch --he manages a live broadcast EVERY SINGLE DAY ON EVERY CHANNEL!!!"
But ya know what, Bro'? I think he's over-exposed. I'm tired of his lame explanations with the clipped-off sentences --and his halting rhetoric. He, like Clinton before him, reminds me of a student body presidential candidate with a shallow panacea for every problem.
Especially on health care. He said recently that the "public option" plan is supposed to "provide competition" and thus, make healthcare more cost effective/efficient, etc. Yeah, Barack, we GET competition! YOu are right about its value and effect --but NOT competition from the government! at tax payer expense! Who won't sign up for a program they think they are being taxed for and thus entitled to --a program they think will be free and unlimited --according to all the promises.
But so far, an awful lot of Americans are smart enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch --or free healthcare. And the question is, do we want to pay gov't --and choose your public option --over better care??? And yet, YOU KNOW that if you force a public option, no one will want to pay for the private one. Either way, we lose. We'll have to pay for the public option in taxes and the private one to get the best of care.
This whole problem of Medicare and Medicaid being in the red --and some people being uncovered (some by choice, not wanting to spend the money)--needs more study by lots of people --and they don't need to be paid a fortune to figure it out either.
I was sick to hear that Obama is letting the gov't bailed-out company heads keep their exorbitant million dollar bonuses. No, we don't like gov't telling corporations what to do but these guys have NOT earned bonuses until they pay back the tax payers!!!! Gee, Obama, you need a better business head on your shoulders!!! better advisors. SLOW DOWN. STAY OFF TV. GO HOME AND THINK!! and listen to your White House Comments line. I'm on there.
Citizens, call the president: 1-202-456-1111
Call the Capitol switchboard: 1-202-224-3121
But ya know what, Bro'? I think he's over-exposed. I'm tired of his lame explanations with the clipped-off sentences --and his halting rhetoric. He, like Clinton before him, reminds me of a student body presidential candidate with a shallow panacea for every problem.
Especially on health care. He said recently that the "public option" plan is supposed to "provide competition" and thus, make healthcare more cost effective/efficient, etc. Yeah, Barack, we GET competition! YOu are right about its value and effect --but NOT competition from the government! at tax payer expense! Who won't sign up for a program they think they are being taxed for and thus entitled to --a program they think will be free and unlimited --according to all the promises.
But so far, an awful lot of Americans are smart enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch --or free healthcare. And the question is, do we want to pay gov't --and choose your public option --over better care??? And yet, YOU KNOW that if you force a public option, no one will want to pay for the private one. Either way, we lose. We'll have to pay for the public option in taxes and the private one to get the best of care.
This whole problem of Medicare and Medicaid being in the red --and some people being uncovered (some by choice, not wanting to spend the money)--needs more study by lots of people --and they don't need to be paid a fortune to figure it out either.
I was sick to hear that Obama is letting the gov't bailed-out company heads keep their exorbitant million dollar bonuses. No, we don't like gov't telling corporations what to do but these guys have NOT earned bonuses until they pay back the tax payers!!!! Gee, Obama, you need a better business head on your shoulders!!! better advisors. SLOW DOWN. STAY OFF TV. GO HOME AND THINK!! and listen to your White House Comments line. I'm on there.
Citizens, call the president: 1-202-456-1111
Call the Capitol switchboard: 1-202-224-3121
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
From My EMail Bag --on Obama's Palestinian Preference
I'm thinking, this is just what we need --the Hamas worldview about Israel and Jews in the USA --the belief in violence as the panacea for the Arab-Israeli conflict. BRING IT ON, OBAMA! (Does this man even THINK!!!! --on top of his breathless rush to a socialistic state and the biggest presidential price tag ever, he brings violent, Israel-hating, fundamentalist Muslims over here at our expense without jailing them! And wants the GITMO Taliban boys in our mainland jails --and from there, probably a presidential pardon for all the Taliban! --At least at the end of his 8 years-- I mean, hopefully, "at the end of his FOUR years," for surely he won't survive at this rate to get a second term --I hope.
My editorial comments are inserted in brackets below:
[Important to note, here, that Al Arabia, today, reports that HAMAS police are fighting the even more violent Palestinian extremists at this time --instead of focusing on Israel --apparently trying to control their own --a good thing. Which would explain why there might be HAMAS refugees needing to flee the area from their kinsmen.
*from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
My editorial comments are inserted in brackets below:
Democrat voters---Do you still think this guy is just another Democrat? has the light made the least little crack in the Kool-Aid mentality? Do you not understand the implications? Do you not realize yet that he has a Muslim agenda? If this doesn't open eyes -it's hopeless.
There is a link below to check out if this is true...
HB 1388 PASSED [author means H.R. 1388 passed --which does mean "house bill--i.e. resolution"]
Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs to know....
Something happened...
H.R. 1388* [enlarging Americorps and creating other service groups] was passed yesterday,[author obviously wrote this months ago when the bill was passed] behind our backs. You may want to read about it.. It wasn't mentioned on the news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen. [I do remember that there wasn't any great public notice or debate over the cost, necessity, pros and cons of Americorps expansion --and I just hope they don't also create the volunteer security force that Obama talked about needing in addition to National Guard and other military we already have.]
[On a separate issue, not a part of the above bill:] Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees into the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines...
By executive order,President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review.... itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
[Important to note, here, that Al Arabia, today, reports that HAMAS police are fighting the even more violent Palestinian extremists at this time --instead of focusing on Israel --apparently trying to control their own --a good thing. Which would explain why there might be HAMAS refugees needing to flee the area from their kinsmen.
His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S., but within the world, using U. S. tax payer funds. [Well, at least the radical Muslims won't like this.]
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11. [WHAT???!!! HE DID????!!!]
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.
Doubtful?
To verify this for yourself: www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
PLEASE PASS THIS ON...
AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
*from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
H.R.1388: The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (formally the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act) authorizes a dramatic funding increase for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, and the creation of new programs for seniors and veterans. It establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer volunteer program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school students who participate.
President Barack Obama signed the legislation on April 21, 2009. While it authorizes $5.7 billion over six years, Congress must still approve the funding as part of the budget.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, August 13, 2009
ABOUT OBAMA'S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE --We Need Tort Reform!
Obama is trying to move too fast on health care. What we need to do FIRST is restore the economy and get Americans back to work -- and you don't do that by new taxes and new spending when you are already in debt--when you have already spent too much on bail-outs and clunkers.
In health care, they can do one thing real fast that will change the costs of medicine --tort reform. Stop making it automatically profitable to sue the health profession. Right now, too many lawyers like Pretty Boy John Edwards are making millions off of the backs of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies with medical liability suits.
It costs so much to defend oneself in court and it is so risky because juries feel sorry for pitifully ill and disabled people; they don't care whose fault it is that a diabetic, e.g., neglected to care for himself. "Give his family a million because the insurance company can afford it and the man is pitiful. The doctor should've chased that diabetic down and made him be a compliant patient...." though it was clear he didn't want to change his eating and drinking habits, obtain and use a glucometer and come back to the office when he was told to.
So the doctors settle out of court, as it is cheaper, less risky and less public. The costs for such suits in 2007 was staggering --greatly increased over ten years before. (I'm sorry I don't have the stats; I don't recall where I read it.)
We need legislators who will reign in the lawyers. We can start by defeating Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown and replacing Voinovich with a republican when he retires. Let's vote in people who will oppose the lawyers and support tort reform.
So much clerical work is done as defensive medicine. Gov't has done more than any other entity to drive up the cost of health care. Like when the gov't agency, OSHA, inspected a medical office and fined a doctor $20,000 because his staff put a sandwich on the lab counter. That's gov't confiscation of the earnings of a doctor for the careless error of an employee. $100 would have been a lesson --especially if you docked it from the employee's pay.
No, this didn't happen at my husband's office --but it is a Toledo-area story.
In health care, they can do one thing real fast that will change the costs of medicine --tort reform. Stop making it automatically profitable to sue the health profession. Right now, too many lawyers like Pretty Boy John Edwards are making millions off of the backs of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies with medical liability suits.
It costs so much to defend oneself in court and it is so risky because juries feel sorry for pitifully ill and disabled people; they don't care whose fault it is that a diabetic, e.g., neglected to care for himself. "Give his family a million because the insurance company can afford it and the man is pitiful. The doctor should've chased that diabetic down and made him be a compliant patient...." though it was clear he didn't want to change his eating and drinking habits, obtain and use a glucometer and come back to the office when he was told to.
So the doctors settle out of court, as it is cheaper, less risky and less public. The costs for such suits in 2007 was staggering --greatly increased over ten years before. (I'm sorry I don't have the stats; I don't recall where I read it.)
We need legislators who will reign in the lawyers. We can start by defeating Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown and replacing Voinovich with a republican when he retires. Let's vote in people who will oppose the lawyers and support tort reform.
So much clerical work is done as defensive medicine. Gov't has done more than any other entity to drive up the cost of health care. Like when the gov't agency, OSHA, inspected a medical office and fined a doctor $20,000 because his staff put a sandwich on the lab counter. That's gov't confiscation of the earnings of a doctor for the careless error of an employee. $100 would have been a lesson --especially if you docked it from the employee's pay.
No, this didn't happen at my husband's office --but it is a Toledo-area story.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Arlen's Town Hall Meeting! Poor Guy! He must feel like the dems made Geo. Bush feel.
HA! Turncoat Arlen Specter is being grilled by his PA. constituents today in a town hall meeting viewable on cable news. Remember, he's the Republican-recently-turned-Democrat who never met a liberal social issue he couldn't support.
Boy, are the voters mad at him!! and giving him WHAT FOR about: the healthcare plan; bailing out GM; not telling us who writes the bills; not reading the bills before voting; federal access to our bank accounts; threatening our pensions (with inflation and taxation), and Obama's biggest deficit authorization in American history --and passing the debt on to our children.
Someone asked him how come we tax-payers had to bail out GM for making cars nobody wants. (Well, actually, I like my '95 Caddy and the '04 GMC van.)
You almost had to feel sorry for the elderly senator facing the very angry folks. I hope he's up for re-election? I think the GOP may re-gain his seat --having never elected this guy as a democrat in the first place.
Heh heh. Feels good to see the shoe of persecution for imperfection on the other party's foot!
Problems aren't simple. There are no easy answers. But unfortunately, federal gov't with both parties is headed in the wrong direction. The Feds need to return power --and money --to the people --who, in America, have made for prosperity for the most people --while still caring for the needy.
But there is something wrong with the American work ethic and greed at all ends of the labor-management-board spectrum. We need to restore integrity and sound fiscal policy to American business and the workplace. As it is, both union bosses and corp.administrators are enamored with luxury outings, company cars, perks galore.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Boy, are the voters mad at him!! and giving him WHAT FOR about: the healthcare plan; bailing out GM; not telling us who writes the bills; not reading the bills before voting; federal access to our bank accounts; threatening our pensions (with inflation and taxation), and Obama's biggest deficit authorization in American history --and passing the debt on to our children.
Someone asked him how come we tax-payers had to bail out GM for making cars nobody wants. (Well, actually, I like my '95 Caddy and the '04 GMC van.)
You almost had to feel sorry for the elderly senator facing the very angry folks. I hope he's up for re-election? I think the GOP may re-gain his seat --having never elected this guy as a democrat in the first place.
Heh heh. Feels good to see the shoe of persecution for imperfection on the other party's foot!
Problems aren't simple. There are no easy answers. But unfortunately, federal gov't with both parties is headed in the wrong direction. The Feds need to return power --and money --to the people --who, in America, have made for prosperity for the most people --while still caring for the needy.
But there is something wrong with the American work ethic and greed at all ends of the labor-management-board spectrum. We need to restore integrity and sound fiscal policy to American business and the workplace. As it is, both union bosses and corp.administrators are enamored with luxury outings, company cars, perks galore.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Ben Konop in Toledo Free Press Supports Church Political Freedom!
Ben Konop did a speech --preparing for his mayoral bid --at a church--and got blasted for the "church-state separation" issue by David Washington in The Toledo Free Press!!He tells of politicians before him--and of the Pope writing on political issues --as defense of his speech on social/political issues at Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church.
Is he unaware that churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status if they are viewed as "participating in a campaign?" And obviously, inviting only Democrats to speak, as black churches have done for years, is DEFINITELY participating in campaigns. Yet, the pro-life/pro-family values candidates can't get into churches anymore because of the IRS ruling on helping campaigns.
Of course, several churches are protesting the IRS ruling these days--and will certainly welcome Konop's support! For the pro-life churches agree that it's time to stop interfering with the free speech rights of churches and pastors. Sure, some churches will continue to be careful, having both democrats and republicans in their congregations, but it's time the church participated in politics again --as is our constitutional right --regardless of tax exemption.
We conservatives should be able to give candidates a forum --just as the black and Catholic churches do. I remember attending a Democrat's fund-raiser in a Catholic church basement (because my kids were part of the hired entertainment, the Young Rep Road Show.) I remember thinking at the time, that our church would be picked on by the IRS if we held a fund-raiser to help a candidate. But there always seems to be a double standard when it comes to Democrats, churches, and the IRS. We've even been threatened about the "voter guides" that told where candidates stood on the issues of concern to religious people.
Now the emphasis to evangelicals is to be involved only in issues of charity and "social justice" (as defined by liberals who disregard the realities of human nature and what works.) Some evangelical leaders and everyone on the Left, want the evangelical church to move Leftward and drop their concerns for abortion, gay marriage,etc. Love and redistribution of wealth is to be our only concern. They forget that Jesus wasn't hated for the LOVE part of the Gospel --but for the Repentance message --and the message that we are all sinners and that He is the only Way to the Father. The Jews became angry with Paul and Barnabus in the synagogue because they proclaimed Christ as Savior --and resurrection of the dead in Christ. Our charity gains us no enemies --but something else does. Jesus said we would be hated as He was, but it was not for charity and love.
The prophets of old preached about good and evil --and called us to repentance. Killing our babies and rejecting God's design for our sexuality --surely the prophets of today need to keep proclaiming these as evils in a time when the law has pronounced these activities "good." They are so counter to God's procreative intention for the human race.
Is he unaware that churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status if they are viewed as "participating in a campaign?" And obviously, inviting only Democrats to speak, as black churches have done for years, is DEFINITELY participating in campaigns. Yet, the pro-life/pro-family values candidates can't get into churches anymore because of the IRS ruling on helping campaigns.
Of course, several churches are protesting the IRS ruling these days--and will certainly welcome Konop's support! For the pro-life churches agree that it's time to stop interfering with the free speech rights of churches and pastors. Sure, some churches will continue to be careful, having both democrats and republicans in their congregations, but it's time the church participated in politics again --as is our constitutional right --regardless of tax exemption.
We conservatives should be able to give candidates a forum --just as the black and Catholic churches do. I remember attending a Democrat's fund-raiser in a Catholic church basement (because my kids were part of the hired entertainment, the Young Rep Road Show.) I remember thinking at the time, that our church would be picked on by the IRS if we held a fund-raiser to help a candidate. But there always seems to be a double standard when it comes to Democrats, churches, and the IRS. We've even been threatened about the "voter guides" that told where candidates stood on the issues of concern to religious people.
Now the emphasis to evangelicals is to be involved only in issues of charity and "social justice" (as defined by liberals who disregard the realities of human nature and what works.) Some evangelical leaders and everyone on the Left, want the evangelical church to move Leftward and drop their concerns for abortion, gay marriage,etc. Love and redistribution of wealth is to be our only concern. They forget that Jesus wasn't hated for the LOVE part of the Gospel --but for the Repentance message --and the message that we are all sinners and that He is the only Way to the Father. The Jews became angry with Paul and Barnabus in the synagogue because they proclaimed Christ as Savior --and resurrection of the dead in Christ. Our charity gains us no enemies --but something else does. Jesus said we would be hated as He was, but it was not for charity and love.
The prophets of old preached about good and evil --and called us to repentance. Killing our babies and rejecting God's design for our sexuality --surely the prophets of today need to keep proclaiming these as evils in a time when the law has pronounced these activities "good." They are so counter to God's procreative intention for the human race.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
NEWS COMMENTATING (2nd Post Today -- See Ann'y Post Below )
Awww! The Blade's Roberta de Boer is not writing her column anymore? She was easy to read and easy to understand --mean as dirt to Finkbeiner --I have no idea if he deserved it. When people are too vitriolic it makes me question the legitimacy of their view! And of course, she used to write like a mud-rake in her bias for all things liberal. And she first won my heart (NOT) when she showed a fascination and approval for the local "witches"--back when U.T. was letting that same "witch" lecture at the U. But Roberta did acknowledge that she felt less "certain" in her views nowdays. That's a good thing. Sounds like maturity!
And what's with this Cash for Clunkers??? I can't believe they are taking cars that work to the junk yard. This is going to save the planet from gas-guzzlers --while China more than makes up for diminishing noxious fumes in the U.S. ? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind the idea of rebates for new cars to help the auto industry and to phase out the gas guzzlers --to stimulate buying cars --but why not give the not-really-clunky, so-called gas guzzlers to the needy who have no way to look for or get to a job --if they could find one? There is going to be great criticism of this program in the future, when we realize we could've helped the poor have working cars with this program instead of stupidly junking those cars.
As for gas guzzlers, explain this to me: according to the car ads today, you can get a rebate for a new Dodge RAM 4x4 that only gets 15 mpg!!!!! Meanwhile, if you buy a car with better mileage than the one you drive, they'll pay you to JUNK that car --and it may get better than 15 mpg!!! What's wrong with this picture???? Give those cars to the needy! I've always said that the best way to help the poor would be to get them transportation to job interviews and jobs. It is so difficult for the poor to have a car --much less maintain one --but I've had friends who desperately needed them --even if they ran them into the junk yard eventually through their ineptitude --or lack of fix-it cash.
And what's with this Cash for Clunkers??? I can't believe they are taking cars that work to the junk yard. This is going to save the planet from gas-guzzlers --while China more than makes up for diminishing noxious fumes in the U.S. ? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind the idea of rebates for new cars to help the auto industry and to phase out the gas guzzlers --to stimulate buying cars --but why not give the not-really-clunky, so-called gas guzzlers to the needy who have no way to look for or get to a job --if they could find one? There is going to be great criticism of this program in the future, when we realize we could've helped the poor have working cars with this program instead of stupidly junking those cars.
As for gas guzzlers, explain this to me: according to the car ads today, you can get a rebate for a new Dodge RAM 4x4 that only gets 15 mpg!!!!! Meanwhile, if you buy a car with better mileage than the one you drive, they'll pay you to JUNK that car --and it may get better than 15 mpg!!! What's wrong with this picture???? Give those cars to the needy! I've always said that the best way to help the poor would be to get them transportation to job interviews and jobs. It is so difficult for the poor to have a car --much less maintain one --but I've had friends who desperately needed them --even if they ran them into the junk yard eventually through their ineptitude --or lack of fix-it cash.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO US TODAY!!! 40 YEARS BLESSED
Tribute to The Best Man:
My husband has been Mr. Right for me --I've never doubted it. But I knew which of us was more lucky. When he showed an interest in me, I was a junior in college and he, a lowly freshman. And I said to myself, "They don't come finer!" HANDSOME! and he still is. And GOOD --in every sense of the word. He's better than I deserve --but I do believe God rewards those who believe in Him, believe in Jesus Christ and strive to please and serve Him --and we have strived to do just that. And so the Holy Spirit inspires abiding love and faith in each other.
I sort of guessed maybe he was my reward for my square youth of faith and convictions --but as women go, I knew he wasn't as rewarded: he didn't get a great housekeeper, a cook, or a looker in me. But he almost always makes me feel that he feels fortunate to have me. We certainly felt blessed in our children. He always believed that fidelity in marriage was a gift to them as much as to ourselves.
My eldest daughter said at her wedding, 16 years ago, "I always knew my father loved my mother and that he always would." A challenge to him, perhaps! He's not let her down.
Our lives are not "charmed." We both have some health issues that are largely of our own making --with some genetic predispositions we were given and sweet teeth! But we feel blessed in the love of four wonderful kids and two children-in-law and two grandsons--whose music --and harmony of relationships --are the delight of our ears! And they all believe in Christ and are church-active.
I hate to drive with him as he tries to drive FOR me --and I'm a back-seat driver about the boat. We each see disaster coming --and damage --he when I drive the car and I, when he drives a boat!
The monetary blessings we have are due in great part to my husband's energy, stamina, and drive --and work-aholicism. But I credit God for opening med school to him, for giving him diligence and care in his work, a love for what he does --a love for people he serves --a servant's heart. An incredibly tolerant and patient man --with patients and with me.
He used to prefer young families as patients because they weren't terribly ill and he didn't enjoy the elderly as much for all their problems--but the more he practiced medicine, the more he came to really enjoy the elderly. He is a med. director at 3 nursing homes --and he takes his antique postcard books from various vicinities to show his patients who are from those areas. He sings to the ladies --he has a song for every name, he said. E.G. He'll go into a patient's room singing (in a most beautiful dramatic tenor voice) "How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? A Flibbertygibbit, a willow the wisp, a clown!" Filling in the lady's name to the tune of the famous song by the nuns in Sound of Music. to their great enjoyment. My daughter was with him in a nursing home once, and the elderly resident said to her, "Handsome doctor! Is he married?"
He enjoys bringing donuts and sneaking plastic spiders onto the nurses' stations --and preaching politics and his faith whenever the opportunity arises --whether it does or not, probably!
This man bought us a new Bennington pontoon in this our 40th anniversary year(we're helping the economy) and a solar-powered boat lift with canopy --as user-friendly a boat could be --if we can just aim it into the lift before we hit the dock! The first day it was windy and we almost crashed our new pontoon into our other old boat and dock before we got lined up to hitch it up --that was before we had the new lift which helps if we can just nose into it. Daughter Chrissy was supposed to help guide us to the right place --but she was standing on the pier waving her arms uselessly as a bird kept dive-bombing at her! The waves were pushing us, the wind a-blowing, and Jon was yelling, "Never mind the bird! Catch the boat!" If you could see all 105 pounds of her, you'd know she wasn't going to be able to catch the boat in the wind and waves --and she couldn't ignore the bird and kept flailing her arms in front of her as she cowered. Finally --we got righted and docked. But not before we snagged the new ladder and broke the snap that held it up--snagged it on our motor boat's lift. Since then, we've let the bimini top slam down a few times and lost the zipper case for the bimini top. The Bimini light still works--amazingly. Guess the bimini cover floated away --perhaps when the kids were trying to attach the huge canvas boat cover. It was the same color and stored in the same place, so, being much smaller than the boat cover, it may have gotten away without their notice and landed in the bottom of the lake somewhere. Something made a hole in our boat cover already, too. Almost looks like the work of a dive-bombing bird! But boat troubles are the story of our lake lives. We're hoping the 2nd daughter will marry a boat enthusiast! who wants to go up every weekend and see that the batteries aren't dead --as they so often are as the boats need to be run--and we are usually too busy to go up very often.
But with new faith in the latest boat technology, and hope for more lake time in the future, and so we could easily get our elderly mothers onto a boat, we got ourselves this "old ladies' boat," a lovely living room on the water with plush upholstery --capacity 17 normal people --and we took it out last night, just the two of us, for a sunset ann'y cruise. We did get it at a good price, from what we can tell--not as much as we expected considering the size and brand. Hubby set the gear to neutral, turned on the "mood lights," and sat in the back seat with me as we listened to PBS symphonic music, reminisced and watched the sun go down. It was absolutely lovely and romantic.
This followed a wedding in Ft. Wayne --of our niece --where he sat down our camera bag and lost it at the Rose Garden, where the wedding took place in light rain. He went back and someone said they were asked about the camera bag by a person who said he knew the wedding party and would make connections. We're thinking it was a later wedding group the camera-finder knew --or he just was making sure the camera owner wasn't around before he made off with it. It didn't show up at the reception as we'd hoped.
That wedding reception was in the Baker St. Train Station in Ft. Wayne. And my husband recalled that my dad picked us up there in 1970 --near our first anniversary-- when we found out that he had been admitted to med school. We had almost started a teaching stint in West Africa with the Mennonites when he got the call that he had moved up on the waiting list and was admitted! My father was delighted --not really wanting to see his Bar-baby go to Africa! He was also happy that my husband was admitted to the medical school where my father had turned down a PhD program to work with Dr. Doisy, discoverer of Vitamin K. (My father always regretted that he turned down that opportunity --but he was tired of going to school and knew of jobs for his Masters' Degree in chem. )
Of course, the boat and camera stories here are just incidental; the real story is that some of us are still going the distance as couples and finding the journey worthwhile all the way. And recommend marriage --the old-fashioned way.
My husband has been Mr. Right for me --I've never doubted it. But I knew which of us was more lucky. When he showed an interest in me, I was a junior in college and he, a lowly freshman. And I said to myself, "They don't come finer!" HANDSOME! and he still is. And GOOD --in every sense of the word. He's better than I deserve --but I do believe God rewards those who believe in Him, believe in Jesus Christ and strive to please and serve Him --and we have strived to do just that. And so the Holy Spirit inspires abiding love and faith in each other.
I sort of guessed maybe he was my reward for my square youth of faith and convictions --but as women go, I knew he wasn't as rewarded: he didn't get a great housekeeper, a cook, or a looker in me. But he almost always makes me feel that he feels fortunate to have me. We certainly felt blessed in our children. He always believed that fidelity in marriage was a gift to them as much as to ourselves.
My eldest daughter said at her wedding, 16 years ago, "I always knew my father loved my mother and that he always would." A challenge to him, perhaps! He's not let her down.
Our lives are not "charmed." We both have some health issues that are largely of our own making --with some genetic predispositions we were given and sweet teeth! But we feel blessed in the love of four wonderful kids and two children-in-law and two grandsons--whose music --and harmony of relationships --are the delight of our ears! And they all believe in Christ and are church-active.
I hate to drive with him as he tries to drive FOR me --and I'm a back-seat driver about the boat. We each see disaster coming --and damage --he when I drive the car and I, when he drives a boat!
The monetary blessings we have are due in great part to my husband's energy, stamina, and drive --and work-aholicism. But I credit God for opening med school to him, for giving him diligence and care in his work, a love for what he does --a love for people he serves --a servant's heart. An incredibly tolerant and patient man --with patients and with me.
He used to prefer young families as patients because they weren't terribly ill and he didn't enjoy the elderly as much for all their problems--but the more he practiced medicine, the more he came to really enjoy the elderly. He is a med. director at 3 nursing homes --and he takes his antique postcard books from various vicinities to show his patients who are from those areas. He sings to the ladies --he has a song for every name, he said. E.G. He'll go into a patient's room singing (in a most beautiful dramatic tenor voice) "How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? A Flibbertygibbit, a willow the wisp, a clown!" Filling in the lady's name to the tune of the famous song by the nuns in Sound of Music. to their great enjoyment. My daughter was with him in a nursing home once, and the elderly resident said to her, "Handsome doctor! Is he married?"
He enjoys bringing donuts and sneaking plastic spiders onto the nurses' stations --and preaching politics and his faith whenever the opportunity arises --whether it does or not, probably!
This man bought us a new Bennington pontoon in this our 40th anniversary year(we're helping the economy) and a solar-powered boat lift with canopy --as user-friendly a boat could be --if we can just aim it into the lift before we hit the dock! The first day it was windy and we almost crashed our new pontoon into our other old boat and dock before we got lined up to hitch it up --that was before we had the new lift which helps if we can just nose into it. Daughter Chrissy was supposed to help guide us to the right place --but she was standing on the pier waving her arms uselessly as a bird kept dive-bombing at her! The waves were pushing us, the wind a-blowing, and Jon was yelling, "Never mind the bird! Catch the boat!" If you could see all 105 pounds of her, you'd know she wasn't going to be able to catch the boat in the wind and waves --and she couldn't ignore the bird and kept flailing her arms in front of her as she cowered. Finally --we got righted and docked. But not before we snagged the new ladder and broke the snap that held it up--snagged it on our motor boat's lift. Since then, we've let the bimini top slam down a few times and lost the zipper case for the bimini top. The Bimini light still works--amazingly. Guess the bimini cover floated away --perhaps when the kids were trying to attach the huge canvas boat cover. It was the same color and stored in the same place, so, being much smaller than the boat cover, it may have gotten away without their notice and landed in the bottom of the lake somewhere. Something made a hole in our boat cover already, too. Almost looks like the work of a dive-bombing bird! But boat troubles are the story of our lake lives. We're hoping the 2nd daughter will marry a boat enthusiast! who wants to go up every weekend and see that the batteries aren't dead --as they so often are as the boats need to be run--and we are usually too busy to go up very often.
But with new faith in the latest boat technology, and hope for more lake time in the future, and so we could easily get our elderly mothers onto a boat, we got ourselves this "old ladies' boat," a lovely living room on the water with plush upholstery --capacity 17 normal people --and we took it out last night, just the two of us, for a sunset ann'y cruise. We did get it at a good price, from what we can tell--not as much as we expected considering the size and brand. Hubby set the gear to neutral, turned on the "mood lights," and sat in the back seat with me as we listened to PBS symphonic music, reminisced and watched the sun go down. It was absolutely lovely and romantic.
This followed a wedding in Ft. Wayne --of our niece --where he sat down our camera bag and lost it at the Rose Garden, where the wedding took place in light rain. He went back and someone said they were asked about the camera bag by a person who said he knew the wedding party and would make connections. We're thinking it was a later wedding group the camera-finder knew --or he just was making sure the camera owner wasn't around before he made off with it. It didn't show up at the reception as we'd hoped.
That wedding reception was in the Baker St. Train Station in Ft. Wayne. And my husband recalled that my dad picked us up there in 1970 --near our first anniversary-- when we found out that he had been admitted to med school. We had almost started a teaching stint in West Africa with the Mennonites when he got the call that he had moved up on the waiting list and was admitted! My father was delighted --not really wanting to see his Bar-baby go to Africa! He was also happy that my husband was admitted to the medical school where my father had turned down a PhD program to work with Dr. Doisy, discoverer of Vitamin K. (My father always regretted that he turned down that opportunity --but he was tired of going to school and knew of jobs for his Masters' Degree in chem. )
Of course, the boat and camera stories here are just incidental; the real story is that some of us are still going the distance as couples and finding the journey worthwhile all the way. And recommend marriage --the old-fashioned way.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Atheist Philosopher Criticizes Other Atheists for Dogmatism
from Rob R
A while ago when I was writing my blog topic on divine foreknowledge, I knew I might have to defend my claims about my denial of God's timelessness from the consideration of relativistic physics which many have understandably taken to reflect an eternalist picture of the universe. In that event, I searched for a link to an article written by a philosopher of science which pointed out that there were alternatives to relativity in response to the conflict of relativity and quantum mechanics that are compatible with a presentist universe.
I looked for more by the author and found his blog. It turns out that the author, Bradley Monton, is an atheist who also defends Intelligent Design as serious science (though I'm not sure if he agrees with it).
I wanted to highlight his comments he made in an interview on his views of Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous."
Source
A while ago when I was writing my blog topic on divine foreknowledge, I knew I might have to defend my claims about my denial of God's timelessness from the consideration of relativistic physics which many have understandably taken to reflect an eternalist picture of the universe. In that event, I searched for a link to an article written by a philosopher of science which pointed out that there were alternatives to relativity in response to the conflict of relativity and quantum mechanics that are compatible with a presentist universe.
I looked for more by the author and found his blog. It turns out that the author, Bradley Monton, is an atheist who also defends Intelligent Design as serious science (though I'm not sure if he agrees with it).
I wanted to highlight his comments he made in an interview on his views of Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous."
Maher’s supposed doubt does not go both ways. While Monton acknowledges that though he is an atheist, he is not certain about his atheism, Maher is all too certain that the totems of twenty-first century scientific materialism are beyond question. Essentially, Maher is commending doubt, disbelief actually, to religious people, and for the most part, giving a pass to himself and his fellow “rationalists”. Luskin asks Monton: “What do you think happens when a person tries to pretend that there is no reason or room for any doubt or self-introspection in their worldview?” Monton replies:
“I think that leads to dogmatism, in part, and this sort of emotional reaction to the people who are on the other side. Because, if you think that the other side has nothing going for it, you’re going to dismiss them and react badly to them… Unfortunately what I’ve been encountering lately are more atheists who seem to be completely, incredibly dogmatic about their view, and then, at least in my personal experience, I’m encountering Christians who are more sympathetic.”
Source
Monday, July 20, 2009
Review of Dan Kimball's They Like Jesus but Not the Church
I'm not done with this book; almost done. Meanwhile, what I did read is fresh on my mind.
Author/pastor Dan Kimball has much good to say that has been said in every generation at least since the 60's when I was in college and we were reading up on Christian apologetics and evangelism. "Friendship evangelism" was once a theme; "Into the Neighborhoods" was a recent thrust for my church. Angel Food ministries and Angel Arms ministries provide food and clothes at low or no cost. There are Christian homeless shelters --and the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have always set a good example.
We've long known that we should have non-Christian friends --and most Christians do. Most have non-Christian relatives. We realize that you can't bring people into your church if you don't know any people to invite --and building relationships is important. But many people see verbal witness as ending relationships, as unwelcome and impolite; it is important to present a positive image of "Christian," and "Church." One of the best ways to do that STILL IS to bring people into the church for a visit. Where the body gathers, the Holy Spirit is present; discipling is done through teaching, preaching, and even music.
He challenges the church to be "missional." This, too, has always been a theme of evangelicals, to meet the needs of the poor, to reach out to the widow and the fatherless, relatives, neighbors, children and youth. Some have ministries at Hospice and nursing homes and to unsaved relatives. When I was a child, World Vision sought money from Christians for their global ministries to what became known as "The third world" nations. Evangelicals have always sent aid and missionaries around the world to proclaim the truth about Jesus Christ --and to be His compassionate Body in the world. When people bring us their problems, it is an opportunity to speak and practice God's principles --an opportunity to help.
He himself, as a pastor, wanted to get out of the office and minister to non-Christians more. This, too, is nothing new --but surely ministers and laymen in every generation need to be challenged on this point. Our church's ministers have always had relationships to people outside the church with good result-- or at least, good effort! He talks about meeting women and men in coffee houses and places where young people hang out--just to talk. He should be careful, however. Four decades ago,The Bourbon Street Evangelist spent time doing this, himself, and then fell into sexual sin with person(s?) he met that way.
Kimball's point is not apologetics, but about the young people's perception of the church and their fondness of Jesus but reluctance to be part of "organized religion." He published this 2 years ago and said he rarely meets anyone in his interviews and travels who admits to being an atheist. I think that is different today, with more atheists coming "out of the closet" and angrily/obnoxiously so. There are many atheist blogs, e.g. which always tie the theory of evolution into their atheistic stand.
Kimball does spend a lot of time on the issue of homosexuals and the perception that the church hates and scorns them. He rightly challenges traditionalists about their humor and privately expressed scorn for "fags" and "queers." He also joins with the church's critics to decry the fact that the evangelicals are identified as fundamentalists and political right-wingers who see homosexuals as having an evil agenda. He wants us to know that a gay pride parade doesn't really represent mainstream homosexuals. (Then why do our major corporations give them money for said parades?)
Which makes me wonder if my old friend's gay beach week events on the east coast are really a better example of the movement and the agenda which Kimball says they don't have. There's something unseemly in those photos of thousands of half-naked, primped and coiffed, overly buff men gathered together in search of hook-ups. Just as unseemly as hetero-beach weeks, for that matter, where people are willing to make temporary hook-ups based on superficial appearances and desire for sex --friends with benefits. Every Biblical prophet would decry the evils of their generation; why would the church do differently today?
I do feel sorry --as I often say --about people with GID (gender identity disorder) many of whom think like the opposite sex in their attractions. I feel sorry for those caught in the trap of sex addiction with their own sex.
However, I don't know where bisexuals deserve special compassion for something they can't help since no one who acts indiscriminately to have sex with more than one person, who can be attracted to either sex deserves a presidential honor for it, such as Obama gave them in his recent LGBT Pride Month. The bisexual is one who definitely has a choice --having sex-perimented himself into a decision that he/she is capable and willing on either side of the door.
I believe there is a sense in which everyone is bisexual --only in having buttons that can be pushed by anyone to produce a certain result. Which is why they say that having an orgasm during rape does not mean you really are guilty of consensual sex even if there was a level of arousal. I would not think very many women could be aroused by force -but I think men might --but normal men would fight first like the dickens! Likewise, arousal with the same sex wouldn't mean one was inevitably homosexual, preferring one's own sex. Arousal at the sight of same sex porn, e.g., is not indication of homosexuality--but of sexual arousal at the sight of erotic material --porn is, after all, the devil's tool --and terribly effective and addictive at making people feel their OWN sexuality. Sexual images and sexual touch arouse persons sexually.
Attraction to friendship and a niche with attractive people of the same sex is normal. It is not normal to fixate sexually and be aroused by friends of the same sex --but that doesn't mean there are not causes of this abnormality that can be prevented and remedied --always my point. We should encourage child-rearing to help kids have normal gender identity and attraction. We should help them understand that errant thoughts, sinful thoughts, are to be barred at the mind's gate --along with thoughts of incest, adultery, pedophilia, fornication, theft, murder, rape --and so on. We don't even bring up such thoughts to our children --they are "unthinkable," and so it used to be with homosexual thinking. One would not "go there" for more than a flash of thought at the possibility --but now, our youth are being made by culture to contemplate and explore the possibility that gay is ok and that they may just be gay.
Kimball, to educate us, raises the Biblical arguments used in favor of homosexuality--citing the other purity laws that we no longer keep. So far, I haven't seen any good arguments from him to the contrary --I think he's baffled, though he comes down on the Creation intention in Eden --"male and female created He them."
If keeping certain purity laws is no longer important to the church, gays argue, than how do we determine that homosexuality is still a sin? To that I would ask, how do we therefore determine ANY laws to be valid today? Why NOT steal? Why NOT lie? Why NOT murder? After all, we eat shellfish, don't we???? The argument doesn't hold. The homosexual would say, however, that he thinks he's not violating anyone else with a homosexual relationship. I believe history tells us that many young men are lured into homosexuality by older gays because they crave and were denied manly attention and affection--or because they became addicted to their kindly molestor's activities and concluded they had a homosexual orientation thereafter --or because they identified too much with their mothers over their fathers.
There seems to be a failure in his book to realize just how unseemly and abnormal and "not-expedient" homosexual behaviors are, how frought with disease, how hurtful, how addictive and risky --how contrary to God's creative design for our procreative bodies --how much in violation of the wait-for-hetero-marriage principle in scripture.
He wants us to really soften our opposition to people who are practicing homosexuals, who are also declaring gay to be OK with God. He concludes that he thinks homosexual behavior is a sin --but he speaks of people who find that they "are" homosexual --who find that these stirrings in youth are afflicting them and determine that they "are" homosexual.
I disagree that they "are" homosexual, if he means "designed or destined to be." Depends on what "are" means. They are male or female with a God-given prescription for their bio-assignment. Anything else should be shunned at the first inkling just like thoughts of pedophilia, promiscuity, incest, adultery, etc. "Guard your heart," Amy Grant sang. And "Bar the Door" to temptation, the Bible says --over and over and over again.
The more we normalize homosexual behavior in our culture, the more people will try it in their adventurous, careless, volatile, immature youth, and conclude that they "are" homosexual--and open themselves to STD's and abnormal sexual fixation. The church and parents are the last bulwark against such thinking --and Kimball wants us to mellow the message on this issue.
Yet, he talks about standing up for truth.
I am reminded of Ann Coulter's remarks --that liberal people want to make conservatives doubt their principles --and change to accommodate their critics. I see this here. We are to think the church is wrong to denounce sin with any strength lest we alienate sinners --that we should never speak of Jesus' promise to separate sheep from goats, that we should not proclaim that we are a wicked generation in need of repentance.
If only we were more loving, then more people would be saved and see the light! But he seems to want us to dim the light of righteousness of God and the necessity of repentance for sin --by agreeing with the non-Christian critics of the church.
Jesus DID say the world hated Him and would hate us --Kimball SEEMS to think there is a way to avoid receiving this hate --if we de-emphasize any concerns against communism, atheism, denying the possibility of intelligence behind naturalism in our science ed., homosexuality, shacking up, divorce, etc.
We've all known Christians who were popular --whose neighbors could each say, "He was a nice guy --never pushed his religion --and I'm still not a Christian--but he really was a Christian, because he didn't prick my conscience!! And I'm still headed for Hell and don't know it because he never told me the truth about the Gospel of Christ--since he knew I wasn't interested --and it was more important to him that he be liked by me."
I've been accused of being obnoxious in my witness on line --probably not so much in personal relationships. I surely do know some obnoxious Christians whose arguments are mainly in-house --Christian against Christian. NOw THAT's what we need a book about!!! I do have friends whose tails I avoid stepping on --but I still try to use Biblical counsel if opportunity presents itself.
I understand that self-righteousness is despised by God as is pride. I know the Church must be loving --and that we need to make friends outside the church in order to introduce them to Christ and bring them INTO the church for discipleship. But I think I hear too much agreement by Mr. Kimball with those unbelievers who love their idea of Jesus --not the biblical Jesus. Who would also think we can afford to vote for politicians who support gay marriage and abortion.
I'm not through with the book --more, later.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Author/pastor Dan Kimball has much good to say that has been said in every generation at least since the 60's when I was in college and we were reading up on Christian apologetics and evangelism. "Friendship evangelism" was once a theme; "Into the Neighborhoods" was a recent thrust for my church. Angel Food ministries and Angel Arms ministries provide food and clothes at low or no cost. There are Christian homeless shelters --and the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have always set a good example.
We've long known that we should have non-Christian friends --and most Christians do. Most have non-Christian relatives. We realize that you can't bring people into your church if you don't know any people to invite --and building relationships is important. But many people see verbal witness as ending relationships, as unwelcome and impolite; it is important to present a positive image of "Christian," and "Church." One of the best ways to do that STILL IS to bring people into the church for a visit. Where the body gathers, the Holy Spirit is present; discipling is done through teaching, preaching, and even music.
He challenges the church to be "missional." This, too, has always been a theme of evangelicals, to meet the needs of the poor, to reach out to the widow and the fatherless, relatives, neighbors, children and youth. Some have ministries at Hospice and nursing homes and to unsaved relatives. When I was a child, World Vision sought money from Christians for their global ministries to what became known as "The third world" nations. Evangelicals have always sent aid and missionaries around the world to proclaim the truth about Jesus Christ --and to be His compassionate Body in the world. When people bring us their problems, it is an opportunity to speak and practice God's principles --an opportunity to help.
He himself, as a pastor, wanted to get out of the office and minister to non-Christians more. This, too, is nothing new --but surely ministers and laymen in every generation need to be challenged on this point. Our church's ministers have always had relationships to people outside the church with good result-- or at least, good effort! He talks about meeting women and men in coffee houses and places where young people hang out--just to talk. He should be careful, however. Four decades ago,The Bourbon Street Evangelist spent time doing this, himself, and then fell into sexual sin with person(s?) he met that way.
Kimball's point is not apologetics, but about the young people's perception of the church and their fondness of Jesus but reluctance to be part of "organized religion." He published this 2 years ago and said he rarely meets anyone in his interviews and travels who admits to being an atheist. I think that is different today, with more atheists coming "out of the closet" and angrily/obnoxiously so. There are many atheist blogs, e.g. which always tie the theory of evolution into their atheistic stand.
Kimball does spend a lot of time on the issue of homosexuals and the perception that the church hates and scorns them. He rightly challenges traditionalists about their humor and privately expressed scorn for "fags" and "queers." He also joins with the church's critics to decry the fact that the evangelicals are identified as fundamentalists and political right-wingers who see homosexuals as having an evil agenda. He wants us to know that a gay pride parade doesn't really represent mainstream homosexuals. (Then why do our major corporations give them money for said parades?)
Which makes me wonder if my old friend's gay beach week events on the east coast are really a better example of the movement and the agenda which Kimball says they don't have. There's something unseemly in those photos of thousands of half-naked, primped and coiffed, overly buff men gathered together in search of hook-ups. Just as unseemly as hetero-beach weeks, for that matter, where people are willing to make temporary hook-ups based on superficial appearances and desire for sex --friends with benefits. Every Biblical prophet would decry the evils of their generation; why would the church do differently today?
I do feel sorry --as I often say --about people with GID (gender identity disorder) many of whom think like the opposite sex in their attractions. I feel sorry for those caught in the trap of sex addiction with their own sex.
However, I don't know where bisexuals deserve special compassion for something they can't help since no one who acts indiscriminately to have sex with more than one person, who can be attracted to either sex deserves a presidential honor for it, such as Obama gave them in his recent LGBT Pride Month. The bisexual is one who definitely has a choice --having sex-perimented himself into a decision that he/she is capable and willing on either side of the door.
I believe there is a sense in which everyone is bisexual --only in having buttons that can be pushed by anyone to produce a certain result. Which is why they say that having an orgasm during rape does not mean you really are guilty of consensual sex even if there was a level of arousal. I would not think very many women could be aroused by force -but I think men might --but normal men would fight first like the dickens! Likewise, arousal with the same sex wouldn't mean one was inevitably homosexual, preferring one's own sex. Arousal at the sight of same sex porn, e.g., is not indication of homosexuality--but of sexual arousal at the sight of erotic material --porn is, after all, the devil's tool --and terribly effective and addictive at making people feel their OWN sexuality. Sexual images and sexual touch arouse persons sexually.
Attraction to friendship and a niche with attractive people of the same sex is normal. It is not normal to fixate sexually and be aroused by friends of the same sex --but that doesn't mean there are not causes of this abnormality that can be prevented and remedied --always my point. We should encourage child-rearing to help kids have normal gender identity and attraction. We should help them understand that errant thoughts, sinful thoughts, are to be barred at the mind's gate --along with thoughts of incest, adultery, pedophilia, fornication, theft, murder, rape --and so on. We don't even bring up such thoughts to our children --they are "unthinkable," and so it used to be with homosexual thinking. One would not "go there" for more than a flash of thought at the possibility --but now, our youth are being made by culture to contemplate and explore the possibility that gay is ok and that they may just be gay.
Kimball, to educate us, raises the Biblical arguments used in favor of homosexuality--citing the other purity laws that we no longer keep. So far, I haven't seen any good arguments from him to the contrary --I think he's baffled, though he comes down on the Creation intention in Eden --"male and female created He them."
If keeping certain purity laws is no longer important to the church, gays argue, than how do we determine that homosexuality is still a sin? To that I would ask, how do we therefore determine ANY laws to be valid today? Why NOT steal? Why NOT lie? Why NOT murder? After all, we eat shellfish, don't we???? The argument doesn't hold. The homosexual would say, however, that he thinks he's not violating anyone else with a homosexual relationship. I believe history tells us that many young men are lured into homosexuality by older gays because they crave and were denied manly attention and affection--or because they became addicted to their kindly molestor's activities and concluded they had a homosexual orientation thereafter --or because they identified too much with their mothers over their fathers.
There seems to be a failure in his book to realize just how unseemly and abnormal and "not-expedient" homosexual behaviors are, how frought with disease, how hurtful, how addictive and risky --how contrary to God's creative design for our procreative bodies --how much in violation of the wait-for-hetero-marriage principle in scripture.
He wants us to really soften our opposition to people who are practicing homosexuals, who are also declaring gay to be OK with God. He concludes that he thinks homosexual behavior is a sin --but he speaks of people who find that they "are" homosexual --who find that these stirrings in youth are afflicting them and determine that they "are" homosexual.
I disagree that they "are" homosexual, if he means "designed or destined to be." Depends on what "are" means. They are male or female with a God-given prescription for their bio-assignment. Anything else should be shunned at the first inkling just like thoughts of pedophilia, promiscuity, incest, adultery, etc. "Guard your heart," Amy Grant sang. And "Bar the Door" to temptation, the Bible says --over and over and over again.
The more we normalize homosexual behavior in our culture, the more people will try it in their adventurous, careless, volatile, immature youth, and conclude that they "are" homosexual--and open themselves to STD's and abnormal sexual fixation. The church and parents are the last bulwark against such thinking --and Kimball wants us to mellow the message on this issue.
Yet, he talks about standing up for truth.
I am reminded of Ann Coulter's remarks --that liberal people want to make conservatives doubt their principles --and change to accommodate their critics. I see this here. We are to think the church is wrong to denounce sin with any strength lest we alienate sinners --that we should never speak of Jesus' promise to separate sheep from goats, that we should not proclaim that we are a wicked generation in need of repentance.
If only we were more loving, then more people would be saved and see the light! But he seems to want us to dim the light of righteousness of God and the necessity of repentance for sin --by agreeing with the non-Christian critics of the church.
Jesus DID say the world hated Him and would hate us --Kimball SEEMS to think there is a way to avoid receiving this hate --if we de-emphasize any concerns against communism, atheism, denying the possibility of intelligence behind naturalism in our science ed., homosexuality, shacking up, divorce, etc.
We've all known Christians who were popular --whose neighbors could each say, "He was a nice guy --never pushed his religion --and I'm still not a Christian--but he really was a Christian, because he didn't prick my conscience!! And I'm still headed for Hell and don't know it because he never told me the truth about the Gospel of Christ--since he knew I wasn't interested --and it was more important to him that he be liked by me."
I've been accused of being obnoxious in my witness on line --probably not so much in personal relationships. I surely do know some obnoxious Christians whose arguments are mainly in-house --Christian against Christian. NOw THAT's what we need a book about!!! I do have friends whose tails I avoid stepping on --but I still try to use Biblical counsel if opportunity presents itself.
I understand that self-righteousness is despised by God as is pride. I know the Church must be loving --and that we need to make friends outside the church in order to introduce them to Christ and bring them INTO the church for discipleship. But I think I hear too much agreement by Mr. Kimball with those unbelievers who love their idea of Jesus --not the biblical Jesus. Who would also think we can afford to vote for politicians who support gay marriage and abortion.
I'm not through with the book --more, later.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, July 19, 2009
NATURAL MOM PREVAILS OVER LESBIAN EX-PARTNER IN PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=604794
The above link is to a news story in which the Alliance Defense Fund attorney defended a woman's right to her natural child, despite signed agreements made earlier with a lesbian partner. She has since converted to Christ and married a man and they are making a normal home for the child.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
The above link is to a news story in which the Alliance Defense Fund attorney defended a woman's right to her natural child, despite signed agreements made earlier with a lesbian partner. She has since converted to Christ and married a man and they are making a normal home for the child.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sharia in America --Dearborn 2009 Festival
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Mudrake Needs Rebuttal
Apparently a Robert Wright explained his atheistic views on Bill Moyers'Journal last night. See Mudrake's blog, here.
Mudrake, your Mr. Wright seems to gloss over the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That was 20 plus short centuries ago. I don't think the NT writers fictionalized, as he has to believe--as you apparently believe --and yet you sent some Clear Lake sand in the casket for your sister's journey--just like an Egyptian.
Faith in Christ's resurrection is a certitude for me --I feel sure the accounts of the New Testament are true.
And no Mr. Wright can take that away.
You know, there is a certain arrogance in a kid who is happy to rebut resurrection in the name of naturalism. Wright must have been a joy to his Baptist parents!
It brings to mind some thoughts on parenting for inspiring faith. Children need to see that our faith works in our family life to bring about forgiveness and harmony, self-control and other fruits of the Spirit. They need to see that love characterizes their parents personalities. They need to see that the Gospel is truly the Good News and not a killjoy --not the bad news about all the things they aren't supposed to do being Christians. They need to see that God's laws and principles are for our good and protection--for our well-being --including happiness in life.
It's also interesting that as a child, Robert Wright could see that naturalism as in Darwin's theory was an atheistic theory --as theistic evolutionists deny.
Although, granted, if evolution is ever really proven as God's way of creation, I'd have no personal problem with it --it just seems inconsistent with His nature to use death and predators as a means of progress in upward mobility of life forms --since His Word says death entered the world with man's sin --and not before.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Mudrake, your Mr. Wright seems to gloss over the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That was 20 plus short centuries ago. I don't think the NT writers fictionalized, as he has to believe--as you apparently believe --and yet you sent some Clear Lake sand in the casket for your sister's journey--just like an Egyptian.
Faith in Christ's resurrection is a certitude for me --I feel sure the accounts of the New Testament are true.
And no Mr. Wright can take that away.
You know, there is a certain arrogance in a kid who is happy to rebut resurrection in the name of naturalism. Wright must have been a joy to his Baptist parents!
It brings to mind some thoughts on parenting for inspiring faith. Children need to see that our faith works in our family life to bring about forgiveness and harmony, self-control and other fruits of the Spirit. They need to see that love characterizes their parents personalities. They need to see that the Gospel is truly the Good News and not a killjoy --not the bad news about all the things they aren't supposed to do being Christians. They need to see that God's laws and principles are for our good and protection--for our well-being --including happiness in life.
It's also interesting that as a child, Robert Wright could see that naturalism as in Darwin's theory was an atheistic theory --as theistic evolutionists deny.
Although, granted, if evolution is ever really proven as God's way of creation, I'd have no personal problem with it --it just seems inconsistent with His nature to use death and predators as a means of progress in upward mobility of life forms --since His Word says death entered the world with man's sin --and not before.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, July 17, 2009
WHY CHRISTIANITY WILL SURVIVE --Children's Ministries!
Of course, any believer knows that the Church of Christ (aka Christianity) will survive because we believe prophecy.
But there's another reason: At least 150 kids came to our church's VBS (Vacation Bible School) this week. 97 was the biggest single evening attendance --this is at least 20 more than last year.
Did the atheists have such an event this summer? Granted, public school and TV can be daily secular indoctrination. But the message at VBS and other church children's ministries is unique among cultural messages and always includes the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins that we might be forgiven and inherit eternal life. No other message can compare.
This year, we were the underground church --with a scary Roman guard lurking here and there (Mayor Yunker's son.) We had a "cave" classroom, created by Sue Conklin where Gail Hulbert Warton, dressed as a first c. Roman Christian, used power point to tell the stories of Paul, the greatest Christian missionary of the first century.
Sue also created ivy-draped "marble" Roman columns and a marketplace with "ancient" fabrics --the prize corner --prizes for bringing friends and being a visitor.
Stephanie Rohrs Hulbert directed the music, aided by her sister, Christine. These were wonderful songs, including, "They will know we are Christians by our love," "Grace Flows Down and Covers Me," "To God be the Glory" performed by the 3rd and 4th grade as puppeteers," a new song on God's Love in Jewish style, with the girls doing a Jewish folk dance and the boys playing rhythm instruments (grades 5-8), and an old standard revived, "Come into my heart, come into my heart, come into my heart, Lord Jesus....Come in today; come in to stay; come into my heart Lord Jesus." All the children learned a dance-game with a Jewish flavor. Many of the songs were taught with sign language or other motions. Stephanie also emphasized the evening's memory verse each night. There were a couple of effective puppet shows, too, by the Hulberts, Bruce, Scott, Gail and STephanie. Chrissy rattled the jail and opened the jail door for Paul and Silas --who were cute as could be in their Bible clothes.
We also had wonderful visits from Lucia and Marcus (the DeMatteos, our own acting duo) --two first c. Christians who cautioned us to be very quiet lest the guards find our church cave.
After a kids' supper for all provided by the church ladies headed by Sarah Hand, the classes rotated through the story time with Gail, a professional educator, the craft time with several ladies helping, including at least one professional education-trained Sue Conklin--they made very cute brick doorstops. They had recreation with Cory and Eva Fritch (he's a professional elem. science educator), and also Dave Simpson and John Ringger doing the jr. high recreation, and music with Hulbert and Rohrs, both professional music educators.
The Junior High had a week planned by yours truly with a Pregnancy Center RSVP (Responsible Sexual Values Program) speaker, an Afr. American lady who did a fine job with a sensitive topic. She spoke 3 days; on the first day we were in sync with the rest of the Bible School's theme and read Paul's testimony from the Bible, telling of his conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a passionate disciple. We concluded in the final session with a reflection on the persecuted church today and a Ray Vander Lann film segment that took place in the underground church in the caves of Capadocia --during the persecution by the Emperors in the early 4th century B.C. --which included quotes on the martyrs of those days. It was very moving. We also discussed why Christians are persecuted, noting that even Paul thought he was doing the right thing for Judaism by persecuting Christians --until He met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Then "he saw the light!!" And where he was once blind, now he could see!
All in all, a very enjoyable week, reinforcing faith of the faithful, and sharing the Good News of Christ with those who haven't heard.
Secular pop culture is very influential on people today --but so is the church --and we have the Holy Spirit who is greater than Satan any day --but it takes knowledge of the Word and the preaching of the Gospel to reach each future generation. We must do it.
Let us not be weary of well-doing. Next week, 19 Trail Blazers go to our church camp in Somerset, Michigan for 3 days. They will again have opportunity to hear about Christ and the challenge to run the race of faith to the finish.
It's neat to see the children of the church grow up to take their place in passing on the baton of faith. All of the VBS leaders were raised in the church and in Christian homes. We are still passing on the truth --that Jesus rose from the grave --and said all who believe this and follow Him will inherit eternal life.
Credit to Director Jenni King and her helper, Inga Wood --and all their cooperative children --8 between them --who brought many friends!
As the church loves and reaches out, so she grows!!!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
But there's another reason: At least 150 kids came to our church's VBS (Vacation Bible School) this week. 97 was the biggest single evening attendance --this is at least 20 more than last year.
Did the atheists have such an event this summer? Granted, public school and TV can be daily secular indoctrination. But the message at VBS and other church children's ministries is unique among cultural messages and always includes the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins that we might be forgiven and inherit eternal life. No other message can compare.
This year, we were the underground church --with a scary Roman guard lurking here and there (Mayor Yunker's son.) We had a "cave" classroom, created by Sue Conklin where Gail Hulbert Warton, dressed as a first c. Roman Christian, used power point to tell the stories of Paul, the greatest Christian missionary of the first century.
Sue also created ivy-draped "marble" Roman columns and a marketplace with "ancient" fabrics --the prize corner --prizes for bringing friends and being a visitor.
Stephanie Rohrs Hulbert directed the music, aided by her sister, Christine. These were wonderful songs, including, "They will know we are Christians by our love," "Grace Flows Down and Covers Me," "To God be the Glory" performed by the 3rd and 4th grade as puppeteers," a new song on God's Love in Jewish style, with the girls doing a Jewish folk dance and the boys playing rhythm instruments (grades 5-8), and an old standard revived, "Come into my heart, come into my heart, come into my heart, Lord Jesus....Come in today; come in to stay; come into my heart Lord Jesus." All the children learned a dance-game with a Jewish flavor. Many of the songs were taught with sign language or other motions. Stephanie also emphasized the evening's memory verse each night. There were a couple of effective puppet shows, too, by the Hulberts, Bruce, Scott, Gail and STephanie. Chrissy rattled the jail and opened the jail door for Paul and Silas --who were cute as could be in their Bible clothes.
We also had wonderful visits from Lucia and Marcus (the DeMatteos, our own acting duo) --two first c. Christians who cautioned us to be very quiet lest the guards find our church cave.
After a kids' supper for all provided by the church ladies headed by Sarah Hand, the classes rotated through the story time with Gail, a professional educator, the craft time with several ladies helping, including at least one professional education-trained Sue Conklin--they made very cute brick doorstops. They had recreation with Cory and Eva Fritch (he's a professional elem. science educator), and also Dave Simpson and John Ringger doing the jr. high recreation, and music with Hulbert and Rohrs, both professional music educators.
The Junior High had a week planned by yours truly with a Pregnancy Center RSVP (Responsible Sexual Values Program) speaker, an Afr. American lady who did a fine job with a sensitive topic. She spoke 3 days; on the first day we were in sync with the rest of the Bible School's theme and read Paul's testimony from the Bible, telling of his conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a passionate disciple. We concluded in the final session with a reflection on the persecuted church today and a Ray Vander Lann film segment that took place in the underground church in the caves of Capadocia --during the persecution by the Emperors in the early 4th century B.C. --which included quotes on the martyrs of those days. It was very moving. We also discussed why Christians are persecuted, noting that even Paul thought he was doing the right thing for Judaism by persecuting Christians --until He met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Then "he saw the light!!" And where he was once blind, now he could see!
All in all, a very enjoyable week, reinforcing faith of the faithful, and sharing the Good News of Christ with those who haven't heard.
Secular pop culture is very influential on people today --but so is the church --and we have the Holy Spirit who is greater than Satan any day --but it takes knowledge of the Word and the preaching of the Gospel to reach each future generation. We must do it.
Let us not be weary of well-doing. Next week, 19 Trail Blazers go to our church camp in Somerset, Michigan for 3 days. They will again have opportunity to hear about Christ and the challenge to run the race of faith to the finish.
It's neat to see the children of the church grow up to take their place in passing on the baton of faith. All of the VBS leaders were raised in the church and in Christian homes. We are still passing on the truth --that Jesus rose from the grave --and said all who believe this and follow Him will inherit eternal life.
Credit to Director Jenni King and her helper, Inga Wood --and all their cooperative children --8 between them --who brought many friends!
As the church loves and reaches out, so she grows!!!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Evolutionists: The Vast Majority is not so Vast.
From Rob
For those who've had discussions of evolution with me, I frequently run into the demonstrably false claim that there are no scientists who doubt evolution. That's when I demonstrate to the contrary by linking to the DiscoverY Institute's Petition of Dissent from Darwinianism which has the signatures of almost 800 scientists who are skeptical of the adequacy of fully natural evolution (and other naturalistic explanations) to explain where life comes from and it's diversity.
Some people have pointed out what a very small percentage of scientists that is (like 1 percent or less). Well, the problem with this is the assumption that all of the skeptics of naturalism actually signed. I've always said that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Evidently, I was right.
It turns out that Pew research has found that the percentage of scientists in a sample of more than 25 hundred who don't believe in evolution is actually much larger. According to Popsci, Pew research has found that "87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time." Leaving 13 percent (about 330) who wouldn't commit to that claim. Now, that's just of people who don't believe in evolution. Just think, that number wouldn't count all the ID theorists (Like Behe and Dembski) who do believe that life evolved over time even though they don't buy that it did so in a completely naturalistic way.
Yes, 13 percent is small, but it's not that small and if the number were to hold for for all scientstists, that still represents a huge community of not simply scientifically knowledgeable people, but people who are trained and functional in the sciences, people who have an intimate knowledge of how science works and probably some idea of it's limits.
source
For those who've had discussions of evolution with me, I frequently run into the demonstrably false claim that there are no scientists who doubt evolution. That's when I demonstrate to the contrary by linking to the DiscoverY Institute's Petition of Dissent from Darwinianism which has the signatures of almost 800 scientists who are skeptical of the adequacy of fully natural evolution (and other naturalistic explanations) to explain where life comes from and it's diversity.
Some people have pointed out what a very small percentage of scientists that is (like 1 percent or less). Well, the problem with this is the assumption that all of the skeptics of naturalism actually signed. I've always said that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Evidently, I was right.
It turns out that Pew research has found that the percentage of scientists in a sample of more than 25 hundred who don't believe in evolution is actually much larger. According to Popsci, Pew research has found that "87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time." Leaving 13 percent (about 330) who wouldn't commit to that claim. Now, that's just of people who don't believe in evolution. Just think, that number wouldn't count all the ID theorists (Like Behe and Dembski) who do believe that life evolved over time even though they don't buy that it did so in a completely naturalistic way.
Yes, 13 percent is small, but it's not that small and if the number were to hold for for all scientstists, that still represents a huge community of not simply scientifically knowledgeable people, but people who are trained and functional in the sciences, people who have an intimate knowledge of how science works and probably some idea of it's limits.
source
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
TIME MAGAZINE GOLD ON MARRIAGE!
Time magazine has a cover story this week on Why Marriage Matters. Without ever mentioning the gay marriage push, author Caitlin Flanagan uses recent high profile adulteries and research findings to illustrate her point on biological parents staying married to raise their children.
Here are some quotes:
Even
The article grants, however, that divorce, unwed and single parenting, are harder on the poor than on the rich.
So how will lesbian marriage provide that father? And how do gay couples provide the necessary mother? Not only does the article say fathers are important (and they will find that mothers are just as important,) it says that shacking up to raise children is unstable in its results. As soon as the man feels demands of parenting, he more readily exits, than if he had a legally binding ring and the prospect of divorce. However, nowhere does she imply that two men or two women married to each other will be good --since she says both biological parents IN THE HOME are optimal for children.
She says we are "increasingly less willing to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice" to have a lasting, loving marriage. She quoted Leonard Michaels who wrote, "Adultery is not about sex or romance. Ultimately, it is about how little we mean to one another."
She lambastes Sanford, Edwards, and Gosselin for wanting their personal fun and happiness at the expense of wife and children. I couldn't have said it as well (which is why she's writing for Time and I have a little blog.)
In favor of marriage, she writes:
In favor of bio-parents being married and staying married, she quoted Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist and single mother herself, who found that
It was intriguing that she mentioned Bill Clinton as supporting marriage policies (probably with his Republican Congress) and never mentioned HIM as adulterer or the Democrats' beloved JFK. She praised Obama for remarks made about fathering. He did author (or it was ghost-authored) a recent Father's Day article for Parade.
I do think it's high time that we returned shame to adultery --instead of letting a president stay in office for highly immoral behavior.
She quotes
(I do find that hard to believe, compared to Europe. I think there could be less divorce --if, in fact, there is less marriage --and we know their birth rate is lower than ours.)
But I bet we do have the highest rate of births to unwed women.
A final excerpt:
Finally, Flanagan asks,
This article is support for NOT redefining marriage to include any two people who think they love each other--regardless of their sex or orientation--though it doesn't mention the issue per se.
Before you all bring it up, of course, there are exceptions to sociologists' findings. The Jackson family, while monetarily successful, while having two bio-parents raise them, has produced some strange children--who appear to have all had their noses altered I noticed at the funeral today. Just having intact parents isn't EVERYTHING to mental and economic health and personal happiness; some parents are dysfunctional and abusive as MJ said his father was--and some kids turn out mixed up regardless of how good their parents are. But the sociologists are saying that OVERALL, children raised by both bio-parents in the home are better off in every way.
So let's not re-define marriage --and let's not permit gay adoption on a par with heterosexual adoption. Keep the bio-parents as close to all children as we can --except when those parents are proveably dangerous. And let's all get back to cherishing and sacrificing personal whims, tolerating the imperfect in our mates, rejecting temptation on the internet and everywhere else, for that ideal of lifetime marriage to raise children in a home with both Mom and Dad.
That would ALSO be good for American economy, with fewer people needing Uncle Sam to be their Daddy.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Here are some quotes:
The reason for these appeals to lasting unions is simple: on every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration--if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.
Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. Sociologist, Maria Kefalas, a feminist, says, 'The mom may not need that man, but her children still do.' Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child."
Even
"children from divorced middle-class parents do less well in school and at college compared with underprivileged kids from two-parent households."
The article grants, however, that divorce, unwed and single parenting, are harder on the poor than on the rich.
So how will lesbian marriage provide that father? And how do gay couples provide the necessary mother? Not only does the article say fathers are important (and they will find that mothers are just as important,) it says that shacking up to raise children is unstable in its results. As soon as the man feels demands of parenting, he more readily exits, than if he had a legally binding ring and the prospect of divorce. However, nowhere does she imply that two men or two women married to each other will be good --since she says both biological parents IN THE HOME are optimal for children.
She says we are "increasingly less willing to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice" to have a lasting, loving marriage. She quoted Leonard Michaels who wrote, "Adultery is not about sex or romance. Ultimately, it is about how little we mean to one another."
She lambastes Sanford, Edwards, and Gosselin for wanting their personal fun and happiness at the expense of wife and children. I couldn't have said it as well (which is why she's writing for Time and I have a little blog.)
Their actions were so willful and blatantly self-centered that the two of them could have credibly fashioned themselves as rebels, possibly even as heroes, if they could have just stopped crying. They weren't a couple of tools [did she mean "fools?"] stuck in sexless marriages and making up for it with internet porn. These guys had embarked on dangerously erotic rampages with real-life, unencumbered women, women who decidedly weren't ...[their wives.] The long-suffering wives, Fun Busters in Chief.
In favor of marriage, she writes:
a lasting covenant between a man and a woman can be a vehicle for the nurture and protection of each other, the one reliable shelter in an uncaring world--or it can be a matchless tool for the infliction of suffering on the people you supposedly love above all others, most of all on your children."
In favor of bio-parents being married and staying married, she quoted Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist and single mother herself, who found that
"Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or education background."
It was intriguing that she mentioned Bill Clinton as supporting marriage policies (probably with his Republican Congress) and never mentioned HIM as adulterer or the Democrats' beloved JFK. She praised Obama for remarks made about fathering. He did author (or it was ghost-authored) a recent Father's Day article for Parade.
I do think it's high time that we returned shame to adultery --instead of letting a president stay in office for highly immoral behavior.
She quotes
sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin in a landmark new book called, "The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. ...what is significant about contemporary american families, compared with those of other nations, is their combination of 'frequent marriage, frequent divorce: and the high number of "short-term co-habiting relationships."' Taken together, these forces 'create a great turbulence in American family life, a family flux, a coming and going of partners on a scale seen nowhere else. There are more partners in the personal lives of Americans than in the lives of people of any other Western country.'
(I do find that hard to believe, compared to Europe. I think there could be less divorce --if, in fact, there is less marriage --and we know their birth rate is lower than ours.)
But I bet we do have the highest rate of births to unwed women.
A final excerpt:
An increasingly fragile construct depending less and less on notions of sacrifice and obligation than on the ephemera of romance and happiness as defined by and for its adult principlals; the intact, two-parent family remains our cultural ideal, but it exists under constant assault. It is buffeted by affairs and ennui, subject to the eternal American hope for greater happiness, for changing the hand you dealt yourself. Getting married for life, having children and raising them with your partner--this is still the way most Americans are conducting adult life, but the numbers who are moving in a different direction continue to rise. Most notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported in May that births to unmarried women have reached an astonishing 39.7%
Finally, Flanagan asks,
is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function--to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instill in the habits of conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives--that's the generation who will be taking care of us [ed: or likely not] when we are old.
This article is support for NOT redefining marriage to include any two people who think they love each other--regardless of their sex or orientation--though it doesn't mention the issue per se.
Before you all bring it up, of course, there are exceptions to sociologists' findings. The Jackson family, while monetarily successful, while having two bio-parents raise them, has produced some strange children--who appear to have all had their noses altered I noticed at the funeral today. Just having intact parents isn't EVERYTHING to mental and economic health and personal happiness; some parents are dysfunctional and abusive as MJ said his father was--and some kids turn out mixed up regardless of how good their parents are. But the sociologists are saying that OVERALL, children raised by both bio-parents in the home are better off in every way.
So let's not re-define marriage --and let's not permit gay adoption on a par with heterosexual adoption. Keep the bio-parents as close to all children as we can --except when those parents are proveably dangerous. And let's all get back to cherishing and sacrificing personal whims, tolerating the imperfect in our mates, rejecting temptation on the internet and everywhere else, for that ideal of lifetime marriage to raise children in a home with both Mom and Dad.
That would ALSO be good for American economy, with fewer people needing Uncle Sam to be their Daddy.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Inspired by Blogs
On another blog, that shall remain nameless, the Perrysburg Tea Party was highlighted by a liberal commentator who concluded that the Tea-drinkers probably voted for Bush twice.
Bush was the more conservative of the two choices when GW Bush ran for president both times. So, of course, "tea drinkers" of Perrysburg would vote for the one who would take us leftward more slowly.
Bush slipped leftward on a few occasions --but Obama is steamrolling us downhill and off a cliff on almost every issue.
Change sounded good in a recession even though there were no specifics about the nature of such change--but if this recession doesn't turn around --the changes obama is making/has made will be seen for what they are --the most calamitous decisions for the economy made in recent presidencies.
Is it true that he has spent more thus far than all previous presidents put together? I heard it. If you count his "national healthcare planless plan" the statement is surely true. He said the other night on the health care "town hall" meeting, that he didn't know if it would cost one trillion or two. Yikes! What kind of shot in the dark is he trying to pass anyway?
I predict the economy will appear to rally for awhile -because some people who still have their jobs ARE spending more right now --because of the expected inflation and the devaluing of their dollars ---a future when they won't be able to afford what they can buy now. Others will hang on to what money they can, wondering how to protect retirement from the long reach of Obama's Uncle Sam, reaching into our pockets.
My kids gave my husband a birthday card --that said there would've been presents for him but the democrats decided that people whose birthday it was not, deserved his gifts instead.
Ain't that the truth!!??
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Bush was the more conservative of the two choices when GW Bush ran for president both times. So, of course, "tea drinkers" of Perrysburg would vote for the one who would take us leftward more slowly.
Bush slipped leftward on a few occasions --but Obama is steamrolling us downhill and off a cliff on almost every issue.
Change sounded good in a recession even though there were no specifics about the nature of such change--but if this recession doesn't turn around --the changes obama is making/has made will be seen for what they are --the most calamitous decisions for the economy made in recent presidencies.
Is it true that he has spent more thus far than all previous presidents put together? I heard it. If you count his "national healthcare planless plan" the statement is surely true. He said the other night on the health care "town hall" meeting, that he didn't know if it would cost one trillion or two. Yikes! What kind of shot in the dark is he trying to pass anyway?
I predict the economy will appear to rally for awhile -because some people who still have their jobs ARE spending more right now --because of the expected inflation and the devaluing of their dollars ---a future when they won't be able to afford what they can buy now. Others will hang on to what money they can, wondering how to protect retirement from the long reach of Obama's Uncle Sam, reaching into our pockets.
My kids gave my husband a birthday card --that said there would've been presents for him but the democrats decided that people whose birthday it was not, deserved his gifts instead.
Ain't that the truth!!??
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Conservatives Still Have Their Heads on Straight!!!
I caught this symposium on C-Span TV last week -- a re-run from June 3, when...
"Participants spoke about the state of the Republican Party and the future of the conservative movement. They spoke about a number of issues including the philosophical roots of conservatism, economic and social policy, and building outreach programs.
The title of the 2009 Bradley Symposium, sponsored by the Hudson Institute, was "Making Conservatism Credible Again."
A transcript is found here.
I was impressed with Rich Lowry, the youthful editor of National Review. His concluding remarks were as follows:
I was really pleased to hear them all speak in favor of our traditional social institutions, including strong families and the value of virtue.
Columnist Mona Charen was present and asked about the problem of 40 per cent of children being raised in single-parent homes --and how that affects culture and the future.
A response to her question by MITCH DANIELS:
Even after age 18, divorce of parents is traumatic for the kids and poverty-causing for women, especially --though the economic damage to divorcing men can also be considerable.
I was encouraged to see that the conservatives of the think tanks are not about to give up on their ideals as they have been encouraged to do. They don't see that conservatives need to change --though they haven't been pleased with the GOP for its waffling and weaknesses when it comes to defending core conservative principles--as they seek to widen their tent.
It will take education --better education--to teach the next generation the values of conservative --and Christian ideals.
Christian educators need to do a better job. I was astounded to hear this weekend that a certain church college even has a gay dorm. Obviously the Bible means very little to such a church-school in these days.
However, Jodi, a commenting blogger here says my source is inaccurate, since she works at that school. I'm relieved. My source was credible with connections to that church and college, but evidently had wrong info as to official dorm policy--I called the college also and they denied having any gay dorms. But I discuss in the comments below another concern I have regarding so-called Christian college dorm policies which that college DOES have.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Participants spoke about the state of the Republican Party and the future of the conservative movement. They spoke about a number of issues including the philosophical roots of conservatism, economic and social policy, and building outreach programs.
The title of the 2009 Bradley Symposium, sponsored by the Hudson Institute, was "Making Conservatism Credible Again."
A transcript is found here.
I was impressed with Rich Lowry, the youthful editor of National Review. His concluding remarks were as follows:
As conservatives,we have to believe that reality is on our side at the end of the day. We believe three things, if you want to boil them down:
(1)The market is the best way to allocate capital.
(2)The world is a dangerous place that requires a toughmindedness in confronting it.
(3)And three, you can’t have a healthy society without traditional social structures and without virtue.
And we don’t believe these things because they’re convenient or popular. They’re not always popular or convenient. We believe them because they are true, and because they are true, they will be vindicated. Eventually.
I was really pleased to hear them all speak in favor of our traditional social institutions, including strong families and the value of virtue.
Columnist Mona Charen was present and asked about the problem of 40 per cent of children being raised in single-parent homes --and how that affects culture and the future.
A response to her question by MITCH DANIELS:
Mona, first of all, you have – as you have for a long time – directed us to the number one social
problem facing the country. I tell audiences in my state – of all kinds, all the time – that if they gave me the proverbial wand, my one wish would be that every child in our state grow up in an intact family to the age of eighteen, in which
case every social pathology that tears at our hearts would diminish dramatically. We all know this.
Even after age 18, divorce of parents is traumatic for the kids and poverty-causing for women, especially --though the economic damage to divorcing men can also be considerable.
I was encouraged to see that the conservatives of the think tanks are not about to give up on their ideals as they have been encouraged to do. They don't see that conservatives need to change --though they haven't been pleased with the GOP for its waffling and weaknesses when it comes to defending core conservative principles--as they seek to widen their tent.
It will take education --better education--to teach the next generation the values of conservative --and Christian ideals.
Christian educators need to do a better job. I was astounded to hear this weekend that a certain church college even has a gay dorm. Obviously the Bible means very little to such a church-school in these days.
However, Jodi, a commenting blogger here says my source is inaccurate, since she works at that school. I'm relieved. My source was credible with connections to that church and college, but evidently had wrong info as to official dorm policy--I called the college also and they denied having any gay dorms. But I discuss in the comments below another concern I have regarding so-called Christian college dorm policies which that college DOES have.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)