On MSNBC, Olbermann made a plea for fairness to gays last night, saying they had the right to all that marriage provides. Mudrageous has printed the whole thing on my previous post, as a comment. There isn't anything there except an appeal to maudlin sentimentality and compassion that kills. For no matter what recognition the state gives, the wages of sin is STILL death! Homosexual approval will help to march these people straight to Hell when they die --if they don't see the light before then and come to the realization that it is the devil's lie that they had to be gay. They had choice in the beginning. God can still deliver them.
Keith quotes Darrow quoting a Persian poet --a very appropriate quote --about the poet preferring the Book of Love to having his name in the Book Above.
The Bible clearly says that the Book Above IS the Book of Love and the Book that counts --for Eternity. It is God's love for us that writes our name in the book above --the Lamb's Book of Life. Jesus sacrificed His life by God's will --that we may be in that book by believing in Him. There is no greater love than His for us.
He is calling homosexuals to wholeness --to truth --to his purpose for their bodies --not this sham half-life and imitation marriage that produces nothing but death --eternal death if they miss "the book above" --temporal death by the risks inherent in the lifestyle.
Satan is the great deceiver and he uses people like Keith Olbermann --obviously --because there is no alternative Book of Love --except The Book Above.
Well, I should say that the Bible is The Book of Love --but not the same one in which our names are written. That is a record of the REdeemed for Eternity --kept by the Lamb, Jesus Christ.
There is a maudlin sentimentality and compassion that is disingenous and misplaced when we think homosexuals really want and really need to have their couplings sanctified by "marriage." It won't help them be less lonely --or help them feel more normal and legitimate. Sin brings guilt and estrangement from God and nothing they can do ceremonially will fix it --until they repent and see that they have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped the creature instead of Creator.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
OBAMA'S WAR ON THE WOMB BEGINS!
Have we all heard about the executive orders obama says he will sign first: rescinding a law against public funding of abortions in family planning services abroad. Why should we fund these??? in our present economic state? Why should we try to tell other nations that they should allow abortion through our family planning programs --when most of them don't believe in abortion. Talk about imposing our values on other religious groups!
And I heard he's going to rescind the off-shore drilling order of Bush's --making us perpetually vulnerable to possibility of middle east cutting off our oil --say if al quaeda takes over Saudi Arabia --this is dangerous for us to be dependent on a hostile region for our oil --when we could get our own! Sure we want to develop other sources, but Obama let us believe he would reconsider off-shore drilling--and now I understand he plans to stop it.
Thirdly, he's going to sign permission to do experimentation on "excess frozen fetuses," --on "the snowflakes" --who could be implanted and adopted. We know that adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem cell research have yielded good results. Why do we have to tamper with tiny lives --who have all the potential to be unique human beings as they are implanted in a woman and start to grow. We don't need to kill human life for our experiments.
Bonhoeffer said you can tell the character of a society by how it treats its children. Yes indeed. And the character of a president, too.
Obama will invigorate the religious right, all the pro-lifers and traditional values folks. They became complacent with a pro-life president --and listened to the critics. never again! Actually, they were just pre-occupied, having many worthwhile things to do at job, home and church --and trusting Bush to do the best he could to resist abortion on demand and fetal experimentation.
We're going to see that he was a good president with lofty and noble goals --he saved babies. And he really saved Iraq from Sadam and AFghanistan from Taliban.
Now, watch Obama undo the good --causing many more to die by abortion and pulling out our troops.
He has also said he would close GITMO. And what is he going to do with the Taliban and others imprisoned there? Send them to jail in AFghanistan to have their heads cut off? Turn them loose in the U.S.? Send them home, free to regroup in AFghanistan?
I don't get left-wing thinking at all. No common sense! No compassion for fetuses or for people in 3rd world conditions whom we've helped so much. No sense about fuel --and what we would do if we were attacked again and didn't have enough gas to support our military because the middle east cut off our supply.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
And I heard he's going to rescind the off-shore drilling order of Bush's --making us perpetually vulnerable to possibility of middle east cutting off our oil --say if al quaeda takes over Saudi Arabia --this is dangerous for us to be dependent on a hostile region for our oil --when we could get our own! Sure we want to develop other sources, but Obama let us believe he would reconsider off-shore drilling--and now I understand he plans to stop it.
Thirdly, he's going to sign permission to do experimentation on "excess frozen fetuses," --on "the snowflakes" --who could be implanted and adopted. We know that adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem cell research have yielded good results. Why do we have to tamper with tiny lives --who have all the potential to be unique human beings as they are implanted in a woman and start to grow. We don't need to kill human life for our experiments.
Bonhoeffer said you can tell the character of a society by how it treats its children. Yes indeed. And the character of a president, too.
Obama will invigorate the religious right, all the pro-lifers and traditional values folks. They became complacent with a pro-life president --and listened to the critics. never again! Actually, they were just pre-occupied, having many worthwhile things to do at job, home and church --and trusting Bush to do the best he could to resist abortion on demand and fetal experimentation.
We're going to see that he was a good president with lofty and noble goals --he saved babies. And he really saved Iraq from Sadam and AFghanistan from Taliban.
Now, watch Obama undo the good --causing many more to die by abortion and pulling out our troops.
He has also said he would close GITMO. And what is he going to do with the Taliban and others imprisoned there? Send them to jail in AFghanistan to have their heads cut off? Turn them loose in the U.S.? Send them home, free to regroup in AFghanistan?
I don't get left-wing thinking at all. No common sense! No compassion for fetuses or for people in 3rd world conditions whom we've helped so much. No sense about fuel --and what we would do if we were attacked again and didn't have enough gas to support our military because the middle east cut off our supply.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, November 6, 2008
HOW TO REVIVE THE GOP
What did McCain do to energize the so-called "base" of the party? He nominated Sarah Palin, a pro-life, Christian, conservative woman --committed to reform in her state. And she had the IT factor --enormous charisma. Her whole family has it!
Many said he did this to attract the Hillary voters. I knew she wouldn't get many of them, because Hillary voters are pro-choice on abortion --and Sarah obviously is not. I think he really knew that he was nominating an evangelical who would energize evangelicals. And she did that.
If you listen to Ann Coulter, you do get another impression of what it is to be conservative. She's a bit more hard-line --and some of that is good. But there is a bit of difference in how she perceives the term "conservative" and how I believe Pastor Rick Warren would perceive it--or even Bush. E.g. I think there is a hard-edged kind of conservativism --that would APPEAR, or be INTERPRETED to be uncompassionate to illegals, the poor and unconcerned about the environment.
We need to get out the message of what environmental remedies may do to the poor in the short run that are worse than global warming.
WE of the evangelical right do believe in "spreading the wealth" through opportunity, public education, voluntarily sharing what we have, and social gov't AND charity programs to help the truly needy, the disabled, ill and elderly. But we also believe that self-reliance is a virtue to promote in the culture rather than dependency on others to do what we can do for ourselves. Why should we reward those who've been indolent, goofed off in school, chosen drugs and promiscuity? We do need to help their children --but we ought not make it of no consequence, perpetuating irresponsibility when one elects to ruin his own life. We need a little TOUGH LOVE in the gov't --and yet, we can't let people starve or live in squalid 3rd world conditions.
The church needs to reach out to all--as the Gospel of Christ is the best force for good in a culture. It draws people into Community --weekly --and this, at its best, is a family --for people whose families may have disappointed them or died off. This family challenges us to life rightly, to love, forgive, and give.
Like the hard-right, Warren (and Coulter) would be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. But Warren is also emphasizing compassion for those with AIDS (as Bush did) and I bet he isn't a hard liner against amnesty for illegals from Mexico-- which Ann is.
I don't agree with affirmative action as forced official policy --but I understand the value of diversity in our schools, churches and our workplaces and think we should voluntarily seek to be diverse racially --and seek peace with other religious groups --not through doctrinal compromise, but through intentional peace-making while maintaining our differences in beliefs and convictions. We don't have to believe we are both on the path to Heaven in order to be kind.
I was in the doctor's office yesterday for a test and another lady and I were quite chatty and friendly on the elevator. And then I asked if her candidate won; she said, he did. And I smilingly said, "Mine did not." And then she started to look at me warily and give me the social chill. Clammed up. REAL PEACE DOES INVOLVE CARING FOR PEOPLE DESPITE OUR DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS. HEAR ME, MUDLY!? THAT'S WHY I AM WILLING TO BREAK BREAD AND DRINK COFFEE WITH DEMOCRATS. PEACE MUST NOT REQUIRE AGREEMENT, BUT TOLERANCE.
Tolerance is not APPROVAL of all things or agreement. Homosexuals want us to approve sodomy by granting marriage to those relationships. Even liberal California voted against such approval. Sodomy is against nature and gives us no children. It starts with a first thought and/or action and it SHOULD be shunned at the first thought --just like adultery, pedophilia, rape, and incest should be barred from one's brain at the first thought.
Gay marriage teaches our children that gay is ok, that they may consider it for themselves, that they may mull thoughts of sodomy around in their heads, and experiment to find out what they prefer. We have enough sexually confused and dysfunctional people without encouraging them and stimulating the mind toward immorality by official endorsement. We have a long list of pragmatic and secular reasons (in addition to religious) why sodomy is unhealthy and counter-productive to our national well-being--and not a matter of equal rights at all. AFter all, they have the same rights to marry persons of the opposite sex. There is no RIGHT to do wrong and same-sex sodomy is simply wrong --and this view is the traditional one, not new. So don't anyone say the Christians are trying to CHANGE a nation to suit themselves in their stand on sodomy. It's the homosexuals who are trying to change the nation--and succeeding.
WE MUST WORK FOR A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION --AS OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, EVEN YOUNG EVANGELICALS, ARE STARTING TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT "NICE" TO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY. They are being brainwashed by TV and liberals in all our schools and online. The NEA (our teachers) actually have in their list of political goals the approval of homosexuality and women's right to choice (abortion.) There is this fear that if we disapprove the lifestyle, homosexuals will stay away from God and Church. We have disapproved adultery, and still adulterers will come into church when they really want forgiveness and a relationship with the Lord. We can't pretend to approve homosexuality to get them into a church that will teach them homosexuality is a sin. And woe to the church that doesn't teach them the truth.
To revive the GOP, we need leadership from the religious conservatives like Rick Warren. We need a clear agenda that we are FOR the environment but for people, first --that we are FOR compassionate works, including faith-based institutions getting federal monies wherever secular institutions are doing so with inferior results (prisons, schools, rehab clinics, mental health centers, and work among the poor, the ill and the homeless.)
We must promote awareness of America's Christian heritage and its positive effect on our culture, civil rights beliefs, abolition of slavery, and on our prosperity --with the protestant work ethic and the value of self-reliance, individual initiative, and freedom without licentiousness, freedom with personal responsibility.
We must demand equal monies for religious schools --like the GI Bill used to be. We need choice in education. Yes, I fear the Islamic Wahabi schools that might rise up. I would say any school receiving vouchers should promote kindness and peace --and prove that they are doing so. They don't have to water down doctrinal differences, but there should be no suggestion of paradise for suicide bombers --support for any kind of murder--or their schools can be closed. I believe in the public school for promoting diversity and peace among people of differences --BUT some of our schools have become agents of the LEFT--or just ineffectual because of dysfunctional homes in the district. So we rightly ask for our tax monies back, to be used for schools of our choice.
In conclusion, if the GOP sticks to the values of its religious, pro-life, pro-family, conservative base --the Ronald Reagan Republicans and Reagan Democrats, the party will revive. But we must shed any impression that we are hard-line against the illegals, against the poor (deserving or otherwise). We need to toot our own horns about the good done in Iraq, the accomplishments of GW Bush --instead of all this misinfo about how everything bad was his fault.
We need united campaign leadership who understands and appreciates the religious right-- who knows how to combat the negative press --who knows how to inspire people about the superior party's superior beliefs and values.
The McCain-Palin speeches seemed to stay away from our core values --to stick to lowering taxes, being mavericks, reforming, bringing change. Give me the old Ron Reagan speeches anyday--where he said things that resonated with people of faith. I noticed that was missing from all 4 candidates this year at their conventions--as they tried to appeal to the "middle" --those people without clear direction for themselves. We've been listening to our critics --as Ann Coulter said --and trying to appease them. Not a good idea at all.
Locally, we need an outstanding candidate to oppose Marcy --say, a black conservative Christian? Or just some young dynamic candidate with charisma who mounts a huge campaign and gets tons of young workers. I'll telephone!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Many said he did this to attract the Hillary voters. I knew she wouldn't get many of them, because Hillary voters are pro-choice on abortion --and Sarah obviously is not. I think he really knew that he was nominating an evangelical who would energize evangelicals. And she did that.
If you listen to Ann Coulter, you do get another impression of what it is to be conservative. She's a bit more hard-line --and some of that is good. But there is a bit of difference in how she perceives the term "conservative" and how I believe Pastor Rick Warren would perceive it--or even Bush. E.g. I think there is a hard-edged kind of conservativism --that would APPEAR, or be INTERPRETED to be uncompassionate to illegals, the poor and unconcerned about the environment.
We need to get out the message of what environmental remedies may do to the poor in the short run that are worse than global warming.
WE of the evangelical right do believe in "spreading the wealth" through opportunity, public education, voluntarily sharing what we have, and social gov't AND charity programs to help the truly needy, the disabled, ill and elderly. But we also believe that self-reliance is a virtue to promote in the culture rather than dependency on others to do what we can do for ourselves. Why should we reward those who've been indolent, goofed off in school, chosen drugs and promiscuity? We do need to help their children --but we ought not make it of no consequence, perpetuating irresponsibility when one elects to ruin his own life. We need a little TOUGH LOVE in the gov't --and yet, we can't let people starve or live in squalid 3rd world conditions.
The church needs to reach out to all--as the Gospel of Christ is the best force for good in a culture. It draws people into Community --weekly --and this, at its best, is a family --for people whose families may have disappointed them or died off. This family challenges us to life rightly, to love, forgive, and give.
Like the hard-right, Warren (and Coulter) would be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. But Warren is also emphasizing compassion for those with AIDS (as Bush did) and I bet he isn't a hard liner against amnesty for illegals from Mexico-- which Ann is.
I don't agree with affirmative action as forced official policy --but I understand the value of diversity in our schools, churches and our workplaces and think we should voluntarily seek to be diverse racially --and seek peace with other religious groups --not through doctrinal compromise, but through intentional peace-making while maintaining our differences in beliefs and convictions. We don't have to believe we are both on the path to Heaven in order to be kind.
I was in the doctor's office yesterday for a test and another lady and I were quite chatty and friendly on the elevator. And then I asked if her candidate won; she said, he did. And I smilingly said, "Mine did not." And then she started to look at me warily and give me the social chill. Clammed up. REAL PEACE DOES INVOLVE CARING FOR PEOPLE DESPITE OUR DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS. HEAR ME, MUDLY!? THAT'S WHY I AM WILLING TO BREAK BREAD AND DRINK COFFEE WITH DEMOCRATS. PEACE MUST NOT REQUIRE AGREEMENT, BUT TOLERANCE.
Tolerance is not APPROVAL of all things or agreement. Homosexuals want us to approve sodomy by granting marriage to those relationships. Even liberal California voted against such approval. Sodomy is against nature and gives us no children. It starts with a first thought and/or action and it SHOULD be shunned at the first thought --just like adultery, pedophilia, rape, and incest should be barred from one's brain at the first thought.
Gay marriage teaches our children that gay is ok, that they may consider it for themselves, that they may mull thoughts of sodomy around in their heads, and experiment to find out what they prefer. We have enough sexually confused and dysfunctional people without encouraging them and stimulating the mind toward immorality by official endorsement. We have a long list of pragmatic and secular reasons (in addition to religious) why sodomy is unhealthy and counter-productive to our national well-being--and not a matter of equal rights at all. AFter all, they have the same rights to marry persons of the opposite sex. There is no RIGHT to do wrong and same-sex sodomy is simply wrong --and this view is the traditional one, not new. So don't anyone say the Christians are trying to CHANGE a nation to suit themselves in their stand on sodomy. It's the homosexuals who are trying to change the nation--and succeeding.
WE MUST WORK FOR A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION --AS OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, EVEN YOUNG EVANGELICALS, ARE STARTING TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT "NICE" TO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY. They are being brainwashed by TV and liberals in all our schools and online. The NEA (our teachers) actually have in their list of political goals the approval of homosexuality and women's right to choice (abortion.) There is this fear that if we disapprove the lifestyle, homosexuals will stay away from God and Church. We have disapproved adultery, and still adulterers will come into church when they really want forgiveness and a relationship with the Lord. We can't pretend to approve homosexuality to get them into a church that will teach them homosexuality is a sin. And woe to the church that doesn't teach them the truth.
To revive the GOP, we need leadership from the religious conservatives like Rick Warren. We need a clear agenda that we are FOR the environment but for people, first --that we are FOR compassionate works, including faith-based institutions getting federal monies wherever secular institutions are doing so with inferior results (prisons, schools, rehab clinics, mental health centers, and work among the poor, the ill and the homeless.)
We must promote awareness of America's Christian heritage and its positive effect on our culture, civil rights beliefs, abolition of slavery, and on our prosperity --with the protestant work ethic and the value of self-reliance, individual initiative, and freedom without licentiousness, freedom with personal responsibility.
We must demand equal monies for religious schools --like the GI Bill used to be. We need choice in education. Yes, I fear the Islamic Wahabi schools that might rise up. I would say any school receiving vouchers should promote kindness and peace --and prove that they are doing so. They don't have to water down doctrinal differences, but there should be no suggestion of paradise for suicide bombers --support for any kind of murder--or their schools can be closed. I believe in the public school for promoting diversity and peace among people of differences --BUT some of our schools have become agents of the LEFT--or just ineffectual because of dysfunctional homes in the district. So we rightly ask for our tax monies back, to be used for schools of our choice.
In conclusion, if the GOP sticks to the values of its religious, pro-life, pro-family, conservative base --the Ronald Reagan Republicans and Reagan Democrats, the party will revive. But we must shed any impression that we are hard-line against the illegals, against the poor (deserving or otherwise). We need to toot our own horns about the good done in Iraq, the accomplishments of GW Bush --instead of all this misinfo about how everything bad was his fault.
We need united campaign leadership who understands and appreciates the religious right-- who knows how to combat the negative press --who knows how to inspire people about the superior party's superior beliefs and values.
The McCain-Palin speeches seemed to stay away from our core values --to stick to lowering taxes, being mavericks, reforming, bringing change. Give me the old Ron Reagan speeches anyday--where he said things that resonated with people of faith. I noticed that was missing from all 4 candidates this year at their conventions--as they tried to appeal to the "middle" --those people without clear direction for themselves. We've been listening to our critics --as Ann Coulter said --and trying to appease them. Not a good idea at all.
Locally, we need an outstanding candidate to oppose Marcy --say, a black conservative Christian? Or just some young dynamic candidate with charisma who mounts a huge campaign and gets tons of young workers. I'll telephone!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Ann Coulter: "The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain"
"By Jove, she's got it!"
Ann Coulter always has an amusing take on the political scene. In the following article, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385&page=1#c1
she tells how much like a Democrat John McCain really was. She notes that GOP leaders (and columnists like Mudly, I might add) think the only hope for the party is to be LESS conservative, more Centrist. Ann doesn't go into the religious right concerns here --except to note that McCain had publically scorned religious right ministers in the past. As you know, she wrote a book about democrats being "Godless." And there is way too much truth in that re: their social policies and general vitriol in political combat. Go here to see examples over and over again.
We knew we probably didn't have a born again evangelical in McCain. In fact, Obama said more about having accepted Christ as His personal Savior. I hope this is genuine --it gives me the audacity of hope!
She mentions that McCain was really more of a green candidate at heart, believing in global warming, and for amnesty for the Hispanic illegals, along with Senator Kennedy.
I think all GOP voters want a healthy planet --we just don't agree on the analysis of global warming and I understand the Democrats' recommended remedies could really make poor people more poor. Saving the planet in the long run --or saving people in the short run--becomes a difficult choice. I vote for the people in the short run--and let God take care of the long and eternal run.
As for amnesty for Mexicans, I, like Kennedy and McCain, can't see us busing millions of illegal grandparents to Mexico and getting any human rights awards --with whole families hanging out the bus windows looking like they are headed for Dachau. I can't imagine such a scenario working out well for the GOP --or anyone else, for that matter. My suggestion would be to really tighten the borders, send more businesses to Mexico so people have jobs there, and enforce immigration from this point on. Don't let people linger here for years and years and THEN try to move them out. Many have established themselves and are contributing here.
The Church rightly redoubles its Hispanic ministries in the States. The objections to various minority groups in the USA would be remedied by old fashioned Christian teaching and conversion to Christ. We need to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus so that the groups who tend toward poverty and crime can find liberation through education, equal opportunity, and godly living. The differences between racial groups in America is not inherent to race or nationality--but to culture and religious faith and values. There is a superior way of life --and it is rooted in the teachings of our Judeo-Christian Bible.
She criticizes Huckabee for backing McCain --and so she would criticize me, too. But I like a point made by a blogger named Kevin:
He wasn't speaking of Obama's "hope" here but against voting for 3rd party candidates who haven't a hope of winning--just because McCain wasn't perceived as ideologically pure enough for a Christian's vote --or the ultra-conservative vote.
Meanwhile, let us hope that Obama will be influenced in the conduct of his office by Jesus Christ, whom he calls His Savior.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Ann Coulter always has an amusing take on the political scene. In the following article, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385&page=1#c1
she tells how much like a Democrat John McCain really was. She notes that GOP leaders (and columnists like Mudly, I might add) think the only hope for the party is to be LESS conservative, more Centrist. Ann doesn't go into the religious right concerns here --except to note that McCain had publically scorned religious right ministers in the past. As you know, she wrote a book about democrats being "Godless." And there is way too much truth in that re: their social policies and general vitriol in political combat. Go here to see examples over and over again.
We knew we probably didn't have a born again evangelical in McCain. In fact, Obama said more about having accepted Christ as His personal Savior. I hope this is genuine --it gives me the audacity of hope!
She mentions that McCain was really more of a green candidate at heart, believing in global warming, and for amnesty for the Hispanic illegals, along with Senator Kennedy.
I think all GOP voters want a healthy planet --we just don't agree on the analysis of global warming and I understand the Democrats' recommended remedies could really make poor people more poor. Saving the planet in the long run --or saving people in the short run--becomes a difficult choice. I vote for the people in the short run--and let God take care of the long and eternal run.
As for amnesty for Mexicans, I, like Kennedy and McCain, can't see us busing millions of illegal grandparents to Mexico and getting any human rights awards --with whole families hanging out the bus windows looking like they are headed for Dachau. I can't imagine such a scenario working out well for the GOP --or anyone else, for that matter. My suggestion would be to really tighten the borders, send more businesses to Mexico so people have jobs there, and enforce immigration from this point on. Don't let people linger here for years and years and THEN try to move them out. Many have established themselves and are contributing here.
The Church rightly redoubles its Hispanic ministries in the States. The objections to various minority groups in the USA would be remedied by old fashioned Christian teaching and conversion to Christ. We need to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus so that the groups who tend toward poverty and crime can find liberation through education, equal opportunity, and godly living. The differences between racial groups in America is not inherent to race or nationality--but to culture and religious faith and values. There is a superior way of life --and it is rooted in the teachings of our Judeo-Christian Bible.
She criticizes Huckabee for backing McCain --and so she would criticize me, too. But I like a point made by a blogger named Kevin:
But what does Paul say? Does he recommend that we live under a hostile government or a peaceful one?
1Tim 2:1-4
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
If we are to pray for a peaceful place to live, shouldn't we vote for it too? And we pray with hope, so maybe we should vote for a candidate who has a hope.
He wasn't speaking of Obama's "hope" here but against voting for 3rd party candidates who haven't a hope of winning--just because McCain wasn't perceived as ideologically pure enough for a Christian's vote --or the ultra-conservative vote.
Meanwhile, let us hope that Obama will be influenced in the conduct of his office by Jesus Christ, whom he calls His Savior.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
AGAIN ~ WHY NO'BAMA!!!! ~ WHY MCCAIN?
VOTE MCCAIN TO PROTECT THE PRO-LIFE GAINS OF THE LAST 35 YEARS WHICH WILL ALL BE NULLIFIED when Obama signs the Pelosi-revived FOCA, as promised by him. Obama voted to let babies die if they survive abortion. He voted this way 4 times, despite hearing testimony of gruesome infant deaths and survivors of abortion who were glad to live, damaged as they were. If FOCA passes, partial birth abortion would again be legal; BAIPA will be rescinded, parental consent laws would be nullified; there would be no sympathy for the excess frozen embryos, "snowflakes," who would be used for fetal experiments --instead of adopted and implanted in a womb, resulting in a child's life. Those "snowflakes" gathered at the White House recently --about 9 years old, some of them. One of them quoted Horton Hears a Who: "A person's a person no matter how small."
VOTE MCCAIN to prevent the takeover of public school sex ed by SEICUS and PLanned Parenthood sex philosophies --which have told kids to "have sex when you are ready--just use a condom." These groups don't believe morality is even possible for our youth --therefore they don't try hard to promote it. These groups want homosexuality promoted to young children --through books that do this. We know this from California education --and from a law Obama supported in Illinois --and various programs being sold to schools. Liberals have worked for moral relativity and values neutrality in our schools since the 60's at least --and they are working to advance acceptance of and experimentation with homosexuality among youth.
VOTE MCCAIN TO PREVENT THE CLASS WARFARE AND POSSIBLE VIOLENCE fomented by the left and Obama when they speak of the "greedy rich." Obama has the support of both the Socialists of the world and the Islamic world --and all those who are poor who think the answer is violent take-over of the have-mores by the have-lesses. He spoke in Berlin about tearing down a wall between rich nations and poor nations. (Ironically, what actually does that, is American business overseas! which he says is bad for America. So he is talking out of both sides of his mouth on that one.)
VOTE MCCAIN IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND HIGHER TAXES IN A TIME OF RECESSION --SUCH THAT WE WILL KILL BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYMENT.
VOTE MCCAIN whose buddies were not radical change advocates, against American free enterprise and capitalism--promoting socialism and communism --and violent revolution.
VOTE MCCAIN for a strong military and the intelligence tools we need to track terrorists before they hit us again.
VOTE MCCAIN to keep our military in the middle east until those countries are strong enough to maintain the peace that we have gained for Iraq. Obama does support helping afghanistan against Taliban --but has never voted right on Iraq --not even for the surge which has accomplished much. Iraq does not want Yankee to go home --just YET! Eventually, yes.
VOTE MCCAIN for the continued right to bear arms as private citizens.
VOTE MCcAIN for conservative judges who don't make law from the bench. With Obama's ACLU-member judges, the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage, require hiring of transvestites and homosexuals in ANY kind of job --possibly penalizing churches and religious schools who refuse. They will designate gays and transvestites, transgenders, etc. as the same as racial minorities and handicapped --which means that all institutions that would discriminate in hiring or admissions would lose their tax exemption and possibly be subject to prosecution --even just for speaking against these lifestyles. Students attending such institutions might not get federal grants, etc.
VOTE MCCAIN for free airways for broadcasting --instead of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which would want even religious stations and talk radio, paid for by citizens and advertisements, to give equal time to opposing views. That infringes on our freedom to buy airtime only for causes we wish to support. Let the liberals support their own channels. Problem is, (sorry Don) but I don't think liberals have as much interesting to say!
FINALLY, VOTE FOR MCCAIN IF YOU WANT THE USA TO CHANGE ONLY IN GOOD WAYS ---NOT MORE LAX IN PROSECUTING CRIME AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, NOT MORE STIFLING OF CHURCH INFLUENCE IN THE CULTURE, NOT MORE ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE, NOT MORE UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY SPREAD AROUND, NOT LESS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
___________________________
MORE ON JUDGES & EDUCATION
ACLU judges will vote for everything that the ACLU now promotes --"under God" out of the pledge, no religious mottos for states like Ohio's "In God we Trust." No such mottos on the coins any more. No opening prayers for any publically funded/sponsored events --like school banquets, ballgames, etc. They might remove all remnants of the faith of our fathers from art in D.C. --like Stalin would have done. Try to erase all evidence of religious heritage and faith-as in Soviet Russia. In schools, some already teach Thanksgiving holiday as a feast --not a feast of thanks to God for the harvest. War memorials on public property that were put up featuring crosses will be removed. Crosses in military chapels and Bibles on a teacher's desk, Christian anything anywhere will be squelched --like nativity scenes at the court house. Our tradition of free exercise of religion even on public property will be interpreted as violation of the separation principle. Already, a court said a man can't pray "in Jesus name" at meetings where others pray the way they want to. ACLU wanted Frankenmuth to remove crosses from bridges --even though that town is all about Christmas and has a German religious heritage that they have historically maintained. They have made cities change their historically significant town seals and mottos though they were antique remnants --evidence-- of the history of their religious roots. ACLU-types of school administrators have punished little kids for religious art, prayers at lunch, religious speeches and projects --until some religious legal group would defend the child against the school. These cases never end. The ACLU is USUALLY on the wrong side of them. One state tried to deny a state scholarship which a student earned because he was going to use it at a seminary or Bible college.
In a truly free country, we should have vouchers for the education of our choice --but we will never get it with Obama judges and democrat congress as they are too tied with the NEA. Also, liberal educators want to control the education of all our youth, so they can indoctrinate them in their pro-gay, pro-socialist, pro-abortion, value-free, pro-condom sex ed --ideologies.
One example of that is the teaching about NEEDS --having kids think about what their needs are is out of a pro-socialist primer. If they have needs, should not someone provide those needs --and is that someone the state???
Right now, even with Bush as president, I can't get Anthony Wayne Schools to accept my usual free gift of IGNITE magazines (Campus Life, Youth for Christ) to their library --so anti-religion are some school administrators. In this case, the librarian doesn't want them. I had donated for years --about $50 worth of magazines --they are a bargain --and good for all kids --and finally inquired and found out that the librarian wasn't putting them out. I suspect her to be a woman of Mudrakian philosophy, sour on all things Christian. I wonder if they have Playboy? or the Sports ILLUSTRATED swimsuit edition.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
VOTE MCCAIN to prevent the takeover of public school sex ed by SEICUS and PLanned Parenthood sex philosophies --which have told kids to "have sex when you are ready--just use a condom." These groups don't believe morality is even possible for our youth --therefore they don't try hard to promote it. These groups want homosexuality promoted to young children --through books that do this. We know this from California education --and from a law Obama supported in Illinois --and various programs being sold to schools. Liberals have worked for moral relativity and values neutrality in our schools since the 60's at least --and they are working to advance acceptance of and experimentation with homosexuality among youth.
VOTE MCCAIN TO PREVENT THE CLASS WARFARE AND POSSIBLE VIOLENCE fomented by the left and Obama when they speak of the "greedy rich." Obama has the support of both the Socialists of the world and the Islamic world --and all those who are poor who think the answer is violent take-over of the have-mores by the have-lesses. He spoke in Berlin about tearing down a wall between rich nations and poor nations. (Ironically, what actually does that, is American business overseas! which he says is bad for America. So he is talking out of both sides of his mouth on that one.)
VOTE MCCAIN IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND HIGHER TAXES IN A TIME OF RECESSION --SUCH THAT WE WILL KILL BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYMENT.
VOTE MCCAIN whose buddies were not radical change advocates, against American free enterprise and capitalism--promoting socialism and communism --and violent revolution.
VOTE MCCAIN for a strong military and the intelligence tools we need to track terrorists before they hit us again.
VOTE MCCAIN to keep our military in the middle east until those countries are strong enough to maintain the peace that we have gained for Iraq. Obama does support helping afghanistan against Taliban --but has never voted right on Iraq --not even for the surge which has accomplished much. Iraq does not want Yankee to go home --just YET! Eventually, yes.
VOTE MCCAIN for the continued right to bear arms as private citizens.
VOTE MCcAIN for conservative judges who don't make law from the bench. With Obama's ACLU-member judges, the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage, require hiring of transvestites and homosexuals in ANY kind of job --possibly penalizing churches and religious schools who refuse. They will designate gays and transvestites, transgenders, etc. as the same as racial minorities and handicapped --which means that all institutions that would discriminate in hiring or admissions would lose their tax exemption and possibly be subject to prosecution --even just for speaking against these lifestyles. Students attending such institutions might not get federal grants, etc.
VOTE MCCAIN for free airways for broadcasting --instead of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which would want even religious stations and talk radio, paid for by citizens and advertisements, to give equal time to opposing views. That infringes on our freedom to buy airtime only for causes we wish to support. Let the liberals support their own channels. Problem is, (sorry Don) but I don't think liberals have as much interesting to say!
FINALLY, VOTE FOR MCCAIN IF YOU WANT THE USA TO CHANGE ONLY IN GOOD WAYS ---NOT MORE LAX IN PROSECUTING CRIME AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, NOT MORE STIFLING OF CHURCH INFLUENCE IN THE CULTURE, NOT MORE ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE, NOT MORE UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY SPREAD AROUND, NOT LESS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
___________________________
MORE ON JUDGES & EDUCATION
ACLU judges will vote for everything that the ACLU now promotes --"under God" out of the pledge, no religious mottos for states like Ohio's "In God we Trust." No such mottos on the coins any more. No opening prayers for any publically funded/sponsored events --like school banquets, ballgames, etc. They might remove all remnants of the faith of our fathers from art in D.C. --like Stalin would have done. Try to erase all evidence of religious heritage and faith-as in Soviet Russia. In schools, some already teach Thanksgiving holiday as a feast --not a feast of thanks to God for the harvest. War memorials on public property that were put up featuring crosses will be removed. Crosses in military chapels and Bibles on a teacher's desk, Christian anything anywhere will be squelched --like nativity scenes at the court house. Our tradition of free exercise of religion even on public property will be interpreted as violation of the separation principle. Already, a court said a man can't pray "in Jesus name" at meetings where others pray the way they want to. ACLU wanted Frankenmuth to remove crosses from bridges --even though that town is all about Christmas and has a German religious heritage that they have historically maintained. They have made cities change their historically significant town seals and mottos though they were antique remnants --evidence-- of the history of their religious roots. ACLU-types of school administrators have punished little kids for religious art, prayers at lunch, religious speeches and projects --until some religious legal group would defend the child against the school. These cases never end. The ACLU is USUALLY on the wrong side of them. One state tried to deny a state scholarship which a student earned because he was going to use it at a seminary or Bible college.
In a truly free country, we should have vouchers for the education of our choice --but we will never get it with Obama judges and democrat congress as they are too tied with the NEA. Also, liberal educators want to control the education of all our youth, so they can indoctrinate them in their pro-gay, pro-socialist, pro-abortion, value-free, pro-condom sex ed --ideologies.
One example of that is the teaching about NEEDS --having kids think about what their needs are is out of a pro-socialist primer. If they have needs, should not someone provide those needs --and is that someone the state???
Right now, even with Bush as president, I can't get Anthony Wayne Schools to accept my usual free gift of IGNITE magazines (Campus Life, Youth for Christ) to their library --so anti-religion are some school administrators. In this case, the librarian doesn't want them. I had donated for years --about $50 worth of magazines --they are a bargain --and good for all kids --and finally inquired and found out that the librarian wasn't putting them out. I suspect her to be a woman of Mudrakian philosophy, sour on all things Christian. I wonder if they have Playboy? or the Sports ILLUSTRATED swimsuit edition.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, November 3, 2008
BLOGGER TRUCE OFFERED --it will be rejected
Listen, Micrabused, Muckdweller and Uptheflag:
I'm willing to CALL A TRUCE --and agree to blog without any ad hominem attacks --just staying on the issues and articulating views and perceptions --seeking to understand each other and explain myself and some like me --explaining our respective beliefs and fears.
Contrary to what you said, you are NOT called "unAmerican" by me for "expressing your views" --unless you really ARE expressing unamerican views --like when you and Mudrake suggest the religious right should not be heard. MR really seems to not want them to have free speech when it comes to public policy. He can speak from his agnostic and secularist view for public policies; but I can't speak from my religious views.
Actually, all views can be said to be American except one that DENIES freedom of speech --and that is happening to Christians already and has been a battle waged by the ACLU for at least 3 decades. Most recently, a black man signed up to open the town council meetings with prayer --as the members took turns --but he was challenged by the ACLU that he could not pray "in Jesus name." A three-judge panel agreed with the ACLU --prohibiting this fellow's Constitutional right of free speech and freedom of religious expression. Now THAT is UNAMERICAN! This case is headed to the Supreme Court. NOte that prayer was not disallowed in this case, just prayer "in Jesus' name." That's discrimination!
Also, one of the military academies has a tradition of chaplain-led prayer before lunch--by chaplains of different faiths --and the ACLU is challenging that --wanting to end a tradition that lends dignity to the lunch hour. They just want our military officers to chow down without any gratitude --never mind that all the people could pray their own way or ignore the prayer by thinking pleasant thoughts instead.
I've been seeing here that people who don't support Obama are called racists. I am not a racist. I love my 10 black CLC'ers and I think they are somewhat fond of me. I don't find them a bit inferior to my 8 white students in any way. The more I get to know my black students, the more optimism I have about their futures --same as for the non-black students. They are bright and beautiful kids and seem to grow more reverent about Christ, prayer and the Bible. I'm sure you would call it racist stereotyping, but I also think my black students are pretty good singers as a group.
If I were racist I would not have the non-condescending love for them that I do have. Typically, you'll come back and say I AM condescending --but I am not. You commit libel when you say that about me.
You've not heard ME carry on about Barack's middle name. I just hope he doesn't share all the views of the anti-Capitalist, anti-free enterprise, revolution-oriented liberal friends who seem to say in their speeches and writings, "America's system and western values are bad," which men received Obama's friendship and praises through the year --as in a dinner for Khalidi attended by both Ayres and Obama --and Obama's book review for Ayers. And I understand that Farrakhan did refer to Obama as a "messiah" at some recent high holy day for black (or all) Muslims.
You will either agree with these praises of and by Obama, or say these things aren't true, but the evidences are out there.
Nothing will please me more than to find out Obama is more middle of the road, and more appreciative of america, and the traditional aspects of its civil rights and foreign policy views and more tolerant of Israel, more peace loving and less radical than HIS Chicago neighbors have shown themselves to be.
but I know he's far left on abortion and i cannot support that--his votes against BAIPA 4 times. and his promise to sign FOCA, nullifying all the pro-life gains of the past 3 decades.
About persecuting the Christians, Microdot, I DO get persecuted verbally by you and Mudly. Instead of staying on topic, you delete, call me ignorant, mentally ill,etc. Mudrake definitely gets so mad his cyber-eyeballs bulge --I fear for his health!
Yes, as the blogger Microdot alleged, we of the GOP have already begun to question Obama's legitimacy because the stories are out there --about his birth certificate being suspicious, about his illegal overseas campaign donations, about the massive ACORN fraud in voter registrations--that will take so long to unsnarl that we can't possibly figure it out before January to see if any of the voters are fraudulent. We hear of an African half- brother in poverty with whom he doesn't share his wealth (but maybe he tries to help him and we just haven't heard about it --I really don't expect him to bring a half-brother to the U.S. to live with him --or be supported by him --until Barack's a millionaire himself --or to rescue his illegal alien aunt from poverty --or to take the whole family to see Grandma ("a typical white woman" he called her) before she dies --or to stay with her more than an hour during campaign season --or to spread the campaign wealth with McCain. But he is in a glass house throwing stones when it comes to his criticisms of the rich and their alleged tax cuts --saying they should "spread the wealth," implying he is so compassion-minded and generous in his ideals.
You said that no matter what he does, we will question his legitimacy. Actually, what he does and whom he appoints to courts will be more important than anything else to my opinion of him as president.
I fear that Barack wants a NEW American economic system --a more socialistic one --because those are the views he has expressed --as in his speech to Berlin -about tearing walls down between rich nations and poor. What does he mean?? it sounds nice on the surface, but what did Marxist leaders say and promise? Marx's idea was "the dictatorship of the proletariat" --and violent overthrow has too often been the method of the atheistic left for accomplishing all this "social and economic change" to help the poor.
I'm all for helping the poor --no one did more of it than Bush, continuing the entitlement programs --and EITC and sending out the stimulus checks. Yet, he did try to get Medicare in line and made a lot of seniors pay more for meds, I believe. Something has to be done.
Any belt-tightening in the area of entitlements will be resisted by all. Our best bet to maintain entitlements is to REALLY encourage economic expansion, energy independence, incentives for companies to stay (not punishments for leaving and dissolving.) If we don't want more companies to bankrupt, we need to help industry and business thrive --and THEN give incentives to them to provide benefits for their workers. Let's get up and running first before we try to create utopia by taxation and new entitlements. It's impossible now, for the American union wage earner to compete with the world's products. I offer no solution for that problem. However, we do need ethics at every level of production --curbing excessive corporate benefits at the expense of labor --and curbing any bad attitudes (and thuggery) of union workers --like the auto workers when their products were found to be more shoddy than Japan's --at greater cost.
It IS class warfare akin to Bolshevik rhetoric to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" as something unfair and evil --when the rich are already carrying the nation tremendously on their backs and providing all the jobs.
Change such as Obama talks about sounds like revolution--of the type that denies free choice, kills incentive to get ahead, blames the rich for the needs of the poor.
We don't need a world leader who stirs up violent passions of the masses against the job-creators and the wealthy of the world. We do need to help the masses who are suffering under Hussain, Al Quaeda or Taliban, however --and those who declare death to us or their neighbors who are our allies.
That you see Obama as better than I do, that's obvious--and so be it.
We'll find out, I guess.
But my concerns about him are not as follows: I don't think he's Muslim; I don't think he's a Communist; but I do suspect he is not favorable to our capitalist, free enterprise, western systems. I think he's a BIg Brother and Big Gov't. man --and I do think he's very liberal in all ways --and very inexperienced in any practical WORK or administration.
BUT --IF HE WINS --he will have my prayers and hopes for the best --not vitriol and hatred. I just hope he doesn't give us all reason to regret electing him. I hope America doesn't let him change our liberties --or socially liberalize our culture --such that we cease to be a wholesome and good nation as described by de Toqueville who said "America is great because she is good." He correctly identified "the secret of our greatness" as our "churches, with pulpits aflame with righteousness."
Protestant Christianity in America was unique among religions --for preaching in the language of the people --for minimizing the value of ritual while maximizing the need for holiness in our lives --ever challenging us --such that, together with people in England, we outlawed slavery in the 1800's --though slavery was entrenched all over the world throughout world history as a given feature of national economies. It was just taken for granted. It was the Christian reformers who fought to abolish this evil---just as they fight today to abolish abortion and experimentation on unique, tiny people --our babies in their earliest stage of development.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I'm willing to CALL A TRUCE --and agree to blog without any ad hominem attacks --just staying on the issues and articulating views and perceptions --seeking to understand each other and explain myself and some like me --explaining our respective beliefs and fears.
Contrary to what you said, you are NOT called "unAmerican" by me for "expressing your views" --unless you really ARE expressing unamerican views --like when you and Mudrake suggest the religious right should not be heard. MR really seems to not want them to have free speech when it comes to public policy. He can speak from his agnostic and secularist view for public policies; but I can't speak from my religious views.
Actually, all views can be said to be American except one that DENIES freedom of speech --and that is happening to Christians already and has been a battle waged by the ACLU for at least 3 decades. Most recently, a black man signed up to open the town council meetings with prayer --as the members took turns --but he was challenged by the ACLU that he could not pray "in Jesus name." A three-judge panel agreed with the ACLU --prohibiting this fellow's Constitutional right of free speech and freedom of religious expression. Now THAT is UNAMERICAN! This case is headed to the Supreme Court. NOte that prayer was not disallowed in this case, just prayer "in Jesus' name." That's discrimination!
Also, one of the military academies has a tradition of chaplain-led prayer before lunch--by chaplains of different faiths --and the ACLU is challenging that --wanting to end a tradition that lends dignity to the lunch hour. They just want our military officers to chow down without any gratitude --never mind that all the people could pray their own way or ignore the prayer by thinking pleasant thoughts instead.
I've been seeing here that people who don't support Obama are called racists. I am not a racist. I love my 10 black CLC'ers and I think they are somewhat fond of me. I don't find them a bit inferior to my 8 white students in any way. The more I get to know my black students, the more optimism I have about their futures --same as for the non-black students. They are bright and beautiful kids and seem to grow more reverent about Christ, prayer and the Bible. I'm sure you would call it racist stereotyping, but I also think my black students are pretty good singers as a group.
If I were racist I would not have the non-condescending love for them that I do have. Typically, you'll come back and say I AM condescending --but I am not. You commit libel when you say that about me.
You've not heard ME carry on about Barack's middle name. I just hope he doesn't share all the views of the anti-Capitalist, anti-free enterprise, revolution-oriented liberal friends who seem to say in their speeches and writings, "America's system and western values are bad," which men received Obama's friendship and praises through the year --as in a dinner for Khalidi attended by both Ayres and Obama --and Obama's book review for Ayers. And I understand that Farrakhan did refer to Obama as a "messiah" at some recent high holy day for black (or all) Muslims.
You will either agree with these praises of and by Obama, or say these things aren't true, but the evidences are out there.
Nothing will please me more than to find out Obama is more middle of the road, and more appreciative of america, and the traditional aspects of its civil rights and foreign policy views and more tolerant of Israel, more peace loving and less radical than HIS Chicago neighbors have shown themselves to be.
but I know he's far left on abortion and i cannot support that--his votes against BAIPA 4 times. and his promise to sign FOCA, nullifying all the pro-life gains of the past 3 decades.
About persecuting the Christians, Microdot, I DO get persecuted verbally by you and Mudly. Instead of staying on topic, you delete, call me ignorant, mentally ill,etc. Mudrake definitely gets so mad his cyber-eyeballs bulge --I fear for his health!
Yes, as the blogger Microdot alleged, we of the GOP have already begun to question Obama's legitimacy because the stories are out there --about his birth certificate being suspicious, about his illegal overseas campaign donations, about the massive ACORN fraud in voter registrations--that will take so long to unsnarl that we can't possibly figure it out before January to see if any of the voters are fraudulent. We hear of an African half- brother in poverty with whom he doesn't share his wealth (but maybe he tries to help him and we just haven't heard about it --I really don't expect him to bring a half-brother to the U.S. to live with him --or be supported by him --until Barack's a millionaire himself --or to rescue his illegal alien aunt from poverty --or to take the whole family to see Grandma ("a typical white woman" he called her) before she dies --or to stay with her more than an hour during campaign season --or to spread the campaign wealth with McCain. But he is in a glass house throwing stones when it comes to his criticisms of the rich and their alleged tax cuts --saying they should "spread the wealth," implying he is so compassion-minded and generous in his ideals.
You said that no matter what he does, we will question his legitimacy. Actually, what he does and whom he appoints to courts will be more important than anything else to my opinion of him as president.
I fear that Barack wants a NEW American economic system --a more socialistic one --because those are the views he has expressed --as in his speech to Berlin -about tearing walls down between rich nations and poor. What does he mean?? it sounds nice on the surface, but what did Marxist leaders say and promise? Marx's idea was "the dictatorship of the proletariat" --and violent overthrow has too often been the method of the atheistic left for accomplishing all this "social and economic change" to help the poor.
I'm all for helping the poor --no one did more of it than Bush, continuing the entitlement programs --and EITC and sending out the stimulus checks. Yet, he did try to get Medicare in line and made a lot of seniors pay more for meds, I believe. Something has to be done.
Any belt-tightening in the area of entitlements will be resisted by all. Our best bet to maintain entitlements is to REALLY encourage economic expansion, energy independence, incentives for companies to stay (not punishments for leaving and dissolving.) If we don't want more companies to bankrupt, we need to help industry and business thrive --and THEN give incentives to them to provide benefits for their workers. Let's get up and running first before we try to create utopia by taxation and new entitlements. It's impossible now, for the American union wage earner to compete with the world's products. I offer no solution for that problem. However, we do need ethics at every level of production --curbing excessive corporate benefits at the expense of labor --and curbing any bad attitudes (and thuggery) of union workers --like the auto workers when their products were found to be more shoddy than Japan's --at greater cost.
It IS class warfare akin to Bolshevik rhetoric to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" as something unfair and evil --when the rich are already carrying the nation tremendously on their backs and providing all the jobs.
Change such as Obama talks about sounds like revolution--of the type that denies free choice, kills incentive to get ahead, blames the rich for the needs of the poor.
We don't need a world leader who stirs up violent passions of the masses against the job-creators and the wealthy of the world. We do need to help the masses who are suffering under Hussain, Al Quaeda or Taliban, however --and those who declare death to us or their neighbors who are our allies.
That you see Obama as better than I do, that's obvious--and so be it.
We'll find out, I guess.
But my concerns about him are not as follows: I don't think he's Muslim; I don't think he's a Communist; but I do suspect he is not favorable to our capitalist, free enterprise, western systems. I think he's a BIg Brother and Big Gov't. man --and I do think he's very liberal in all ways --and very inexperienced in any practical WORK or administration.
BUT --IF HE WINS --he will have my prayers and hopes for the best --not vitriol and hatred. I just hope he doesn't give us all reason to regret electing him. I hope America doesn't let him change our liberties --or socially liberalize our culture --such that we cease to be a wholesome and good nation as described by de Toqueville who said "America is great because she is good." He correctly identified "the secret of our greatness" as our "churches, with pulpits aflame with righteousness."
Protestant Christianity in America was unique among religions --for preaching in the language of the people --for minimizing the value of ritual while maximizing the need for holiness in our lives --ever challenging us --such that, together with people in England, we outlawed slavery in the 1800's --though slavery was entrenched all over the world throughout world history as a given feature of national economies. It was just taken for granted. It was the Christian reformers who fought to abolish this evil---just as they fight today to abolish abortion and experimentation on unique, tiny people --our babies in their earliest stage of development.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, November 1, 2008
WHY NO'BAMA!!!
Palin has been accused by liberal bloggers of saying Obama "pals around with terrorists" (plural) --and this is called an error because Ayres is only ONE terrorist, and besides, he's a "reformed terrorist" and now a "respected educator"--according to Obama and the Media.
Palin's use of the plural is actually justified with or without including Prof. Khalidi, as both Prof. and Mrs. Ayres were terrorists and are still revolutionaries in their ideology. Ayres, in this century, said he wished he had bombed more than he did as a Weatherman (terrorist group when Obama was 8.) Ayres is proud and blatantly unrepentent about his past --so we can be sure that Obama knew his current ideology is the same as it always was.
So, it is true; Obama HAS palled around with ex-terrorists, pro-terrorists, and revolutionaries. We don't hear of any other connections he has had. Farrakhan (who favored a separate black Muslim state), Ayres, Obama and the Syrian, Tony Reszco --all live in the same neighborhood and have political/ideological/financial ties. Ayres DID give Obama a fund-raiser, though Obama denied it in debate with McCain --proving he can parse his words like a Bill Clinton. Farrakhan publically, recently, praised Obama as a "messiah" on some high holy day in Islam --or his version of it. (National Review) Obama gave Ayres a glowing book review on his revolutionary book against the U.S. prison system. Rezco, a criminal who cheated Ill. gov't. , lives next door to Obama and helped Obama get a house for less than market value. And Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at a farewell dinner (and ate with him often) and Khalidi is a PLO defender/spokesperson. (PLO, my young friends, is Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization --a terrorist group that ruled in Palestine against Israel until HAMAS got control.) In fact Reszco, Khalida, and Farrakhan all have Middle-eastern roots --as does Obama with his Muslim father and Muslim step-father. Granted, he was raised by protestant white folks after some years in Islamic Indonesia with his mother, where she got divorced from Obama's Indonesian step-father.
Then there's Rev. Wright --he listened to him for 20 years without hearing any of his proven racist, "God D America" rhetoric. Obama must be one of those guys who sleeps in church, I guess.
While we may all sit on boards with people we don't agree with--and we all may have been to lunch with people we don't agree with --OBAMA has been very palsy-walsy with this high-powered trio of Middle-eastern guys who lack sympathy for Israel --who think America is deeply flawed and needs THEIR kind of REVOLUTION --whatever that is. Plus Ayres and Dohrn, who raised the son of fellow radicals who are in jail for murder --who named their own son after a Black Panther (also terrorists) who got killed in a battle that killed a policeman.
Obama wasn't named the most liberal senator in the Senate (by his voting record) for nothing.
Furthermore, Obama has favored terrorism in the womb consistently. Woman's choice pre-empts baby's life, even when that baby survives abortion. He listened to the horror stories by the nurses about babies left in hospital closets to die, and still voted 4 times against BAIPA to protect the survivors of abortion, stating that the mother's choice to have her baby dead is preeminent. He says a first priority for him will be to sign FOCA right away if elected (the proposed Freedom of Choice Act revived by liberal Pelosi) --which will nullify all state restrictions against abortion achieved during pro-life administrations--including the ban on partial birth abortions, parental consent laws, limitations on abortion funding and fetal experimentation, and more.
We are electing a radical with radical friends, a wolf in sheep's clothing. He seems to see himself AND HIS KIND OF CHANGE as a panacea; the ignorant celebrity-loving masses agree with him. Perhaps being president will humble him. I hope so, before he ruins the U.S. with crazy court judges, like the one Clinton appointed who said we should release into the U.S., 20 Chinese, Islamic-trained terrorists who trained in Afghanistan. So far the Justice Dep't has appealed and these Asian terrorists are not yet released, because it IS against US policy to do this. But some judges either don't know the law or don't care.
Releasing terrorists into the US is almost as stupid as sending them back to Afghanistan to sign up again with the Taliban resurgence there. I hope, if GITMO closes, that we at least send the prisoners to Afghan courts and prisons--which, you know, will be more inhumane than GITMO ever was. But it would be even MORE inhumane (and stupid) to release Taliban soldiers back into Afghanistan to do again that for which we put them in prison at GITMO --for being "enemy combatants." And worse yet to release them into the U.S. Which has either been proposed or accomplished in the case of some of the Taliban combatants. I'm sure I read that some have been released into the U.S.
Our courts are getting to be veritable cuckoos' nests!
And one more reason for NO'BAMA! He thinks Communism is the same as sharing--saying we would call him a communist for sharing his toys in Kindergarten. No, I would call that sharing. Communism is confiscating the wealth of others such that everyone is poor. Free enterprise and capitalism are the greatest ways to spread around the wealth --which is why the US's poor are richer than most anywhere else in the world. Gov't is to equalize opportunity as much as we can, but not results.
I'm also tired of hearing that Bush gave the biggest tax cuts to the rich. Did they really get bigger cuts? Or is it just that their cuts amounted to more money because they always pay the most taxes??? In any case, when he cut the taxes, the economy surged, and unemployment dropped. Our troubles started up again economically in great part because of the crisis of confidence about Wall Street --and that was not a GOP fiasco --and the high gas prices --caused by consumption? --and our lack of US oil sources (the Democrats' fault) and the natural disasters and 9/11 --which was followed by war and increased security and intelligence --which has kept us safe.
One might logically blame 9/11 and wars that followed on Clinton's failure to take Osama when one nation offered to hand him over to us.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Palin's use of the plural is actually justified with or without including Prof. Khalidi, as both Prof. and Mrs. Ayres were terrorists and are still revolutionaries in their ideology. Ayres, in this century, said he wished he had bombed more than he did as a Weatherman (terrorist group when Obama was 8.) Ayres is proud and blatantly unrepentent about his past --so we can be sure that Obama knew his current ideology is the same as it always was.
So, it is true; Obama HAS palled around with ex-terrorists, pro-terrorists, and revolutionaries. We don't hear of any other connections he has had. Farrakhan (who favored a separate black Muslim state), Ayres, Obama and the Syrian, Tony Reszco --all live in the same neighborhood and have political/ideological/financial ties. Ayres DID give Obama a fund-raiser, though Obama denied it in debate with McCain --proving he can parse his words like a Bill Clinton. Farrakhan publically, recently, praised Obama as a "messiah" on some high holy day in Islam --or his version of it. (National Review) Obama gave Ayres a glowing book review on his revolutionary book against the U.S. prison system. Rezco, a criminal who cheated Ill. gov't. , lives next door to Obama and helped Obama get a house for less than market value. And Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at a farewell dinner (and ate with him often) and Khalidi is a PLO defender/spokesperson. (PLO, my young friends, is Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization --a terrorist group that ruled in Palestine against Israel until HAMAS got control.) In fact Reszco, Khalida, and Farrakhan all have Middle-eastern roots --as does Obama with his Muslim father and Muslim step-father. Granted, he was raised by protestant white folks after some years in Islamic Indonesia with his mother, where she got divorced from Obama's Indonesian step-father.
Then there's Rev. Wright --he listened to him for 20 years without hearing any of his proven racist, "God D America" rhetoric. Obama must be one of those guys who sleeps in church, I guess.
While we may all sit on boards with people we don't agree with--and we all may have been to lunch with people we don't agree with --OBAMA has been very palsy-walsy with this high-powered trio of Middle-eastern guys who lack sympathy for Israel --who think America is deeply flawed and needs THEIR kind of REVOLUTION --whatever that is. Plus Ayres and Dohrn, who raised the son of fellow radicals who are in jail for murder --who named their own son after a Black Panther (also terrorists) who got killed in a battle that killed a policeman.
Obama wasn't named the most liberal senator in the Senate (by his voting record) for nothing.
Furthermore, Obama has favored terrorism in the womb consistently. Woman's choice pre-empts baby's life, even when that baby survives abortion. He listened to the horror stories by the nurses about babies left in hospital closets to die, and still voted 4 times against BAIPA to protect the survivors of abortion, stating that the mother's choice to have her baby dead is preeminent. He says a first priority for him will be to sign FOCA right away if elected (the proposed Freedom of Choice Act revived by liberal Pelosi) --which will nullify all state restrictions against abortion achieved during pro-life administrations--including the ban on partial birth abortions, parental consent laws, limitations on abortion funding and fetal experimentation, and more.
We are electing a radical with radical friends, a wolf in sheep's clothing. He seems to see himself AND HIS KIND OF CHANGE as a panacea; the ignorant celebrity-loving masses agree with him. Perhaps being president will humble him. I hope so, before he ruins the U.S. with crazy court judges, like the one Clinton appointed who said we should release into the U.S., 20 Chinese, Islamic-trained terrorists who trained in Afghanistan. So far the Justice Dep't has appealed and these Asian terrorists are not yet released, because it IS against US policy to do this. But some judges either don't know the law or don't care.
Releasing terrorists into the US is almost as stupid as sending them back to Afghanistan to sign up again with the Taliban resurgence there. I hope, if GITMO closes, that we at least send the prisoners to Afghan courts and prisons--which, you know, will be more inhumane than GITMO ever was. But it would be even MORE inhumane (and stupid) to release Taliban soldiers back into Afghanistan to do again that for which we put them in prison at GITMO --for being "enemy combatants." And worse yet to release them into the U.S. Which has either been proposed or accomplished in the case of some of the Taliban combatants. I'm sure I read that some have been released into the U.S.
Our courts are getting to be veritable cuckoos' nests!
And one more reason for NO'BAMA! He thinks Communism is the same as sharing--saying we would call him a communist for sharing his toys in Kindergarten. No, I would call that sharing. Communism is confiscating the wealth of others such that everyone is poor. Free enterprise and capitalism are the greatest ways to spread around the wealth --which is why the US's poor are richer than most anywhere else in the world. Gov't is to equalize opportunity as much as we can, but not results.
I'm also tired of hearing that Bush gave the biggest tax cuts to the rich. Did they really get bigger cuts? Or is it just that their cuts amounted to more money because they always pay the most taxes??? In any case, when he cut the taxes, the economy surged, and unemployment dropped. Our troubles started up again economically in great part because of the crisis of confidence about Wall Street --and that was not a GOP fiasco --and the high gas prices --caused by consumption? --and our lack of US oil sources (the Democrats' fault) and the natural disasters and 9/11 --which was followed by war and increased security and intelligence --which has kept us safe.
One might logically blame 9/11 and wars that followed on Clinton's failure to take Osama when one nation offered to hand him over to us.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Christians Aren't Federal Change-Agents
Contrary to what a fellow Christian blogger noted, I don't see evangelicals as "advancing a Christian agenda at the federal level," per se--if agenda means "change." I see them as on the defensive to preserve the best Christian-influenced traditions and moral views of our nation --none of which are new or radical.
E.G. we never had to fight with the American Library Ass'n in the past to keep out of the library, away from children, porn, huge sections of gay porn, found now on library computers and shelves. I remember the Monroe, MI library battle to make the Madonna "SEX" book available to kids. The library said they weren't going to protect the children from anything in their library.
Good grief! This is new and radical view of library freedom. Since then, I believe some sensible people have restored some restrictions and responsibilites toward children in the library --because they were attracting perverts --and the women librarians knew it and felt the threat to themselves and kids.
As for library censorship which the ALA doesn't want, they nevertheless take public monies and "make choices" in their purchases. Same with school libraries. Is it not a form of censorship when they choose NOT to buy some books in favor of others?? Where does choice end and censorship begin? They aren't going to buy EVERYTHING. I think libraries can rightly choose not to spend our money on filth that corrupts, as there are better options for public money.
I remember the AW teacher who put a book title, featuring father-daughter incest in a humorous vein on the opening pages, on his supplementary reading list for 9th graders. This is the kind of thing that Christians notice and protest --and rightly so. It was brought to my attention by the mother of a student--who said, "Mom, this is a dirty book!" Why should school libraries make dirty books accessible? or spend money on them? or approve them as donations?
The hard-core liberal would say the same about religious books. That's what we are up against in this cultural war and the fight to retain decency in the public square --not an agenda to enforce Christianity --but simple morals and decency--which the liberal says is indefensible because Christianity is the source.
That's why Obama's K-12 comprehensive sex ed for which he voted in Illinois is more scary than Halloween. We don't want our kindergartners thinking about any sex, much less gay sex --which is what liberal sex ed now encourages --that, and books about boys wearing Mommy's high heels and skirts.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
E.G. we never had to fight with the American Library Ass'n in the past to keep out of the library, away from children, porn, huge sections of gay porn, found now on library computers and shelves. I remember the Monroe, MI library battle to make the Madonna "SEX" book available to kids. The library said they weren't going to protect the children from anything in their library.
Good grief! This is new and radical view of library freedom. Since then, I believe some sensible people have restored some restrictions and responsibilites toward children in the library --because they were attracting perverts --and the women librarians knew it and felt the threat to themselves and kids.
As for library censorship which the ALA doesn't want, they nevertheless take public monies and "make choices" in their purchases. Same with school libraries. Is it not a form of censorship when they choose NOT to buy some books in favor of others?? Where does choice end and censorship begin? They aren't going to buy EVERYTHING. I think libraries can rightly choose not to spend our money on filth that corrupts, as there are better options for public money.
I remember the AW teacher who put a book title, featuring father-daughter incest in a humorous vein on the opening pages, on his supplementary reading list for 9th graders. This is the kind of thing that Christians notice and protest --and rightly so. It was brought to my attention by the mother of a student--who said, "Mom, this is a dirty book!" Why should school libraries make dirty books accessible? or spend money on them? or approve them as donations?
The hard-core liberal would say the same about religious books. That's what we are up against in this cultural war and the fight to retain decency in the public square --not an agenda to enforce Christianity --but simple morals and decency--which the liberal says is indefensible because Christianity is the source.
That's why Obama's K-12 comprehensive sex ed for which he voted in Illinois is more scary than Halloween. We don't want our kindergartners thinking about any sex, much less gay sex --which is what liberal sex ed now encourages --that, and books about boys wearing Mommy's high heels and skirts.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Palin's Wardrobe
Definitely a stupid thing for the RNC to do --to take her to nieman marcus and saks to buy a wardrobe for her whole family --you can't buy a handkerchief there for a reasonable amount. that's what my Dad bought for me from there when he made a Texas trip. It is a store for the ultra rich.
But think of all those employees who work there --and the designers and manufactureres who make the high-end clothing. They spend money too --and they pay taxes. So think of all the income tax resulting from those purchases --and the sales tax.
Think of all the millions spent by and for the candidates. Obama opted to not be limited by the gov't campaign coffers so he is outspending McCain terrifically. The clothes and hairdos on the Alaskan family were just more ADVERTISEMENT! of her and her family, of her as a candidate.
I see her as inexperienced in debate --not being a lawyer--but successful in many ways that are unusual for a woman with a family. She is a first timer to the national spotlight -- but her success record demonstrates her to be VERY sharp. and her recent speeches/interviews have been good enough for me.
I'm voting for Sarah!
All this nit-picking about her is just so much snobbery by the party that claims to champion common folks--like soccer moms and plumbers --but they really belittle such people as stupid and unsophisticated if they jump the democrats' ship!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
But think of all those employees who work there --and the designers and manufactureres who make the high-end clothing. They spend money too --and they pay taxes. So think of all the income tax resulting from those purchases --and the sales tax.
Think of all the millions spent by and for the candidates. Obama opted to not be limited by the gov't campaign coffers so he is outspending McCain terrifically. The clothes and hairdos on the Alaskan family were just more ADVERTISEMENT! of her and her family, of her as a candidate.
I see her as inexperienced in debate --not being a lawyer--but successful in many ways that are unusual for a woman with a family. She is a first timer to the national spotlight -- but her success record demonstrates her to be VERY sharp. and her recent speeches/interviews have been good enough for me.
I'm voting for Sarah!
All this nit-picking about her is just so much snobbery by the party that claims to champion common folks--like soccer moms and plumbers --but they really belittle such people as stupid and unsophisticated if they jump the democrats' ship!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, October 24, 2008
THE GOP CAMPAIGN COULD BE BETTER ON LIFE AND THE COURTS
I agree that the GOP campaign has been lacking. Because there is so much more to be said and better ways to say it than the campaign has been doing. They needed Karl Rove, I guess. Or is he helping now?
No one in this campaign is appealing to noble ideals of Respect for Life in a thorough way. E.G. GW Bush had the "snowflakes" come to the White House. They should be a campaign issue. Children adopted as frozen embryos who are now happy, full, human beings. That should put the brakes on the embryo experiments --we should be promoting embryo adoption. Then there is at least one girl who survived abortion --whose life (through BAIPA) was voted against 4 times by Obama --SHE should be a campaign issue. Commercials should be made of these examples of GOP policy on the value of human life. And on our need for children to support the future. Our younger generation doesn't realize that they will NEED the children some day! I hear so many say they don't want to parent.
The fact that Obama will stack the Supreme Court with ACLU proponents/members should really scare the bejevers out of average Americans --who do believe in parental consent laws, better monitoring and standards for abortion clinics (like other clinics), who do believe in BAIPA (born alive infant protection act) and the ban on partial birth abortions --when the babies could be saved if they must be delivered (aborted) early for life or health of mother. Let them live! Someone will adopt!
Average Americans don't agree with the ACLU about removing "under God" from the pledge, and removing religious mottos from states and coins, and forbidding prayer in public places and removing crosses that were erected as war memorials on public property and removing Ten Commandment displays that our ancestors cherished as reminders of the historical importance and source of LAW.
We're going to see "change" alright --through Obama's judges. He will wash his hands as he so often does (as in voting "present") --and the legislators' will have to change the constitution to put a halt to these activist ACLU judges we are going to get from Obama. Meanwhile, Obama's "change" and its damage may be irreversible, as it will teach the masses that religious expression is forbidden outside church walls, that students attending religious colleges or becoming ministers shouldn't have access to the same gov't aid as other students. That church groups shouldn't have access to public parks for their events, nor equal access to public funds and facilities for their campus groups. All these are things we have had to fight for to win with conservative legislators and judges in the last 3 decades. The ACLU has brought such suits --and Obama will staff the Supreme Court with the ACLU.
The principle at stake is: A religious group should have the same access to public buildings and student funds as the gay group or any other liberal secular group --and the same right to free expression--but we've already seen the federal muzzle at our high school graduation ceremonies where we can't even pray in public for the safety and future success of our students. Where the majority can't even acknowledge faith in a Supreme Being --because of the minority who doesn't think He exists.
With Obama's courts, we will begin to see the greatest repression of the religious --particularly the majority religious group, the Christians --and it will result in the "gaying of America" --Obama says he's not for gay marriage, because he knows the majority of people have voted against it. But he will put ACLU on the Supreme Court and THEY will legalize gay marriage, and gayness will become more prevalent with high visibility and promotion. We will see more benefits for the "shacked up," and even polygamy. It will be a heyday for lawyers trying to figure out whose partner should get what benefits. If we think gov't dependency is excessive now, wait until the polygamists make demands for their families --which teach girls they have no choice but to marry some old gink if God so wills it. We will engineer our own complete national collapse at the hands of enemies from within and without. Mark these words.
So open-minded are liberals --that all common sense has left them.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
No one in this campaign is appealing to noble ideals of Respect for Life in a thorough way. E.G. GW Bush had the "snowflakes" come to the White House. They should be a campaign issue. Children adopted as frozen embryos who are now happy, full, human beings. That should put the brakes on the embryo experiments --we should be promoting embryo adoption. Then there is at least one girl who survived abortion --whose life (through BAIPA) was voted against 4 times by Obama --SHE should be a campaign issue. Commercials should be made of these examples of GOP policy on the value of human life. And on our need for children to support the future. Our younger generation doesn't realize that they will NEED the children some day! I hear so many say they don't want to parent.
The fact that Obama will stack the Supreme Court with ACLU proponents/members should really scare the bejevers out of average Americans --who do believe in parental consent laws, better monitoring and standards for abortion clinics (like other clinics), who do believe in BAIPA (born alive infant protection act) and the ban on partial birth abortions --when the babies could be saved if they must be delivered (aborted) early for life or health of mother. Let them live! Someone will adopt!
Average Americans don't agree with the ACLU about removing "under God" from the pledge, and removing religious mottos from states and coins, and forbidding prayer in public places and removing crosses that were erected as war memorials on public property and removing Ten Commandment displays that our ancestors cherished as reminders of the historical importance and source of LAW.
We're going to see "change" alright --through Obama's judges. He will wash his hands as he so often does (as in voting "present") --and the legislators' will have to change the constitution to put a halt to these activist ACLU judges we are going to get from Obama. Meanwhile, Obama's "change" and its damage may be irreversible, as it will teach the masses that religious expression is forbidden outside church walls, that students attending religious colleges or becoming ministers shouldn't have access to the same gov't aid as other students. That church groups shouldn't have access to public parks for their events, nor equal access to public funds and facilities for their campus groups. All these are things we have had to fight for to win with conservative legislators and judges in the last 3 decades. The ACLU has brought such suits --and Obama will staff the Supreme Court with the ACLU.
The principle at stake is: A religious group should have the same access to public buildings and student funds as the gay group or any other liberal secular group --and the same right to free expression--but we've already seen the federal muzzle at our high school graduation ceremonies where we can't even pray in public for the safety and future success of our students. Where the majority can't even acknowledge faith in a Supreme Being --because of the minority who doesn't think He exists.
With Obama's courts, we will begin to see the greatest repression of the religious --particularly the majority religious group, the Christians --and it will result in the "gaying of America" --Obama says he's not for gay marriage, because he knows the majority of people have voted against it. But he will put ACLU on the Supreme Court and THEY will legalize gay marriage, and gayness will become more prevalent with high visibility and promotion. We will see more benefits for the "shacked up," and even polygamy. It will be a heyday for lawyers trying to figure out whose partner should get what benefits. If we think gov't dependency is excessive now, wait until the polygamists make demands for their families --which teach girls they have no choice but to marry some old gink if God so wills it. We will engineer our own complete national collapse at the hands of enemies from within and without. Mark these words.
So open-minded are liberals --that all common sense has left them.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Obama's Ayres Connection
If Ayres and Dohrn (sp?) gave me a kick-off campaign party for one of my earlier political races in his living room (parsed away as untrue by Obama (untrue for the pres. race--but it is true re: another campaign of Obama's) --and if my supporter so recently said he wished he had bombed more --and he so recently had himself photographed standing on the American flag --I would question why this man thought I would be a good candidate. And I hope I'd have the good sense to refuse his official help.
It's natural for a discerning public to assume that these two men, Ayres and Obama, think alike at some point --are mutually critical of our nation--have shared conversation to that effect. Michelle said it when she said she was proud for the first time of AMerica because they were supporting her husband. One wonders about her past lack of pride in America if this is her first time of pride.
Obama's minister said "God damn America." Was that a prayer?? That's a poor way to say America needs to repent, which it does --regarding our pornography, abortion, remnants of racism, drugs, gambling, casinos, and general immorality as a people --as well as the corporate greed that would cause Enron's disgrace and the Freddie Mac corruption (and all the other) (headed by Obama's friend who got 90 million as the CEO of the unregulated Freddie mac--whose advice Obama sought concerning housing policy recently) --note that Obama was one of two biggest recipients of campaign support from Freddie Mac and its CEO, Raines.
We should know that Obama is not a successful change agent --considering that the progress he attempted to achieve in So. Chicago did not come to fruition in the long run.
And why not? Because politics and gov't spending are not the solution to the so. side of Chicago. They could help --but the real change needed in blighted areas of the nation is moral and spiritual.
The people who get ahead in America (on average) are the ones who take school seriously, have a good work ethic, marry one woman and support her children, and stay away from extra-marital sex, alcohol, drugs, nicotine, gambling and gangs. And even these people are experiencing much divorce and disfunction if their lives are not founded on the Lord.
The real change has to be inner --and it starts with the wisdom of the Bible: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds." "If any man is in Christ He is a new creation." "ye must be born again --born of the Spirit of God."
That's the change that can transform a nation.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
It's natural for a discerning public to assume that these two men, Ayres and Obama, think alike at some point --are mutually critical of our nation--have shared conversation to that effect. Michelle said it when she said she was proud for the first time of AMerica because they were supporting her husband. One wonders about her past lack of pride in America if this is her first time of pride.
Obama's minister said "God damn America." Was that a prayer?? That's a poor way to say America needs to repent, which it does --regarding our pornography, abortion, remnants of racism, drugs, gambling, casinos, and general immorality as a people --as well as the corporate greed that would cause Enron's disgrace and the Freddie Mac corruption (and all the other) (headed by Obama's friend who got 90 million as the CEO of the unregulated Freddie mac--whose advice Obama sought concerning housing policy recently) --note that Obama was one of two biggest recipients of campaign support from Freddie Mac and its CEO, Raines.
We should know that Obama is not a successful change agent --considering that the progress he attempted to achieve in So. Chicago did not come to fruition in the long run.
And why not? Because politics and gov't spending are not the solution to the so. side of Chicago. They could help --but the real change needed in blighted areas of the nation is moral and spiritual.
The people who get ahead in America (on average) are the ones who take school seriously, have a good work ethic, marry one woman and support her children, and stay away from extra-marital sex, alcohol, drugs, nicotine, gambling and gangs. And even these people are experiencing much divorce and disfunction if their lives are not founded on the Lord.
The real change has to be inner --and it starts with the wisdom of the Bible: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds." "If any man is in Christ He is a new creation." "ye must be born again --born of the Spirit of God."
That's the change that can transform a nation.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, October 20, 2008
Did Obama Really Say This on "Meet the Press"? If so, he should be toast as a candidate.
NO, ACCORDING TO SNOPES http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
he did not say the following--and he did not appear on Meet the Press on this particular day as described below. Political columnist John Semmens of The Arizona Conservative supposedly wrote Obama's quotation below as satire.
I think this is just what Lindsborg THINKS Obama is really thinking --and his wife. A satirical piece, but it will be taken as truth the way it is presented.
In light of my Snopes research, I don't know if Lindsborg had anything to do with this email.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
he did not say the following--and he did not appear on Meet the Press on this particular day as described below. Political columnist John Semmens of The Arizona Conservative supposedly wrote Obama's quotation below as satire.
The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised "Meet The Press'. and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!! Yeah...the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must say that I'm duly impressed...[I don't know who "I" is --the one who sent it to me, or another.]
From Sunday's Televised "Meet the Press," Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
"Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code,
Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, "Stand and Face It"
Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine". Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overw helm the United States of America ."
[expletive] Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President.
I, for one, am speechless.
Dale Lindsborg ,
Washington Post
I think this is just what Lindsborg THINKS Obama is really thinking --and his wife. A satirical piece, but it will be taken as truth the way it is presented.
In light of my Snopes research, I don't know if Lindsborg had anything to do with this email.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, October 19, 2008
ELMWOOD SCHOOL FALL CONCERT --Shine the Light!
Miss Rohrs of the Elmwood school district has a concert at 7 pm this Thursday night and she predicts it will be really fine. A trademark of her concerts is a joint choir number for her 200 or so students as a finale, which gives even the youngest the experience of harmony singing with the other choirs.
The choirs perform in the older building auditorium, just east of the new school. The Elmwood schools are in the country, SW of BG and due east of Jerry City on the Jerry City Road.
She is thrilled with the quality of her high school groups this year.
Elmwood choirs and musicals are always entertaining.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
The choirs perform in the older building auditorium, just east of the new school. The Elmwood schools are in the country, SW of BG and due east of Jerry City on the Jerry City Road.
She is thrilled with the quality of her high school groups this year.
Elmwood choirs and musicals are always entertaining.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Why One Christian Man Won't Vote for Obama
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp
This is an excellent email that the musician Huntley Brown sent to all his friends. It was verified as his and he responded to Snopes' verification.
I see where the ACLU wants to outlaw a tradition of prayer by a chaplain before lunch in one of our military academies.
We are going to see religious expression and freedom greatly curtailed in public by an Obama Supreme court which WILL be composed of ACLU members, radical liberals.
Polite and reasonable as Obama presents himself, he has been surrounded by radical liberals and WAS voted the most liberal senator in 2007.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
This is an excellent email that the musician Huntley Brown sent to all his friends. It was verified as his and he responded to Snopes' verification.
I see where the ACLU wants to outlaw a tradition of prayer by a chaplain before lunch in one of our military academies.
We are going to see religious expression and freedom greatly curtailed in public by an Obama Supreme court which WILL be composed of ACLU members, radical liberals.
Polite and reasonable as Obama presents himself, he has been surrounded by radical liberals and WAS voted the most liberal senator in 2007.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, October 17, 2008
CAN'T BELIEVE THE BIGOTRY AGAINST JOE, THE PLUMBER!
WOW! MUDRAKE SLIPS --AND ONCE AGAIN REVEALS HIS BIGOTRY TOWARD THE BLUE COLLAR WORKING CLASS IN THIS RANT: (You can skip down to my response --I'd recommend it.)
posted by mud_rake at 8:38 AM on Oct 17, 2008
__________________
Barb said...
Yes, Mudrake, you showed your disdain for the common working man here. What a snob! Just like when you picture Toledo's most humble homes here to ridicule those who live within.
I have a plumber who bought the business from his partner --so who are you to say that Joe and his partner haven't talked about such a transaction??
And so what if he hopes to build a business that NETS him a quarter million a year --after which he will pay --what? at least 1/3 of it to taxes now and probably more? Why should he welcome a 50% or higher tax by Obama so Obama can "spread the wealth around?"
The American dream motivates us to work to get ahead of ourselves. Why should we give more than a third of our earnings to gov't? I agree with McCain, however, who said he was all for raising the taxes of the super rich like Letterman! Those people won't miss it. But small business folks --which include blue and white collar folks, even professionals like physicians, don't like paying over 1/3 of their taxable income to Uncle Sam for "spreading the wealth." Some small businesses are million dollar businesses --with the owner's salary being 1/5 or less of the revenue generated as it is --after taxes, salaries, raises, insurances, paid vacations for all. No one knows the hard work of the business owners in many businesses --take my brother's restaurant business or my husband's medical practice. They are very hands on, the ones who work the 16 hour days at least -- and responsible for incomes of many other people. Don't penalize the job-generators in this country.
If they're smart, these people are not voting for a Democrat --no matter how eloquent.
HOwever, my main reason for not voting for Obama is that he will put the ACLU on the Supreme Court --and we will once again see Christians having to fight for equal rights to public property, parks, schools, for their ideology-based meetings, while the secularists/humanists/atheists will be advantaged as the "irreligious." We will also see loss of parental rights and advancement of UN ideologies in our policies. We will see more of "Jesse's Skirt" and other transgender and gay story books taught to our kdgtn. children. Christian schools will be required to admit practicing homoesexuals and transgenders on faculties and to student body -- despite their religious beliefs against such lifestyles --or lose any gov't funding for their students.
Look at the history of court cases that conservatives have managed to win --like equal access and parental consent laws, BAIPA and Partial Birth Abortion ban--they won't be won anymore with the ACLU on the Supreme Court. War memorials with crosses on them will be disallowed. Christian elements of our heritage will be erased. Polygamy and gay marriage and benefits for the "shacked up" will be commonplace. Soon, you won't recognize America as a moral and decent nation. We will look like cold, unfriendly, childless, unfathered,divorced, immoral Europe --with Islamic majority promoting sharia law taking them over.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
He's gotten quite the media attention, Toledo's Joe [Samuel] Wurzelbacher, ever since he 'confronted' Barack Obama walking down his street last Sunday. My wife thinks that Joe wanted to show the black guy who's boss of this neighborhood, thus the confrontation.
From several reports on the man, and from his talk radio interviews, it is clear that he really wasn't interested in 'buying the plumbing business' at all, but rather, he wanted to stop Obama's momentum on that warm October afternoon.
Joe makes about 40 grand, owes $1200 in 2007 taxes, but wants to 'know' how Obama's tax plan would affect his taxes 'if'' he bought the non-union plumbing business that, in fact, is not for sale. Wurzelbacher told reporters that the company he works for, Newell Plumbing & Heating, has two full-time employees: himself and the owner, Al Newell. By the way, the business is estimated to be worth about $100k, not $250k.
Joe said that his encounter with Mr. Obama had been prompted by his desire “to ask one of these guys a question, and really corner them and get them to answer a question for once instead of tap dancing around it. And unfortunately I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance.”
No, Joe, it wasn't a tap dance, it was the loose brain matter under that shaved head of yours that was rattling. You really didn't want to ask Obama about his tax plan at all. No, you were angry at a black man moving way ahead of you and your dopey $40k scab plumbing jobs. You typify the angry white male who thinks that you deserve something just because your skin is white. After all, doors were always open to you ever since you were born.
You are in a dead-end job, no license, no apprenticeship, no hope for much more than $40k. So, you have become the typical angry redneck, looking to blame somebody else for your misery. That cocky black guy walking down your street did it, right, Joe? You are a white guy stuck in an economic dead-end, but you have to knock the black guy who obviously out-did you, And, grit your teeth, Joe, he did it all on his own, no hand-out, no affirmative action, just brains, guts and perseverance.
On talk radio, Joe was spewing the usual right-wing, aka 'libertarian' garbage talking points, looking for sympathy among that ugly knot of ideologues who want everything but aren't willing to give anything back in return. You don't think that paying taxes is 'the American way.' Your non-payment of Ohio State Tax proves that you love being a 'libertarian' but hate having to pay for that luxury. Who should pay for our 'freedoms' and our 'way of life,' Joe? Are you really so illiterate, so ignorant of American history and the duties and obligations of being an American citizen?
You want it all, Joe, but aren't willing to pay your fair share. Sounds a lot like those 'welfare mothers' whom right-wingers love to condemn. Dead from your red neck up, Joe.
update:
That 'business' that Joe wishes to 'buy' turns out to be a home in a residential neighborhood of Toledo. The address of A W Newell Inc (Newell Plumbing) is listed as 5665 Cowan Street, Toledo, OH 43613-2071. It is a 4-bedroom brick ranch home. Apparently Joe and his buddy AW work out of a house. Some 'business!'
posted by mud_rake at 8:38 AM on Oct 17, 2008
__________________
Barb said...
Yes, Mudrake, you showed your disdain for the common working man here. What a snob! Just like when you picture Toledo's most humble homes here to ridicule those who live within.
I have a plumber who bought the business from his partner --so who are you to say that Joe and his partner haven't talked about such a transaction??
And so what if he hopes to build a business that NETS him a quarter million a year --after which he will pay --what? at least 1/3 of it to taxes now and probably more? Why should he welcome a 50% or higher tax by Obama so Obama can "spread the wealth around?"
The American dream motivates us to work to get ahead of ourselves. Why should we give more than a third of our earnings to gov't? I agree with McCain, however, who said he was all for raising the taxes of the super rich like Letterman! Those people won't miss it. But small business folks --which include blue and white collar folks, even professionals like physicians, don't like paying over 1/3 of their taxable income to Uncle Sam for "spreading the wealth." Some small businesses are million dollar businesses --with the owner's salary being 1/5 or less of the revenue generated as it is --after taxes, salaries, raises, insurances, paid vacations for all. No one knows the hard work of the business owners in many businesses --take my brother's restaurant business or my husband's medical practice. They are very hands on, the ones who work the 16 hour days at least -- and responsible for incomes of many other people. Don't penalize the job-generators in this country.
If they're smart, these people are not voting for a Democrat --no matter how eloquent.
HOwever, my main reason for not voting for Obama is that he will put the ACLU on the Supreme Court --and we will once again see Christians having to fight for equal rights to public property, parks, schools, for their ideology-based meetings, while the secularists/humanists/atheists will be advantaged as the "irreligious." We will also see loss of parental rights and advancement of UN ideologies in our policies. We will see more of "Jesse's Skirt" and other transgender and gay story books taught to our kdgtn. children. Christian schools will be required to admit practicing homoesexuals and transgenders on faculties and to student body -- despite their religious beliefs against such lifestyles --or lose any gov't funding for their students.
Look at the history of court cases that conservatives have managed to win --like equal access and parental consent laws, BAIPA and Partial Birth Abortion ban--they won't be won anymore with the ACLU on the Supreme Court. War memorials with crosses on them will be disallowed. Christian elements of our heritage will be erased. Polygamy and gay marriage and benefits for the "shacked up" will be commonplace. Soon, you won't recognize America as a moral and decent nation. We will look like cold, unfriendly, childless, unfathered,divorced, immoral Europe --with Islamic majority promoting sharia law taking them over.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, October 13, 2008
LEST I GET DELETED -- WHY FUNDAMENTALISTS/EVANGELICALS AREN'T JUST "OLD TESTAMENT THUMPERS" AS MUD-RAKE SAYS
In case Mud-rake removes me from discussion on his fundamentalist muck-raking blog (his name for it), I am re-posting here.
Mudrake, I just mentioned that we are not under the Old Testament Law but under New Testament grace, and you come back talking about your notion of "fundamentalists" as "O.T. Thumpers." Why is that? Didn't you read my comment above?
There isn't anything that evangelicals believe that isn't reinforced in both testaments --including our pro-life position and our view of marriage and sexuality. Both are defensible by both testaments. Orthodox Jews and Bible-believing Christians would agree on these family matters. So a person can be a "New Testament thumper" --and still come to the same conclusions about right and wrong as what Mudrake calls an "O.T. Thumper."
To the Christian blogger, Dawg-doc, a Mississippi professor of American politics, I take issue with his statement that fundamentalists want to legislate morality.
We, whom Mudrake calls "fundamentalists," are just concerned that there are radical liberals who HAVE changed abortion law, thus legislating their view of morality through the activist court --and now they want to change marriage law --which they will do once they take the Supreme Court majority again for many decades to come. Hillary, e.g., will likely be put on the court if Obama wins.
We so-called "fundamentalists" are not the "changers" wanting to legislate some new restrictions on a free society.
We believe the LAW teaches. After Roe, promiscuity rate shot through the roof and that era was called "the sexual revolution." The new law taught the American public that abortion was ok. What did we get? MUCH more unwed teen pregnancy, more men refusing to marry these girls because they contended the girls should have aborted, more teen moms keeping babies and parenting inadequately, and less adoption --and new-to-us incurable STD's.
Now the liberal people want new law to teach the masses that homosexuality, cross-dressing, etc. are normal and new and equal "rights." They want this taught in the schools, K-12. You will send your kids to home school or Christian school --and abandon the public school kids, who can't afford private ed, whose parents don't know what's going on, --you would allow these children to be exposed to books like "My 2 dads" and "Jesse's Skirt" --or whatever --books promoting crossdressing and homosexual marriage to young children. That's why Christians should favor vouchers for ALL children to afford the choice of a moral education --to break that monopoly of the secular liberal viewpoint on our schools.
Homosexual relations and cross-dressing are "allowed" and not prosecuted by law --but liberal folks want to CHANGE the law to recognize homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in marriage and employment laws --to make us hire cross-dressers and homosexuals in any job, accommodate their financial costs for sex-changes, adoption, surrogacy, etc. Already, schools are advised to let children cross-dress, despite the disruption it causes among children.
We will then also be asked to turn a blind eye, as we almost do already, to polygamy --and to support their huge numbers of children with medicaid and foodstamps, etc. --and overlook that they teach the young girls under their fathers' authority that God wants them to marry these over-the-hill husbands of many other women. Not exactly equal rights for girls.
I'm no change-agent re: the law; I'm concerned about those who succeeded in changing abortion law in 73, who, like Mud-rake here, go so far as to say that Bible-believers are, in his words, "un-American and dangerous" because they oppose these recent and pending legal changes.
He said elsewhere that "American democracy cannot abide such a sub-group in this nation" --referring to fundamentalist or right wing Christians--even evangelicals. I don't think he sees much distinction between the two groups, but he hasn't said lately just what it is he thinks should be done with us. I think he suggested prison once, like GITMO, but I probably can't find that in his archives, as every now and then, he seems to have an attack of conscience or embarrassment and deletes whole blogs of his.
I think this new wave of evangelicals saying we should ignore the law and politics and just evangelize are missing the salt and light function of the Church in a free society--our responsibility to other people's children and not just our own. The Church has always put our money into missions, the needy, evangelization --and also into para-church groups being salt and light in the halls of Congress --slowing down abortion, retarding the nation's slide into a moral abyss, proclaiming the moral truths of our God to a nation whose faith is eroding, under the onslaught of unbelievers filling our university faculties.
We are missing how important a free society with righteous law is to the church when evangelicals become pacifists and say we should not participate in the wars for democracy. Our freedom has enabled us to prosper and to send missionaries around the world. Totalitarian governments give no room for the Gospel to be proclaimed.
Democracy with freedom of both speech and religion is essential to the spread of the Gospel --and I think we are supposed to help restrain the bullies of the world --when it comes to the eternal battle between truth and deception, good and evil.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Mudrake, I just mentioned that we are not under the Old Testament Law but under New Testament grace, and you come back talking about your notion of "fundamentalists" as "O.T. Thumpers." Why is that? Didn't you read my comment above?
There isn't anything that evangelicals believe that isn't reinforced in both testaments --including our pro-life position and our view of marriage and sexuality. Both are defensible by both testaments. Orthodox Jews and Bible-believing Christians would agree on these family matters. So a person can be a "New Testament thumper" --and still come to the same conclusions about right and wrong as what Mudrake calls an "O.T. Thumper."
To the Christian blogger, Dawg-doc, a Mississippi professor of American politics, I take issue with his statement that fundamentalists want to legislate morality.
We, whom Mudrake calls "fundamentalists," are just concerned that there are radical liberals who HAVE changed abortion law, thus legislating their view of morality through the activist court --and now they want to change marriage law --which they will do once they take the Supreme Court majority again for many decades to come. Hillary, e.g., will likely be put on the court if Obama wins.
We so-called "fundamentalists" are not the "changers" wanting to legislate some new restrictions on a free society.
We believe the LAW teaches. After Roe, promiscuity rate shot through the roof and that era was called "the sexual revolution." The new law taught the American public that abortion was ok. What did we get? MUCH more unwed teen pregnancy, more men refusing to marry these girls because they contended the girls should have aborted, more teen moms keeping babies and parenting inadequately, and less adoption --and new-to-us incurable STD's.
Now the liberal people want new law to teach the masses that homosexuality, cross-dressing, etc. are normal and new and equal "rights." They want this taught in the schools, K-12. You will send your kids to home school or Christian school --and abandon the public school kids, who can't afford private ed, whose parents don't know what's going on, --you would allow these children to be exposed to books like "My 2 dads" and "Jesse's Skirt" --or whatever --books promoting crossdressing and homosexual marriage to young children. That's why Christians should favor vouchers for ALL children to afford the choice of a moral education --to break that monopoly of the secular liberal viewpoint on our schools.
Homosexual relations and cross-dressing are "allowed" and not prosecuted by law --but liberal folks want to CHANGE the law to recognize homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in marriage and employment laws --to make us hire cross-dressers and homosexuals in any job, accommodate their financial costs for sex-changes, adoption, surrogacy, etc. Already, schools are advised to let children cross-dress, despite the disruption it causes among children.
We will then also be asked to turn a blind eye, as we almost do already, to polygamy --and to support their huge numbers of children with medicaid and foodstamps, etc. --and overlook that they teach the young girls under their fathers' authority that God wants them to marry these over-the-hill husbands of many other women. Not exactly equal rights for girls.
I'm no change-agent re: the law; I'm concerned about those who succeeded in changing abortion law in 73, who, like Mud-rake here, go so far as to say that Bible-believers are, in his words, "un-American and dangerous" because they oppose these recent and pending legal changes.
He said elsewhere that "American democracy cannot abide such a sub-group in this nation" --referring to fundamentalist or right wing Christians--even evangelicals. I don't think he sees much distinction between the two groups, but he hasn't said lately just what it is he thinks should be done with us. I think he suggested prison once, like GITMO, but I probably can't find that in his archives, as every now and then, he seems to have an attack of conscience or embarrassment and deletes whole blogs of his.
I think this new wave of evangelicals saying we should ignore the law and politics and just evangelize are missing the salt and light function of the Church in a free society--our responsibility to other people's children and not just our own. The Church has always put our money into missions, the needy, evangelization --and also into para-church groups being salt and light in the halls of Congress --slowing down abortion, retarding the nation's slide into a moral abyss, proclaiming the moral truths of our God to a nation whose faith is eroding, under the onslaught of unbelievers filling our university faculties.
We are missing how important a free society with righteous law is to the church when evangelicals become pacifists and say we should not participate in the wars for democracy. Our freedom has enabled us to prosper and to send missionaries around the world. Totalitarian governments give no room for the Gospel to be proclaimed.
Democracy with freedom of both speech and religion is essential to the spread of the Gospel --and I think we are supposed to help restrain the bullies of the world --when it comes to the eternal battle between truth and deception, good and evil.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
ALARM BELLS! HERE'S WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST AS BIBLE-BELIEVING AMERICANS
Bruce Lawrence writes in his book, excerpted by the blogger Mudrake, Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age:
Exactly right. We don't believe all sets of values are equally as good or equally as functional nor something to promote in public education and policy. E.G. polygamy, female circumcision and the Planned Parenthood theme: "sexual exploration is OK for unwed teens as long as they use condoms." The proof that all values are not equal is abundant in the results in peoples' lives. In the character of individuals and nations.
Christianity cultivates humaneness --compassion--kindness --responsibility --ethical behavior--morality--and CIVILITY in discourse. When we lapse, or sin, we know better and have repenting to do and amends to make. Yes, Chrsitians are blind sometimes, by the beam in their eyes --and they are known to yield to temptation same as unbelievers --but we believe there is a standard, the Word of God, to challenge us and to remind us of the right path. We know we must not justify our own sins.
But here follows the most dangerous conclusion for Christians stated by Mudrake himself:
ANd what do you propose, Mudrake, that you true democracy lovers should do to the religious right??? if you cannot abide them? Kill them? Imprison them? deport them? What is your solution for this intolerable sub-group?
The point of democracy was that majority would rule --while minority rights would have leeway.
You prove what I've always suspected with this article/book quotation -- that you and your democrat party are MOSTLY concerned about the Religious Right and their stands on gay rights and abortion --PERIOD. End of your concern. As long as we think public policy should restrain evil as defined in the Bible, we are the evil. And yet, this view that gov't should restrain evil has made America the best of nations--an exceptional nation.
The tactic of the left, to win public support, is to accuse the Religious Right of lacking compassion for the poor. Of being mere self-interested Capitalists. This is just a lie, to obstruct the fact that your real concern is our promotion of traditional moral values.
I assume this is your writing here, Mudrake:
A democracy is obligated to reward the lazy? Hmmmmm. I don't think we are obligated --except by the rule of compassion.
Out of Christian compassion, we believe in taking care of all the dysfunctional people, seems to me, whether they are just unfortunate, handicapped by their generations of dysfunctional upbringing, or by physical disability--or even if they are just lazy (which is a difficult judgment to make --it's only when you work one on one to help a lazy person keep a job that you realize that there ARE SOME lazy people.) And we really don't believe in letting anybody starve in our country --no matter what caused their hunger.
And these disadvantaged people can all vote too --so what's your gripe about democracy here, as it pertains to the Religious Right? I don't get your conclusion.
But I hear your message --we of the Christian Right must not be tolerated.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Many, perhaps most members of the Christian Right feel that it is one thing to permit dissidents to live in peace, quite another to say that any set of values is just as good, or just as functional, as any other set."
Exactly right. We don't believe all sets of values are equally as good or equally as functional nor something to promote in public education and policy. E.G. polygamy, female circumcision and the Planned Parenthood theme: "sexual exploration is OK for unwed teens as long as they use condoms." The proof that all values are not equal is abundant in the results in peoples' lives. In the character of individuals and nations.
Christianity cultivates humaneness --compassion--kindness --responsibility --ethical behavior--morality--and CIVILITY in discourse. When we lapse, or sin, we know better and have repenting to do and amends to make. Yes, Chrsitians are blind sometimes, by the beam in their eyes --and they are known to yield to temptation same as unbelievers --but we believe there is a standard, the Word of God, to challenge us and to remind us of the right path. We know we must not justify our own sins.
But here follows the most dangerous conclusion for Christians stated by Mudrake himself:
"If Bruce Lawrence's expression is widely held, then indeed American democracy cannot abide such a sub-group in this nation.
ANd what do you propose, Mudrake, that you true democracy lovers should do to the religious right??? if you cannot abide them? Kill them? Imprison them? deport them? What is your solution for this intolerable sub-group?
The point of democracy was that majority would rule --while minority rights would have leeway.
You prove what I've always suspected with this article/book quotation -- that you and your democrat party are MOSTLY concerned about the Religious Right and their stands on gay rights and abortion --PERIOD. End of your concern. As long as we think public policy should restrain evil as defined in the Bible, we are the evil. And yet, this view that gov't should restrain evil has made America the best of nations--an exceptional nation.
The tactic of the left, to win public support, is to accuse the Religious Right of lacking compassion for the poor. Of being mere self-interested Capitalists. This is just a lie, to obstruct the fact that your real concern is our promotion of traditional moral values.
I assume this is your writing here, Mudrake:
"Cornerstone #3 sets Fundamental Christians into direct conflict with our democracy. This sentence [Lawrences' interp of a religious right attitude] is especially egregious: "Why should the irresponsible, the lazy, and the unpatriotic be rewarded by those same public institutions?" Why? Because it is a democracy."
A democracy is obligated to reward the lazy? Hmmmmm. I don't think we are obligated --except by the rule of compassion.
Out of Christian compassion, we believe in taking care of all the dysfunctional people, seems to me, whether they are just unfortunate, handicapped by their generations of dysfunctional upbringing, or by physical disability--or even if they are just lazy (which is a difficult judgment to make --it's only when you work one on one to help a lazy person keep a job that you realize that there ARE SOME lazy people.) And we really don't believe in letting anybody starve in our country --no matter what caused their hunger.
And these disadvantaged people can all vote too --so what's your gripe about democracy here, as it pertains to the Religious Right? I don't get your conclusion.
But I hear your message --we of the Christian Right must not be tolerated.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Saturday, October 11, 2008
THOMAS SOWELL ON THE ECONOMY --DEMS AT FAULT
Do Facts Matter?
by Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 03, 2008
Sowell is a syndicated columnist, a black conservative, with impeccable credentials and reputation.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
by Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 03, 2008
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now. Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
Sowell is a syndicated columnist, a black conservative, with impeccable credentials and reputation.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
SHORT IMPORTANT VIDEO CLIP ON PRES. RACE
HERE IS A MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO CLIP THAT YOU MUST SEE --ON THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE!
A Great Man for President
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
A Great Man for President
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
BACON,EGG AND CHEESE BISCUIT, PLEASE! AFA DROPS McDONALD'S BOYCOTT
AFA ends boycott: McDonald's agrees to changes
They must've felt the effects of the boycott --as did Levi and Disney before them.
If people think such boycotts aren't "right," they are mistaken. I don't need to support a company with my dollars who is actively supporting groups that want gay marriage, undermining the traditional family.
I still maintain that homosexual temptation is no different, no more compelling and inevitable and immutable, than pedophilia, adultery, incest, rape, or any other temptation involving sexual libido --temptations which start with a first thought. AT that point, we are at a crossroads with choice. We need to fortify that mental and spiritual FILTER that refuses to allow illicit thoughts into the brain to gain a stronghold. "Just don't go there!" in one's "vain imaginations." (A Biblical phrase.)
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
October 9, 2008
Dear Jonathan & Barbara,
Great news! Because of AFA supporters like you, McDonald’s has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald’s. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald’s joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
McDonald’s said McDonald’s Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned his position on the board of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.
In an e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners the company said, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.”
We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager.
They must've felt the effects of the boycott --as did Levi and Disney before them.
If people think such boycotts aren't "right," they are mistaken. I don't need to support a company with my dollars who is actively supporting groups that want gay marriage, undermining the traditional family.
I still maintain that homosexual temptation is no different, no more compelling and inevitable and immutable, than pedophilia, adultery, incest, rape, or any other temptation involving sexual libido --temptations which start with a first thought. AT that point, we are at a crossroads with choice. We need to fortify that mental and spiritual FILTER that refuses to allow illicit thoughts into the brain to gain a stronghold. "Just don't go there!" in one's "vain imaginations." (A Biblical phrase.)
"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)