Junk Food Pizza - Large meat pizza covered with potato skins, mozzarella sticks, mini taco’s, jalapeño poppers and onion rings.
Be Holy Because I Am Holy
9 years ago
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
This Is Why We're Fat #1
I'm starting a new series today and will post follow ups from time to time. So, whithout further delay, here is Why We're Fat #1:
Junk Food Pizza - Large meat pizza covered with potato skins, mozzarella sticks, mini taco’s, jalapeño poppers and onion rings.
Junk Food Pizza - Large meat pizza covered with potato skins, mozzarella sticks, mini taco’s, jalapeño poppers and onion rings.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Fairnes Doctrine: Who Are We Becomming?
One of my favorites, Megyn Kelly, provides a sound argument against the "fairness"......
The argument for this is so weak, so unintelligible, and so un-American. Yes, everyone is entitled to state their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions pro-American!
The argument for this is so weak, so unintelligible, and so un-American. Yes, everyone is entitled to state their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions pro-American!
The Fairness Doctrine: Trampling the Constitution
I am speechless after reading this in the online version of The American Spectator and I continue to be baffled by this:
They say it’s all about “diversity in media”? Listen, if I don’t like what a radio or TV show is talking about, I don’t have to listen. If a website is “heavily trafficked” do they link to other sites that present alternate views?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
Now they are talking about having media advisory boards that “watch” what the media outlets do and if they don’t think it conforms to their ideas of so-called “fairness” they can prevent license renewals! News agencies that don’t conform will be penalized by the inability to stay in business. All controlled by what one group of elitist people think!! This is communism!!
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is moving forward with discussing ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine”. Waxman is also interested in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
They say it’s all about “diversity in media”? Listen, if I don’t like what a radio or TV show is talking about, I don’t have to listen. If a website is “heavily trafficked” do they link to other sites that present alternate views?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
Now they are talking about having media advisory boards that “watch” what the media outlets do and if they don’t think it conforms to their ideas of so-called “fairness” they can prevent license renewals! News agencies that don’t conform will be penalized by the inability to stay in business. All controlled by what one group of elitist people think!! This is communism!!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
As Promised: Natural Selection
This post is a follow up to the February 8, 2009 post Called "Old Blue Eyes". If you haven't read that yet, or maybe it's been awhile since you last read it, go read it and then come back and read the rest of this. It will make more sense if you do.
Since a discussion on natural selection begins with living organisms already in place, I want to remind the reader to keep in mind the question of how did any life appear in the first place? More than that, why is there anything at all in reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? When we discuss any topic of biology I think we should do so within the framework of logic and the most important law of logic is that something cannot come from nothing. It violates the law of non-contradiction and I welcome anyone who can give me proof positive that shows where something did come from nothing.
I'm about to ask you a question and want you to carefully think about it. I mean really, think about it. If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not even God, what would there be today?
What Secular Science Teaches:
Science teaches that natural selection, also known as survival of the fittest, is evidence for the idea of molecules mutating over time to become more and more complex life forms. The life forms that develop and adapt best are the ones that survive.
In scientific circles when one talks of natural selection, it is understood that you are talking about evolution and the most influential thinker in this space was Charles Darwin. Darwin in fact formed his initial ideas about natural selection from the previous work of Edward Blyth. Blyth wrote that an organism may possess some inheritable trait or characteristic which in a given environment gives that organism a greater chance of passing on its genes to the next generation. Over generations that trait or characteristic has a good chance of becoming more widespread in the population. Darwin’s continuing work theorized that in such ways creatures become more adapted and better suited to the environment in which they find themselves.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
Darwin believed this “fine tuning” to the environment to be a process that was creative and without limits. He saw new varieties that given enough time would create new characteristics and given even more time would evolve into a totally new creature.
I ask you to think about that in light of the “something from nothing” question. What Darwin is theorizing is that given enough time a life form will create characteristics in a world where those characteristics never existed before. In a world where there is no such thing as seeing or sight, and never has been prior to that point in time, a life form’s genes somehow determined that it needed to see in order to survive and over time the eye was created. Remember, science teaches us that life was formed when lightning struck a primordial tidal pool that contained previously inanimate random molecules (see my January 13, 2009 post called "Close Only Counts With..."). It is believed that the first life on earth was in the form of blue-green algae. But, prior to that point there was no life and certainly no genetic information because there were no genes. No DNA.
Alternative Theory:
The alternative theory is that adaptation is degenerative. I believe this is true because this is the process that is actually observed in nature. What is observed is that life adapts by the elimination of genetic information.
The price paid in adaptation is always a permanent loss of information and once it is lost it cannot be regenerated. It starts with a parent that contains all possible combinations in it’s genes and natural selection “specializes” offspring into different kinds, but never creates new information that was never there to start with.
A simple example of this can be seen in the breeding of animals; for example dogs or horses. From a parent that contains a broad selection of genetic characteristics you breed out the traits you don’t want and keep the traits you do want in order to achieve the desired results. Once it’s achieved you can’t go backwards. The only way that new genetic information can be introduced back into the animal is if you interbreed the one kind with another kind. But the genetic information wasn’t crated from nothing.
Consider these two theories in terms of what is most logical. Is it Darwin’s “uphill” limitless process that proposes that the eye, lungs, feathers, and all the specialized variety seen in life today arose from a world where those things never existed before and in which the genetic information was not in existence? Or that natural selection is in fact a process of culling, of choosing between several genetic traits that are already in creation.
I contend that the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. So where did all the variety we see come from? I say, that given the more logical explanation that natural selection is a degenerative process starting with a genetically broad parent, doesn’t the creation account given in the Bible make more sense now? God didn’t create all the variety we see today. While God is The Creator (the original cause) of all the firsts of everything (the effects), He started by creating a genetically broad first. There was one or maybe a limited few kinds of dog, cat, lion, turtle, bird, fungus, algae, etc. Over time these life forms changed given their environment, but only by the removal of genetic information that was already there.
The same is true for humans. The first man and woman were created by God and they contained all of the genetic information for all people. Over time as people spread over the earth, environment, diet, etc. caused the removal of some genetic information, which resulted in specialization. One example is skin color; originally the first people contained all the genetic information and probably had dark skin. Not black, not white, but more likely dark brown. Those who migrated to colder climates adapted by losing the genetic ability to produce melanin, the bio-compound that's found in dark skin. The darker the skin, the more melanin; the lighter the skin, the less melanin. Those on the equator kept the genes that produce melanin and therefore have the darkest skin. This is needed because it’s hot and the body needs to produce more sweat to keep cool and darker skin absorbs heat and produces more sweat. Not sweating when it’s hot reduces the survival rate. The further away from the equator one is the lighter the skin because sweating in the cold is not good for survival.
Did you know that the biological differences between all people groups on earth; white, black, yellow, brown, so-called "red", is less than .1%. Blacks have more melanin, Asian's eyes are like that because they simply have a little more fat in the skin surrounding their eyes, etc. All very minor surface feature differences. Also, notice I said "people groups". I try not to use the term "races" when talking about different people because I believe we all descended from one man and one woman and therefore there is only one race; the human race. We are all technically related. Darwin's view of evolution, if true, would support discrimination. I mean if we all came from different slime pools what's to stop me from enslaving you or even killing you. I mean after all, it's survival of the fittest!
If your interested I have an explanation for why there are different people groups and languages. I'll post that at some point in the future.
Since a discussion on natural selection begins with living organisms already in place, I want to remind the reader to keep in mind the question of how did any life appear in the first place? More than that, why is there anything at all in reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? When we discuss any topic of biology I think we should do so within the framework of logic and the most important law of logic is that something cannot come from nothing. It violates the law of non-contradiction and I welcome anyone who can give me proof positive that shows where something did come from nothing.
I'm about to ask you a question and want you to carefully think about it. I mean really, think about it. If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not even God, what would there be today?
What Secular Science Teaches:
Science teaches that natural selection, also known as survival of the fittest, is evidence for the idea of molecules mutating over time to become more and more complex life forms. The life forms that develop and adapt best are the ones that survive.
In scientific circles when one talks of natural selection, it is understood that you are talking about evolution and the most influential thinker in this space was Charles Darwin. Darwin in fact formed his initial ideas about natural selection from the previous work of Edward Blyth. Blyth wrote that an organism may possess some inheritable trait or characteristic which in a given environment gives that organism a greater chance of passing on its genes to the next generation. Over generations that trait or characteristic has a good chance of becoming more widespread in the population. Darwin’s continuing work theorized that in such ways creatures become more adapted and better suited to the environment in which they find themselves.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
Darwin believed this “fine tuning” to the environment to be a process that was creative and without limits. He saw new varieties that given enough time would create new characteristics and given even more time would evolve into a totally new creature.
I ask you to think about that in light of the “something from nothing” question. What Darwin is theorizing is that given enough time a life form will create characteristics in a world where those characteristics never existed before. In a world where there is no such thing as seeing or sight, and never has been prior to that point in time, a life form’s genes somehow determined that it needed to see in order to survive and over time the eye was created. Remember, science teaches us that life was formed when lightning struck a primordial tidal pool that contained previously inanimate random molecules (see my January 13, 2009 post called "Close Only Counts With..."). It is believed that the first life on earth was in the form of blue-green algae. But, prior to that point there was no life and certainly no genetic information because there were no genes. No DNA.
Alternative Theory:
The alternative theory is that adaptation is degenerative. I believe this is true because this is the process that is actually observed in nature. What is observed is that life adapts by the elimination of genetic information.
The price paid in adaptation is always a permanent loss of information and once it is lost it cannot be regenerated. It starts with a parent that contains all possible combinations in it’s genes and natural selection “specializes” offspring into different kinds, but never creates new information that was never there to start with.
A simple example of this can be seen in the breeding of animals; for example dogs or horses. From a parent that contains a broad selection of genetic characteristics you breed out the traits you don’t want and keep the traits you do want in order to achieve the desired results. Once it’s achieved you can’t go backwards. The only way that new genetic information can be introduced back into the animal is if you interbreed the one kind with another kind. But the genetic information wasn’t crated from nothing.
Consider these two theories in terms of what is most logical. Is it Darwin’s “uphill” limitless process that proposes that the eye, lungs, feathers, and all the specialized variety seen in life today arose from a world where those things never existed before and in which the genetic information was not in existence? Or that natural selection is in fact a process of culling, of choosing between several genetic traits that are already in creation.
I contend that the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. So where did all the variety we see come from? I say, that given the more logical explanation that natural selection is a degenerative process starting with a genetically broad parent, doesn’t the creation account given in the Bible make more sense now? God didn’t create all the variety we see today. While God is The Creator (the original cause) of all the firsts of everything (the effects), He started by creating a genetically broad first. There was one or maybe a limited few kinds of dog, cat, lion, turtle, bird, fungus, algae, etc. Over time these life forms changed given their environment, but only by the removal of genetic information that was already there.
The same is true for humans. The first man and woman were created by God and they contained all of the genetic information for all people. Over time as people spread over the earth, environment, diet, etc. caused the removal of some genetic information, which resulted in specialization. One example is skin color; originally the first people contained all the genetic information and probably had dark skin. Not black, not white, but more likely dark brown. Those who migrated to colder climates adapted by losing the genetic ability to produce melanin, the bio-compound that's found in dark skin. The darker the skin, the more melanin; the lighter the skin, the less melanin. Those on the equator kept the genes that produce melanin and therefore have the darkest skin. This is needed because it’s hot and the body needs to produce more sweat to keep cool and darker skin absorbs heat and produces more sweat. Not sweating when it’s hot reduces the survival rate. The further away from the equator one is the lighter the skin because sweating in the cold is not good for survival.
Did you know that the biological differences between all people groups on earth; white, black, yellow, brown, so-called "red", is less than .1%. Blacks have more melanin, Asian's eyes are like that because they simply have a little more fat in the skin surrounding their eyes, etc. All very minor surface feature differences. Also, notice I said "people groups". I try not to use the term "races" when talking about different people because I believe we all descended from one man and one woman and therefore there is only one race; the human race. We are all technically related. Darwin's view of evolution, if true, would support discrimination. I mean if we all came from different slime pools what's to stop me from enslaving you or even killing you. I mean after all, it's survival of the fittest!
If your interested I have an explanation for why there are different people groups and languages. I'll post that at some point in the future.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Religous Freedom?
Just a couple of articles I found today. The world thinks it's ok to be a Christian so long as we keep it restricted to our homes and in Church. No public displays please.
In Los Angeles
To the UK
In Los Angeles
To the UK
Depression
I know the word “depression” is being tossed about regarding the economy. Last month 600,000 jobs were lost. Businesses are closing. Banks are failing. Wall Street is in a panic. People are afraid. But truly, our country, given its history has survived much more than this and can survive much worse. But the depression I am talking about is my own depression.
Why am I depressed? Carol and I have jobs. And they are good jobs with stable companies. We have good health, good family and faith in God. Thank you God for your provision. So what am I depressed about? It’s because of the changing face of our nation.
I’m sure that part of this stems from me becoming more mature every day. Yes, in most cases older does mean wiser. I also believe in the God of the Bible, so He shapes my world view and every day I see the world more clearly and all the things that go on in it. God is the standard by which I compare everything that happens in reality.
Let me explain what I am seeing.
Last month the entire nation celebrated US Airlines pilot Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III. “Sully”, saved 155 lives by landing that plane just right—level wings, nose up, tail down, glide that baby in, get everyone out, get them counted, and then, at night, wonder what he could have done better. The national collective reaction was to shake our heads in awe and jump for joy with tears in our eyes. He is cool, modest, competent, and tough in the good way. He's the only one who doesn't applaud Sully. He was just doing his job. This is why people are so moved: We're still making Sullys! We're still making those mythic Americans, those steely-eyed rocket men like Alan Shepard in the Mercury rocket: "Come on and light this candle!"
But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the old America, and educated in a culture in which a certain style of manhood—of personhood—was held high. The fact is, Sully’s are becoming more and more rare every day.
There are many examples on the other end of the spectrum. One is “Octamom” Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. Suleman doubletalks with the best of them. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She seems aware of the predicament but she doesn’t care about anyone else but herself. She doesn’t care about the health and welfare of the children, her parents, or the state which is left holding the financial burden for her selfishness.
Another example is society as a whole. Each generation of Americans become more selfish, greedy, entitlement expectant, blame shifting, and out of touch with our National heritage and the people that made this country great.
During the presidential campaign it was clear that a majority of American’s prefer a government that will give them stuff and the new Democratic party is ready to give it to them. I turned away from the Democratic Party around the 2000 election. Although I was on the fence at that time I did vote for Al Gore in that election (excuse me, I just vomited a little in my mouth). I had voted democrat in every election in my voting past. I was all for the call of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country”. At the time of Al Gore and Howard Dean’s campaign I began noticing a shift in the Democratic Party. More and more to the left with an ideology heading toward socialism. Their policy was “You give us your money and we’ll take care of you”. Now, I am all for responsible social programs intended to help people in a time of crisis. But it’s like the old analogy of the tow truck. A tow truck is intended just to get you from the point of your trouble to a place where you can get your car repaired and back driving on your own again. Tow trucks are not meant to drive you all over the place forever! Apply that to our welfare system and soon to be welfare state.
The first Republican I voted for was Mitt Romney when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. This was the first election I paid close attention to and what I heard began a changed in me. First I am ashamed because I never really paid attention in the past, yet always voted Democrat anyway. Why this is true is explained in the last paragraph. Anyway, in this election the democratic candidate was State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien. I watched every single debate and was shocked to hear how she was radically pro-abortion, so much so that it shocked me! By the way, at this time I was firmly planted in the pro-choice group. But she was in favor of all abortion methods, at all times, for everyone. She was against parental notification. She was for gay marriage. She was for wiping out any mention of religion in schools and science class was to be centered on evolution only. The list went on and on.
Now we have President Obama. Although he didn’t win by a land slide, 53% to McCain’s 46%, he is exactly what a majority of the nation asked for. We have seen the shift happen and the shift is toward a nation of greedy consumers who, when faced with tough times, point fingers and say gimme-gimme-gimme!
During one of Obama’s election rallies a reported interviewed Peggy Joseph who was excited after hearing Obama speak. Ms. Joseph was asked why she was so moved by the experience, to which she replied “…I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him He’ll help me.” Click Here to watch the video.
Last week President Obama travelled to Florida to promote the Stimulus bill. Some of the questions posed to the President were all about how is the government going to provide for me? Click Here to see a news report that talks about the very thing that is upsetting me and shows these peoples questions.
Bottom line. If the parents are greedy, lazy, entitlement minded people, so will their children and so forth and so on. Steel is refined by fire. In tough times you make tough decisions. If you make less today than you did yesterday, then you cut back, spend less, change your lifestyle.
People, please; open your eyes. The Democratic Party has changed. Look at what it is today and vote your conscience based on your values. Hey, if you are for unrestricted abortion, for gay marriage, for bigger government, for higher taxes, for open borders, etc. then vote Democrat. I respect that. But I refuse to believe that most Americans are for those things. They just vote Democrat because that’s what they’ve always done, their family has voted that way and that’s just the way it’s been.
But the Democratic party of today is, in my opinion, dangerous. Unless you want the USA of old wiped out and a new nation built.
One last thing. I firmly believe that those who vote Democrat are made up of a minority of people who truly understand the party’s values, agree with them and can verbally explain why they agree with them. The vast majority of people who vote Democrat are uninformed people who cannot even begin to rationally explain why they are a Democrat. They’ve been spoon fed by the main stream media. I’ve heard time and time again people say they do not understand how anyone can be a Republican. Just a week or so ago Cher was quoted as saying “I don’t see how anyone could be a Republican except maybe rich, white, Christians. That’s it.” Republicans, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. More Republicans have investigated the issues and have made a decision based on where they stand on the issues based on their values. It’s a rational decision based on fact and knowledge. A majority (but not all) Democrats base their decision on “feelings” but cannot tell you why they vote the way they do in a rational fact based manner. See my post from November 19 called “The Death of Journalism”.
My opinion; That’s it.
Why am I depressed? Carol and I have jobs. And they are good jobs with stable companies. We have good health, good family and faith in God. Thank you God for your provision. So what am I depressed about? It’s because of the changing face of our nation.
I’m sure that part of this stems from me becoming more mature every day. Yes, in most cases older does mean wiser. I also believe in the God of the Bible, so He shapes my world view and every day I see the world more clearly and all the things that go on in it. God is the standard by which I compare everything that happens in reality.
Let me explain what I am seeing.
Last month the entire nation celebrated US Airlines pilot Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III. “Sully”, saved 155 lives by landing that plane just right—level wings, nose up, tail down, glide that baby in, get everyone out, get them counted, and then, at night, wonder what he could have done better. The national collective reaction was to shake our heads in awe and jump for joy with tears in our eyes. He is cool, modest, competent, and tough in the good way. He's the only one who doesn't applaud Sully. He was just doing his job. This is why people are so moved: We're still making Sullys! We're still making those mythic Americans, those steely-eyed rocket men like Alan Shepard in the Mercury rocket: "Come on and light this candle!"
But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the old America, and educated in a culture in which a certain style of manhood—of personhood—was held high. The fact is, Sully’s are becoming more and more rare every day.
There are many examples on the other end of the spectrum. One is “Octamom” Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. Suleman doubletalks with the best of them. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She seems aware of the predicament but she doesn’t care about anyone else but herself. She doesn’t care about the health and welfare of the children, her parents, or the state which is left holding the financial burden for her selfishness.
Another example is society as a whole. Each generation of Americans become more selfish, greedy, entitlement expectant, blame shifting, and out of touch with our National heritage and the people that made this country great.
During the presidential campaign it was clear that a majority of American’s prefer a government that will give them stuff and the new Democratic party is ready to give it to them. I turned away from the Democratic Party around the 2000 election. Although I was on the fence at that time I did vote for Al Gore in that election (excuse me, I just vomited a little in my mouth). I had voted democrat in every election in my voting past. I was all for the call of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country”. At the time of Al Gore and Howard Dean’s campaign I began noticing a shift in the Democratic Party. More and more to the left with an ideology heading toward socialism. Their policy was “You give us your money and we’ll take care of you”. Now, I am all for responsible social programs intended to help people in a time of crisis. But it’s like the old analogy of the tow truck. A tow truck is intended just to get you from the point of your trouble to a place where you can get your car repaired and back driving on your own again. Tow trucks are not meant to drive you all over the place forever! Apply that to our welfare system and soon to be welfare state.
The first Republican I voted for was Mitt Romney when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. This was the first election I paid close attention to and what I heard began a changed in me. First I am ashamed because I never really paid attention in the past, yet always voted Democrat anyway. Why this is true is explained in the last paragraph. Anyway, in this election the democratic candidate was State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien. I watched every single debate and was shocked to hear how she was radically pro-abortion, so much so that it shocked me! By the way, at this time I was firmly planted in the pro-choice group. But she was in favor of all abortion methods, at all times, for everyone. She was against parental notification. She was for gay marriage. She was for wiping out any mention of religion in schools and science class was to be centered on evolution only. The list went on and on.
Now we have President Obama. Although he didn’t win by a land slide, 53% to McCain’s 46%, he is exactly what a majority of the nation asked for. We have seen the shift happen and the shift is toward a nation of greedy consumers who, when faced with tough times, point fingers and say gimme-gimme-gimme!
During one of Obama’s election rallies a reported interviewed Peggy Joseph who was excited after hearing Obama speak. Ms. Joseph was asked why she was so moved by the experience, to which she replied “…I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him He’ll help me.” Click Here to watch the video.
Last week President Obama travelled to Florida to promote the Stimulus bill. Some of the questions posed to the President were all about how is the government going to provide for me? Click Here to see a news report that talks about the very thing that is upsetting me and shows these peoples questions.
Bottom line. If the parents are greedy, lazy, entitlement minded people, so will their children and so forth and so on. Steel is refined by fire. In tough times you make tough decisions. If you make less today than you did yesterday, then you cut back, spend less, change your lifestyle.
People, please; open your eyes. The Democratic Party has changed. Look at what it is today and vote your conscience based on your values. Hey, if you are for unrestricted abortion, for gay marriage, for bigger government, for higher taxes, for open borders, etc. then vote Democrat. I respect that. But I refuse to believe that most Americans are for those things. They just vote Democrat because that’s what they’ve always done, their family has voted that way and that’s just the way it’s been.
But the Democratic party of today is, in my opinion, dangerous. Unless you want the USA of old wiped out and a new nation built.
One last thing. I firmly believe that those who vote Democrat are made up of a minority of people who truly understand the party’s values, agree with them and can verbally explain why they agree with them. The vast majority of people who vote Democrat are uninformed people who cannot even begin to rationally explain why they are a Democrat. They’ve been spoon fed by the main stream media. I’ve heard time and time again people say they do not understand how anyone can be a Republican. Just a week or so ago Cher was quoted as saying “I don’t see how anyone could be a Republican except maybe rich, white, Christians. That’s it.” Republicans, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. More Republicans have investigated the issues and have made a decision based on where they stand on the issues based on their values. It’s a rational decision based on fact and knowledge. A majority (but not all) Democrats base their decision on “feelings” but cannot tell you why they vote the way they do in a rational fact based manner. See my post from November 19 called “The Death of Journalism”.
My opinion; That’s it.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Crystal Ball Into The Future
Here is a futuristic glimpse at a newscast from lets say, um, 2021. Although the clip is comedy, I see it as a possibility, so let me go with it...
Imagine if you will; it's the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The wacko conspiracy folks along with the Hollywood "I pledge crowd" have continued propagating their lunacy over the past 20 years until a vast majority of the country actually believes the 9/11 attacks were committed by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists. Al Qaeda, which is now the governing authority over the new nation of The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine. The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine came into power after all US forces were removed from the middle-east in late 2009 and after the nuclear attack on Israel. Well Al Qaeda is now upset because they want credit for attacking the US, but the Socialist pig-dog Americans are taking all the credit!
"A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin
Imagine if you will; it's the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The wacko conspiracy folks along with the Hollywood "I pledge crowd" have continued propagating their lunacy over the past 20 years until a vast majority of the country actually believes the 9/11 attacks were committed by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists. Al Qaeda, which is now the governing authority over the new nation of The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine. The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine came into power after all US forces were removed from the middle-east in late 2009 and after the nuclear attack on Israel. Well Al Qaeda is now upset because they want credit for attacking the US, but the Socialist pig-dog Americans are taking all the credit!
"A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin
The Fairness Doctrine - You Have Been Warned
If you have not heard about the Fairness Doctrine, I hope you will look into it and learn exactly what it is. For me, I am shocked that something like this would even be contemplated in the US.
Here are the basics:
Here are the basics:
- "Progressive" (aka liberal) talk radio has no audience to speak of. Again and again every attempt at successful liberal radio programs have left the airwaves because sponsors stop sponsoring the shows, not because of content, but because listenership is so low.
- Conservative talk radio is very popular. Talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingram and a host of other local radio shows have enjoyed long running success.
- Democrats don't like the truth of the matter; that because of the poor ratings of liberal talk radio, their message isn't getting out to the folks.
So what's a Democrat to do? Introduce legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine". If you want the full explanation click here. But in short, the Fairness Doctrine forces radio programs to allow the opposite side equal air time to state their side. So, if a network plays Rush Limbaugh's show, they would be forced (yes, forced!) to have another show that poses the opposite view as Rush, no matter if no one listens and causes a net-loss in profits for the station.
Don"t think this is real? Below is just one radio clip of a Senator saying the legislation needs to be introduced. This is real! Democrats try and convince us that they are the party of all views and the ones who are really inclusive. The truth is they can't stand you if you have a different opinion than what the party line is.
The same would be true with the "Freedom of Choice Act", or FOCA, that I've written so much about. FOCA will remove all state legislation intended to limit and protect people where abortion is concerned, like parental notification. If FOCA is signed by the President, it will FORCE doctors to perform abortions even if they disapprove as a matter of conscience. A Catholic, Presbyterian, or Methodist hospital who may have chosen not to perform those services because it violates their Christian creed, would be FORCED to perform abortions or face fines and penalties.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
No Liberal Bias Here!
Reporter Helen Thomas make me sick. The last time she was relevant was back in the Lincoln administration. She represents the most liberal anti-Christian, anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, PRO-TERRORIST arm of our nut bag filled country. It makes me sick.
Here is her question from last nights press conference, Obama's first press conference since becomming President:
"So-called TERRORISTS" !!!!! That's what I yelled out when I was watching on TV. Those people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan would kill you and me AND HER in a second, given the chance. But she can't see it because all she knows is hate for Israel.
The second part of her question took me awhile to decode....
At first I thought the question was an attempt to see if the President would say that one of those America hating, Godless countries had a weapon. But what she is really trying to get the president to say is "Yes, Israel". She's actually defending and promoting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon simply because Israel has them!!! OMG! She should be hung in the town square.
One last thing on Helen Thomas; here is the first question she asked George Bush at his first press conference:
Here is her question from last nights press conference, Obama's first press conference since becomming President:
Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are
maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists?
"So-called TERRORISTS" !!!!! That's what I yelled out when I was watching on TV. Those people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan would kill you and me AND HER in a second, given the chance. But she can't see it because all she knows is hate for Israel.
The second part of her question took me awhile to decode....
And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
At first I thought the question was an attempt to see if the President would say that one of those America hating, Godless countries had a weapon. But what she is really trying to get the president to say is "Yes, Israel". She's actually defending and promoting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon simply because Israel has them!!! OMG! She should be hung in the town square.
One last thing on Helen Thomas; here is the first question she asked George Bush at his first press conference:
Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government, for centuries, has led to slaughter. The very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having this separation -- why do you break it down?
Real Stimulus Idea Will Be Ignored
In the spirit of fairness I wanted to write about a very good alternative economic stimulus idea I came across. It was offered up by Rep. Walt Minnick, a House Democrat from Idaho. Minnick devised a stimulus plan that limits itself to real stimulus, rather than bloating itself into a package of pure “Porkulus”. It costs only $170 billion, and self-terminates when the economy recovers. Genius!
…And for that reason it is doomed to oblivion.
Here is the article I read:
Yet, President Obama in last night’s press conference had the audacity to tell the American public that the stimulus package that is currently on the senate floor has no “earmarks”. Really? I suppose it all comes down to what one’s definition of “earmark” is. To me it’s anything that doesn’t go to either A) cut taxes, B) promote growth in business, and C) create jobs. Here is a short list of some of the items I’ve seen in the so called “earmark free” stimulus package, and honestly it so hard to tell:
$2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
$39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
$5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
$200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
$275 million for flood prevention
$65 million for watershed rehabilitation
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
$650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
$307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
$1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
$100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
$300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
$800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
$10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
$1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
$100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
$10 million for urban canals
$2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
$1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
$300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
$255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
$500 million for State and local fire stations
$180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
$500 million for wildland fire management
$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
$650 million for abandoned mine sites
$75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
$412 million for CDC headquarters
$500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
$160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
$750 million earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
$224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
$850 million for Amtrak
$100 million for lead paint hazard reduction
…And for that reason it is doomed to oblivion.
Here is the article I read:
While President Barack Obama goes on the road to shore up slipping popular support for the $1 trillion stimulus bill that he ordered up from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Walt Minnick, a freshman Democrat from Idaho, is pushing a better idea: The Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START). Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.
Minnick introduced START as an alternative – just in case the legislative process stalls out, says press secretary John Foster. As one of the brave 11 Democrats who voted against Pelosi’s stimulus bill, Minnick explained to folks back home that he opposed the speaker’s version because it was so “Christmas-treed up” with wasteful spending, like $300 million for golf carts. Foster told The Examiner that the House leadership encourages members to do what’s best for their districts, so there has been no backlash. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Yet, President Obama in last night’s press conference had the audacity to tell the American public that the stimulus package that is currently on the senate floor has no “earmarks”. Really? I suppose it all comes down to what one’s definition of “earmark” is. To me it’s anything that doesn’t go to either A) cut taxes, B) promote growth in business, and C) create jobs. Here is a short list of some of the items I’ve seen in the so called “earmark free” stimulus package, and honestly it so hard to tell:
$2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
$39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
$5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
$200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
$275 million for flood prevention
$65 million for watershed rehabilitation
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
$650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
$307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
$1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
$100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
$300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
$800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
$10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
$1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
$100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
$10 million for urban canals
$2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
$1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
$300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
$255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
$500 million for State and local fire stations
$180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
$500 million for wildland fire management
$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
$650 million for abandoned mine sites
$75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
$412 million for CDC headquarters
$500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
$160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
$750 million earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
$224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
$850 million for Amtrak
$100 million for lead paint hazard reduction
Monday, February 09, 2009
"Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen
Read this article from the Washington Times. I find it unbelievable that it would even make it before a Judge, much less make it to trial.
I'm going to watch what happens with this. If the judge or jury punishes this ranch owner, even in the smallest way, we're done. It's over.
I'm going to watch what happens with this. If the judge or jury punishes this ranch owner, even in the smallest way, we're done. It's over.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Old Blue Eyes
Are they just making this stuff up as they go along? OK, I’m not a scientist and maybe my analysis is simplistic. But I am a student of responsible language and of logic. This just seems to be completely illogical.
A group called The Innovations Report ran a report called Blue-Eyed Humans Have a Single, Common Ancestor in which Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology made this claim:
The article goes on to explain how this switch turned off in the genes of this ancient person by saying “Nature shuffles our genes”.
Huh? That’s it? It happened because nature suddenly decided to “shuffle” our genes?! Was it a riffle shuffle or the classic hindu shuffle? [that was sarcasm]
A watered down version of the article made it to various major news agencies, like the LA Times which had this to say
What? How do they know that? How can they pin point the location of the first blue-eyed baby. Read the articles for yourself and see if it passes the logic test. It doesn’t for me.
So if I reject this theory; what’s my alternative theory? Good question; and yes, I have an answer. Look for my post called Natural Selection.
A group called The Innovations Report ran a report called Blue-Eyed Humans Have a Single, Common Ancestor in which Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology made this claim:
Originally, we all had brown eyes, but a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes.
The article goes on to explain how this switch turned off in the genes of this ancient person by saying “Nature shuffles our genes”.
Huh? That’s it? It happened because nature suddenly decided to “shuffle” our genes?! Was it a riffle shuffle or the classic hindu shuffle? [that was sarcasm]
A watered down version of the article made it to various major news agencies, like the LA Times which had this to say
For nearly all of human history, everyone in the world had brown eyes. Then, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, the first blue-eyed baby was born somewhere near the Black Sea. For some reason, that baby's descendants gained a 5% evolutionary advantage over their brown-eyed competitors, and today the number of people with blue eyes tops half a billion.
What? How do they know that? How can they pin point the location of the first blue-eyed baby. Read the articles for yourself and see if it passes the logic test. It doesn’t for me.
So if I reject this theory; what’s my alternative theory? Good question; and yes, I have an answer. Look for my post called Natural Selection.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Go Where The Evidence Leads? Not In Science!
Today I read that media personality Ben Stein backed out of a previous invitation to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont (UVM). This comes as a result of Stein's 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which shines a light on the ugly practice of percecuting scientists that dare question neo-darwinism.
UVM President Dan Fogel said he received hundreds of e-mails beginning Saturday -- including only about a half-dozen from people at UVM -- contending, generally, that Stein's views of science were "affronts to the basic tenets of the academy".
I attended a graduation ceremony at UVM in 2006. The commencement speaker was Gustavo Esteva, a prominent Mexican writer and social activist who promotes government as a more effective way to promote social change; in other words he's a Socialist. Mr. Esteva's qualifications obviously were a better fit for those who guard the sacred tenets of the acedmy. I remember he promoted smoking marajuana during his commencement speach which brought cheers from the crowd (except me. I boo'd him which brought many stares and a sharp elbow from my wife).
Anyway, there is a hostile directive in the scientific community that you can not question the theory of evolution or else. Watch the movie trailer for a quick idea of what this is all about.
UVM President Dan Fogel said he received hundreds of e-mails beginning Saturday -- including only about a half-dozen from people at UVM -- contending, generally, that Stein's views of science were "affronts to the basic tenets of the academy".
I attended a graduation ceremony at UVM in 2006. The commencement speaker was Gustavo Esteva, a prominent Mexican writer and social activist who promotes government as a more effective way to promote social change; in other words he's a Socialist. Mr. Esteva's qualifications obviously were a better fit for those who guard the sacred tenets of the acedmy. I remember he promoted smoking marajuana during his commencement speach which brought cheers from the crowd (except me. I boo'd him which brought many stares and a sharp elbow from my wife).
Anyway, there is a hostile directive in the scientific community that you can not question the theory of evolution or else. Watch the movie trailer for a quick idea of what this is all about.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
All Hail Mother Earth! Kill the Humans!!!
The spiritual person will know who is really behind all of this; and so it continues. In a Feb. 1, 2008 article in the British newspaper the Mail, reports a government official Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, stating:
I’d like to know which diseases he prefers to underfund so the state can shower the land with more condoms.
Furthermore, Mr. Porritt continues:
So the role of the state should be to convince ambivalent mothers to abort them?!
I would hope that this thinking is way out on the fringe. Bur I've learned that it is in fact the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. So many of our policies have been shaped because of the loud (and may I add grating) voice of the minority.
This report comes on the heals of Al Gore appearing before a Congressional committee at which he professed his gloomy news about global warming. Mr. Gore, whose pundits affectionately call him the "Goracle", had this to say:
These lawmakers took turns asking Al Gore for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball. I am sure the report telling us of the impending death of human civilization will find it's way into legislation even though a majority of scientific data shows no such trend. As it turns out we don't have to wait long because $400 million of the $800 billion stimulus plan awaiting a Senate vote is for Global warming research.
We better watch out because that $400 million may go towards contraception and abortion. No better way to reduce the country's carbon footprint than to prevent more human footprints from ever appearing.
God help us.
Couples who have more than two children are putting an 'irresponsible' burden on the environment. I recommend we divert money away from curing illnesses and more towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country's population and help in the fight against global warming.
I’d like to know which diseases he prefers to underfund so the state can shower the land with more condoms.
Furthermore, Mr. Porritt continues:
We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
So the role of the state should be to convince ambivalent mothers to abort them?!
I would hope that this thinking is way out on the fringe. Bur I've learned that it is in fact the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. So many of our policies have been shaped because of the loud (and may I add grating) voice of the minority.
This report comes on the heals of Al Gore appearing before a Congressional committee at which he professed his gloomy news about global warming. Mr. Gore, whose pundits affectionately call him the "Goracle", had this to say:
Current climate trends will bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change.
These lawmakers took turns asking Al Gore for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball. I am sure the report telling us of the impending death of human civilization will find it's way into legislation even though a majority of scientific data shows no such trend. As it turns out we don't have to wait long because $400 million of the $800 billion stimulus plan awaiting a Senate vote is for Global warming research.
We better watch out because that $400 million may go towards contraception and abortion. No better way to reduce the country's carbon footprint than to prevent more human footprints from ever appearing.
God help us.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Teency-Weency Request
A small request to Catholics (and this goes for certain Protestants too, but I only have the data on Catholics, sorry)... next election, be it Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, Selectman on down to the dog catcher; next election PLEASE pay attention to what the candidates voting record HAS BEEN. Do your homework and discover the facts and truth about the candidates, not the tingly feeling you get when a certain candidate speaks.
Barak Obama's voting record both as a State and U.S. Senator showed him to be pro-abortion. Every opportunity to vote went the way of supporting abortion and against every opportunity to oppose legislation limiting it, which includes voting NO on banning partial birth abortion and the Infant Born Alive Act. During the Presidential campaign he said repeatedly he would reverse the Mexico City policy and said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as one of the first things he does as President. Yet, 2008 poll data shows between 53% to 56% of Catholics voted for Barak Obama, 13% to 16% more than John Kerry, a Catholic, got in 2004.
Now I read that the Very Rev. David O'Connell, president of the Catholic University of America said every Catholic he's spoken to in recent days has expressed disappointment in Obama for reversing the Mexico City policy, and Catholic voters wonder if FOCA will be passed into law.
I've got news for you; over the next few weeks, Obama will most likely undo several more pro-life regulations, such as the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic-stem-cell research and the “right of conscience” ruling (which allows medical personnel to refuse to participate in practices they object to, such as abortion). In addition, when he committed to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives, Obama indicated he would curtail religious groups’ ability to hire based on religious considerations—a decision that would tear the soul and the effectiveness out of these groups.
You know the old saying, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it PROBABLY IS A DUCK!!! For crying out loud!..what does a stroke feel like?
PREDICTION: The next big "dissapointment" will come from all of those left leaning Jewish people who voted for Mr. Obama only to find out he's really anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. WHAT?! I never knew that!
Barak Obama's voting record both as a State and U.S. Senator showed him to be pro-abortion. Every opportunity to vote went the way of supporting abortion and against every opportunity to oppose legislation limiting it, which includes voting NO on banning partial birth abortion and the Infant Born Alive Act. During the Presidential campaign he said repeatedly he would reverse the Mexico City policy and said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as one of the first things he does as President. Yet, 2008 poll data shows between 53% to 56% of Catholics voted for Barak Obama, 13% to 16% more than John Kerry, a Catholic, got in 2004.
Now I read that the Very Rev. David O'Connell, president of the Catholic University of America said every Catholic he's spoken to in recent days has expressed disappointment in Obama for reversing the Mexico City policy, and Catholic voters wonder if FOCA will be passed into law.
I've got news for you; over the next few weeks, Obama will most likely undo several more pro-life regulations, such as the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic-stem-cell research and the “right of conscience” ruling (which allows medical personnel to refuse to participate in practices they object to, such as abortion). In addition, when he committed to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives, Obama indicated he would curtail religious groups’ ability to hire based on religious considerations—a decision that would tear the soul and the effectiveness out of these groups.
You know the old saying, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it PROBABLY IS A DUCK!!! For crying out loud!..what does a stroke feel like?
PREDICTION: The next big "dissapointment" will come from all of those left leaning Jewish people who voted for Mr. Obama only to find out he's really anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. WHAT?! I never knew that!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Donkey Economics
I read these two stories just minutes apart. Click the title to be brought to each article
Pelosi: Contraception is Good Stimulus for the Economy US News January 26, 2009
[Japanese] Workers urged: Go home and multiply CNN International January 26, 2009
So which is the best economic policy? At the time of my writing this we are fast approaching 45 million abortions since 1973 and now the left is promoting contraception! (Check out my abortion counter on the right to see the current repulsive number).
More than just promoting contraception, they want it funded with our tax dollars! I just don't get this unabashed anti-life agenda of the liberals. It makes no sense. Even if you do not agree with my staunch pro-life stance, surely you can see the benefit of having more tax payers in the system. If you do the math there are roughly 25 million less tax payers today because those babies were aborted. And now phase II is launched; government sponsored contraception.
As I was writing this an idea dawned on me. The reason the liberals see contraception and abortion as "good" for the economy is because they all share the same socialistic economic policies. If there's less people then that equates to a savings because liberals all believe in the "ask what your government should do for you" mentality promoted by the Democratic party and famously endorsed as a fundamental "right" by Barak Obama.
Pelosi: Contraception is Good Stimulus for the Economy US News January 26, 2009
[Japanese] Workers urged: Go home and multiply CNN International January 26, 2009
So which is the best economic policy? At the time of my writing this we are fast approaching 45 million abortions since 1973 and now the left is promoting contraception! (Check out my abortion counter on the right to see the current repulsive number).
More than just promoting contraception, they want it funded with our tax dollars! I just don't get this unabashed anti-life agenda of the liberals. It makes no sense. Even if you do not agree with my staunch pro-life stance, surely you can see the benefit of having more tax payers in the system. If you do the math there are roughly 25 million less tax payers today because those babies were aborted. And now phase II is launched; government sponsored contraception.
As I was writing this an idea dawned on me. The reason the liberals see contraception and abortion as "good" for the economy is because they all share the same socialistic economic policies. If there's less people then that equates to a savings because liberals all believe in the "ask what your government should do for you" mentality promoted by the Democratic party and famously endorsed as a fundamental "right" by Barak Obama.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Here We Go (sigh)
In just the third full day of President Obama's administration, he begins making good on his promises to push his radically liberal agenda concerning abortion. Just today:
-President Obama lifts a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Note to the President: waiting until late on a Friday evening to recind the previous Presidents order really says a lot)
-First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval (this is not directly the action of the President, but it is penultimately a result of his policies and the Democrats being placed in power)
Next up I am sure he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law. If you are not familiar with FOCA, read my post on Oct. 31, 2008 called "Obama the Abortionist". Click this link if you want to sign the Fight Against FOCA petition.
Even if you are not staunchly anti-abortion as I am; even if you are in the camp of "It's a woman's right to choose", do you really want YOUR tax dollars going to fund abortions? Why do my tax dollars need to go to ANY organisation that funds abortions anywhere? Planned Parenthood already receives about $300M dollars per year in federal grants and last year posted a reported $51M profit! I don't get it!! This is so upsetting to me!!!
The fact that many in this country CELEBRATE this supposed "right" makes me sick.
-President Obama lifts a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Note to the President: waiting until late on a Friday evening to recind the previous Presidents order really says a lot)
-First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval (this is not directly the action of the President, but it is penultimately a result of his policies and the Democrats being placed in power)
Next up I am sure he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law. If you are not familiar with FOCA, read my post on Oct. 31, 2008 called "Obama the Abortionist". Click this link if you want to sign the Fight Against FOCA petition.
Even if you are not staunchly anti-abortion as I am; even if you are in the camp of "It's a woman's right to choose", do you really want YOUR tax dollars going to fund abortions? Why do my tax dollars need to go to ANY organisation that funds abortions anywhere? Planned Parenthood already receives about $300M dollars per year in federal grants and last year posted a reported $51M profit! I don't get it!! This is so upsetting to me!!!
The fact that many in this country CELEBRATE this supposed "right" makes me sick.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Future Shock
I came across this article by Dick Moriss and thought it was right on the button:
The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism
The article, I think, hones in on exactly what we can expect based on Mr. Obama's voting record and through his campaign speeches and debates. It may not come to pass, but based on Obama's past, I think Mr. Morris takes it to it's most logical conclusion. You may be ok with this change, which is why you voted for Obama. That's ok. I personally do not like the writing on the wall.
The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism
The article, I think, hones in on exactly what we can expect based on Mr. Obama's voting record and through his campaign speeches and debates. It may not come to pass, but based on Obama's past, I think Mr. Morris takes it to it's most logical conclusion. You may be ok with this change, which is why you voted for Obama. That's ok. I personally do not like the writing on the wall.
Change We Can Believe In?
Funny how ever since the announcement that Rick Warren would give the invocation at the presidential inauguration, that the buzz was how the Obama constituency was offended by the choice. Warren, an evangelical pastor, is "guilty" of supporting traditional marriage and even has the audacity to pray in the name of Jesus! No doubt Pastor Rick would say something offensive if not offend some by his very presence.
On the other end of the spectrum was Rev. Joseph Lowery who rendered the benediction. No issues there; no buzz about anyone being offended by this choice or possibly having the Reverend say something that would be offensive, right?
My opinion:
Pastor Warren delivered a prayer and did it in Jesus name. He called for God's blessings upon the President, his family, the V.P. and all elected officials. He called for God to forgive us when we fall short and brought light on the need for us to unite even in our differences.
Rev. Lowery delivered a speech disguised as a prayer and every fair minded person in the nation should be offended by what he said, regardless of skin color. Oh, there were homily-like sentences in the speech, but the meat of the message was down right racists and anti-white. Hmmmm, sounds like the flavor of the week as delivered even more venomously by the Reverend Wright, the spiritual leader to President Obama for 20 years.
Here is the part I am talking about. It starts:
Sorry Reverend, those days ended long ago, and if not, it certainly ended when we elected the messiah President! (but I digress...)
At this point I began to think "Where is this heading, and what rhymes with 'white'?" Then it came...
Am I mistaken or did the Reverend just go all "White-Devil" on me? I guess being white means I don’t have any moral sense. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think he just put together a construction that lines up the browns, the blacks and reds and yellows on one side and the unrighteous white man on the other.
The he finished with:
The crowd loudly responded with a great "AMEN!" Not just once, but three Times to the call of AMEN from the Reverend.
Is this the "Change" we are to expect? Honestly I do not think President Obama thinks this way. But I do believe that many people of color see the election of a black man as an excuse to air their racist ideology. Racism is not limited to one people group.
On the other end of the spectrum was Rev. Joseph Lowery who rendered the benediction. No issues there; no buzz about anyone being offended by this choice or possibly having the Reverend say something that would be offensive, right?
My opinion:
Pastor Warren delivered a prayer and did it in Jesus name. He called for God's blessings upon the President, his family, the V.P. and all elected officials. He called for God to forgive us when we fall short and brought light on the need for us to unite even in our differences.
Rev. Lowery delivered a speech disguised as a prayer and every fair minded person in the nation should be offended by what he said, regardless of skin color. Oh, there were homily-like sentences in the speech, but the meat of the message was down right racists and anti-white. Hmmmm, sounds like the flavor of the week as delivered even more venomously by the Reverend Wright, the spiritual leader to President Obama for 20 years.
Here is the part I am talking about. It starts:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back,…
Sorry Reverend, those days ended long ago, and if not, it certainly ended when we elected the messiah President! (but I digress...)
…when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; …
At this point I began to think "Where is this heading, and what rhymes with 'white'?" Then it came...
… and when white will embrace what is right.
Am I mistaken or did the Reverend just go all "White-Devil" on me? I guess being white means I don’t have any moral sense. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think he just put together a construction that lines up the browns, the blacks and reds and yellows on one side and the unrighteous white man on the other.
The he finished with:
That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.
The crowd loudly responded with a great "AMEN!" Not just once, but three Times to the call of AMEN from the Reverend.
Is this the "Change" we are to expect? Honestly I do not think President Obama thinks this way. But I do believe that many people of color see the election of a black man as an excuse to air their racist ideology. Racism is not limited to one people group.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Close Only Counts With .....
Ok, the timing on this one is so perfect, it needs a little set up. How do I decide what to write about? It could be something I experience, I heard or read. But typically I don't know what to write until I think about it for awhile. Back on Jan. 8, I was taking my after lunch walk and as I walked I started thinking about DNA and how much of a miracle it is (...it's not weird for me). The result was my posting on Jan.8, the one just before this one, so go read it, then come back and finish this one.
Then, today I read an article that proves my point. It doesn't prove my opinion, but does prove just what I'm talking about. The link to the article is below, but to give you a snap shot, here is the opening paragraph:
Here is the link to the article. Judge for yourself: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Even though we all analyze the same data, why is that we come to different conclusions? It's called presupposition; these scientists WANT their inquiry to support what they already believe to be true. The same is true for ME! When I look at science I look at it from the point of view that there is a Creator God. Yet, in a world where we all bring our own presupposition to the table, we need to allow logic to rule. Starting with the fact that it is impossible to get something from nothing. See my other posts on this ( July 11, 2007 and July 23, 2008).
Then, today I read an article that proves my point. It doesn't prove my opinion, but does prove just what I'm talking about. The link to the article is below, but to give you a snap shot, here is the opening paragraph:
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this: Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago - perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with the help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets - to create biology.
Here is the link to the article. Judge for yourself: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Even though we all analyze the same data, why is that we come to different conclusions? It's called presupposition; these scientists WANT their inquiry to support what they already believe to be true. The same is true for ME! When I look at science I look at it from the point of view that there is a Creator God. Yet, in a world where we all bring our own presupposition to the table, we need to allow logic to rule. Starting with the fact that it is impossible to get something from nothing. See my other posts on this ( July 11, 2007 and July 23, 2008).
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Upside-Down and Backwards
The thinking in this world really is upside down and backwards when it comes to the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of men. Take DNA; even the most basic definition of DNA screams the necessity of a pre-existent creator (aka the “Cause”). Here is a basic definition:
Let me summarize; DNA stores information needed to create a living organism. Meaning when conception occurs a single cell containing DNA will begin to divide. With each division the cell becomes more and more specific to its intended purpose. All of the immense intricacies that make a living organism and especially that which make a human being; organs, skin, teeth, hair, eyes, ears, blood, nerves, brain, and on and on and on are made so by the instructions contained in our DNA!
Yet, a majority of scientists; mind you scientists who know so much more about how incredible DNA is than I do and therefore should understand at an even higher level of amazement how incredible DNA is, these scientists can look at DNA and say that it is created by blind forces of chance. By cosmic accident.
Even more amazingly, other scientists can spend billions of dollars to construct super-sensitive equipment that “listens” for faint signals from the furthest reaches of the universe. When they hear some signal that goes “bzzzzz-bz-bz-bzzzzzz” they cry out “INTELLIGENCE!!”
God has made it plainly clear for all peoples, in all places, in all times to know that He is God. Yet, as we are told in scripture, man has exchanged the truth of God for a lie. To uphold that lie as scientific "fact" takes more mental gymnastics than to just admit that a Creator, a Supreme Cause to all known effects, is behind all of this.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is like a set of blueprints since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes.
Let me summarize; DNA stores information needed to create a living organism. Meaning when conception occurs a single cell containing DNA will begin to divide. With each division the cell becomes more and more specific to its intended purpose. All of the immense intricacies that make a living organism and especially that which make a human being; organs, skin, teeth, hair, eyes, ears, blood, nerves, brain, and on and on and on are made so by the instructions contained in our DNA!
Yet, a majority of scientists; mind you scientists who know so much more about how incredible DNA is than I do and therefore should understand at an even higher level of amazement how incredible DNA is, these scientists can look at DNA and say that it is created by blind forces of chance. By cosmic accident.
Even more amazingly, other scientists can spend billions of dollars to construct super-sensitive equipment that “listens” for faint signals from the furthest reaches of the universe. When they hear some signal that goes “bzzzzz-bz-bz-bzzzzzz” they cry out “INTELLIGENCE!!”
God has made it plainly clear for all peoples, in all places, in all times to know that He is God. Yet, as we are told in scripture, man has exchanged the truth of God for a lie. To uphold that lie as scientific "fact" takes more mental gymnastics than to just admit that a Creator, a Supreme Cause to all known effects, is behind all of this.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ties
Sometimes I have to wear a tie. I like the way they look, but they are not comfortable for me to wear and I only wear them if I have to.
A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?
A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Wake Up America
I wanted to re-print an article from NRO. It's right on and worth sharing:
Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.
By Thomas Sowell
Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.
By Thomas Sowell
Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
1975?
Ok, so my posts tend to be on the serious side. To show those of you who don't know me that I am truly a clown at heart, here is something I hope you enjoy. The good thing about blogs is that you never know where they’ll take you.
This week I faced the long overdue, inevitable, arduous, humbling task of buying new jeans. The last time I bought jeans was probably 10 years ago and they (all 2 pairs) have finally reached a stage that every 16 year old envied. Many people told me that at least it was good that I still fit in them after 10 years, but I understand the miracle of jeans where they tend to stretch “with you” over time.
The first store I went into was the Gap because that is where I always bought jeans before. The main reason for my loyalty to the Gap was because their jeans do not advertise the waist size on a big exposed tag right over my right rear pocket (take note of this Levi Strauss and Co.!). As I entered the Gap for the first time in a decade, I noticed that they are no longer the store I remember. This makes sense because I don’t understand teenagers and the Gap clearly evolved right along with the age group. It took all of about 5 minutes for me to walk out of the Gap thinking, “Great, now what?”
Next stop, a store that I could go to and not stand out like..well, like Ed at a Young Jeezy concert; Dillards. Once in Dillards I was faced with a huge wall of, yes, Levis. Ugh. Will I have to pay $35 per pair for the privilege of advertising my waist size to the world? I tried on a few and thought, “Well, I’m in a mall. I’ll shop around a little”.
Here is where the blog takes you somewhere you didn’t expect…As I walked through the mall I passed a store I hadn’t been in since Jimmy Carter was president; JC Penney. Nothing says “Shop here if for no other reason that you are not cool any more” like JC Penney. And yes, I bought two pair of jeans at a great price and they fit! So, to honor JC Penney (MY new store for jeans), let’s take a trip down memory lane and visit the JC Penney catalog from 1975. Enjoy.
This week I faced the long overdue, inevitable, arduous, humbling task of buying new jeans. The last time I bought jeans was probably 10 years ago and they (all 2 pairs) have finally reached a stage that every 16 year old envied. Many people told me that at least it was good that I still fit in them after 10 years, but I understand the miracle of jeans where they tend to stretch “with you” over time.
The first store I went into was the Gap because that is where I always bought jeans before. The main reason for my loyalty to the Gap was because their jeans do not advertise the waist size on a big exposed tag right over my right rear pocket (take note of this Levi Strauss and Co.!). As I entered the Gap for the first time in a decade, I noticed that they are no longer the store I remember. This makes sense because I don’t understand teenagers and the Gap clearly evolved right along with the age group. It took all of about 5 minutes for me to walk out of the Gap thinking, “Great, now what?”
Next stop, a store that I could go to and not stand out like..well, like Ed at a Young Jeezy concert; Dillards. Once in Dillards I was faced with a huge wall of, yes, Levis. Ugh. Will I have to pay $35 per pair for the privilege of advertising my waist size to the world? I tried on a few and thought, “Well, I’m in a mall. I’ll shop around a little”.
Here is where the blog takes you somewhere you didn’t expect…As I walked through the mall I passed a store I hadn’t been in since Jimmy Carter was president; JC Penney. Nothing says “Shop here if for no other reason that you are not cool any more” like JC Penney. And yes, I bought two pair of jeans at a great price and they fit! So, to honor JC Penney (MY new store for jeans), let’s take a trip down memory lane and visit the JC Penney catalog from 1975. Enjoy.
let the teasing begin:
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up at school:
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up around the neighborhood: (The catalog had lots of men and women in matching outfits. Evidently that was popular in 1975)
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up ate the gym:
What you wore if you are a white guy and want to get beat up while out for the evening: (JC Penney was going for the Super Fly look)
What you wore when you wanted to get beat up at the office: (Man Mates...hmmmm)
Here are some of those matching outfits I mentioned:
Chips, Ace? Don't mind if I do Gary.......
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Politics and the English Language
From an Article written by Liam Julian called Entering Casablanca November 13, 2008 - National Review Online:
President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all
President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:
Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,
In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:
Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.
If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:
Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language
President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all
President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:
“In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?” July, 2004 – Keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
“All odds — all odds — said I shouldn’t be standing here. But I am because of love and education and lots of hope. That’s what we can stand for in four days. That’s what you can stand for.” – January, 2008 at New Hampshire Primaries
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” - 2008 Democratic National Convention
Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,
It is unquestionable that Obama inspired millions, but on what is their inspiration based? Is their hope perhaps "too far off the mark"? At the end of his report, the host of the show on NPR said,”If hope gets too far off the mark, it’s more likely to hurt you than help you. Hope works when the person who is promising you something is genuine about trying to deliver it.” (Emphasis mine)
“Barack Obama inspired me. . . . His promise sits like a weight on his shoulders.”If I think back on the campaign I cannot remember one instance where he ever tried to temper the Hope. But now, as the transition to the White House has begun, I’ve seen two news conferences where that temperance of hope is being communicated. Today, his staff claims to be startled that their man’s preaching hit home! Here is a link to one of the many news reports on this: NY Times - Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations
In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:
“When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House. . . . Change in the Congress. . . . Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.”
Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.
If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Veterans Day
It is the day after Veterans Day. I wanted to wait a day before I wrote something because the actual day is so full of emotion for me I wanted to digest those thoughts and feelings first and then write whatever came to my mind.
First, I want to thank my fellow veterans for serving. We are a small minority of the American citizenry, roughly 7.2% of all American men and only 0.6% of American women are veterans. No group more proud, yet humble.
Thinking back on my experiences and what I learned, I had a few thoughts:
The Flag – The flag holds a special meaning for the veteran. While serving in the military you quickly learn that the flag stands for home and is your “home base”. No matter where you are in the world, seeing that flag brings an indescribable feeling of home and more than that, it contains the ideals of America and the countrymen we serve. This is why veterans have the special privilege to be able to salute the flag whether in uniform or not, rather than what all other citizens are called to do; place your hand over your heart when addressing the flag.
The Smell of an Envelope – I am sorry to say, but the newest generation of service men and women may never experience this. Because of ever advancing communication technology like email, text and video messaging, you’ve probably never received a hand written letter from home. I can remember receiving letters from family and (especially) girl friends and the first thing you would do is smell the inside of the envelope. That wisp of air contains memories of home.
Elderly Veterans – I can hardly control my emissions even as I write this! For me, looking into the eyes of an elderly veteran, especially one who has been in battle, is more than I can bear. Getting to meet a veteran of WWII or Korea, is tough for me. It’s something about the years they’ve lived after their service that means so much to me. Veterans day is probably the only day of the year these heroes are actually appreciated.
That’s about it. Only one last thing; did you know that TAPS has lyrics? Here they are:
Fading light dims the sight
And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
From afar drawing nigh, Falls the night.
Day is done, gone the sun
From the hills, from the lake, from the sky
All is well, safely rest;
God is nigh.
Then goodnight, peaceful night;
Till the light of the dawn shineth bright.
God is near, do not fear,
Friend, goodnight.
First, I want to thank my fellow veterans for serving. We are a small minority of the American citizenry, roughly 7.2% of all American men and only 0.6% of American women are veterans. No group more proud, yet humble.
Thinking back on my experiences and what I learned, I had a few thoughts:
The Flag – The flag holds a special meaning for the veteran. While serving in the military you quickly learn that the flag stands for home and is your “home base”. No matter where you are in the world, seeing that flag brings an indescribable feeling of home and more than that, it contains the ideals of America and the countrymen we serve. This is why veterans have the special privilege to be able to salute the flag whether in uniform or not, rather than what all other citizens are called to do; place your hand over your heart when addressing the flag.
The Smell of an Envelope – I am sorry to say, but the newest generation of service men and women may never experience this. Because of ever advancing communication technology like email, text and video messaging, you’ve probably never received a hand written letter from home. I can remember receiving letters from family and (especially) girl friends and the first thing you would do is smell the inside of the envelope. That wisp of air contains memories of home.
Elderly Veterans – I can hardly control my emissions even as I write this! For me, looking into the eyes of an elderly veteran, especially one who has been in battle, is more than I can bear. Getting to meet a veteran of WWII or Korea, is tough for me. It’s something about the years they’ve lived after their service that means so much to me. Veterans day is probably the only day of the year these heroes are actually appreciated.
That’s about it. Only one last thing; did you know that TAPS has lyrics? Here they are:
Fading light dims the sight
And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
From afar drawing nigh, Falls the night.
Day is done, gone the sun
From the hills, from the lake, from the sky
All is well, safely rest;
God is nigh.
Then goodnight, peaceful night;
Till the light of the dawn shineth bright.
God is near, do not fear,
Friend, goodnight.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama the Abortionist
While everyone is focusing on the economy as we near Election Day, the issue of abortion has moved to a point of obscurity. If the average person knew and understood the position of Senator Obama, I can hardly understand why anyone, even a moderate “Pro-Choicer”, wouldn’t gasp.
A dangerous bill that will increase abortions by an enormous amount is being resurrected by abortion advocates: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) H.R. 1964 and S.1173. FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.
But FOCA tolerates none of this. Advocates and opponents of FOCA all agree that the bill would nullify every legal limit on abortion, state, federal or otherwise. Americans United for Life, as well as the Family Research Council, explain this fact in great detail. Abortion advocates who want FOCA concur: NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer all contend that FOCA will strike down all state pro-life laws.
Senator Obama has said that singning FOCA will be the first thing he does as President. Click on the following link to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8
Considering current reduction factors, parental involvement laws lead to 0.54 fewer abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age, informed consent laws lead to 0.92 fewer, and state restrictions on Medicaid funding lead to 2.08 fewer. Both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations tell us which states have these laws in place: 36 states have parental involvement laws, 26 states have informed consent laws, and 34 states have funding restrictions.
The U.S. Census Bureau gives us projections for 2009 of females age 15-44 in each of these states. Then it’s a simple matter of cross-referencing the number of women of childbearing age in each state with each abortion restriction. The grand total number of abortions reduced by these laws is 124,947.6, per year. This is a minimum. FOCA will strike down other laws, state and federal, that reduce abortions, and will force states to facilitate abortions.
Even with this minimum, that’s 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we have these laws, and 125,000 children (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) who will be killed in 2009 and every year after if FOCA is passed. FOCA is indeed a staggering expansion of abortion, both in principle and in actual lives lost
125,000 more abortions is only the tip of the FOCA iceberg. It will also make criminals of Doctors and Nurses who refuse to perform abortions and will allow for tax dollars to be used to fund abortions. Don’t forget that since Roe v Wade abortion has become a $1 Billion industry in this country and Planned Parenthood is the leader in the abortion business.
A dangerous bill that will increase abortions by an enormous amount is being resurrected by abortion advocates: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) H.R. 1964 and S.1173. FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.
But FOCA tolerates none of this. Advocates and opponents of FOCA all agree that the bill would nullify every legal limit on abortion, state, federal or otherwise. Americans United for Life, as well as the Family Research Council, explain this fact in great detail. Abortion advocates who want FOCA concur: NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer all contend that FOCA will strike down all state pro-life laws.
Senator Obama has said that singning FOCA will be the first thing he does as President. Click on the following link to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8
Considering current reduction factors, parental involvement laws lead to 0.54 fewer abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age, informed consent laws lead to 0.92 fewer, and state restrictions on Medicaid funding lead to 2.08 fewer. Both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations tell us which states have these laws in place: 36 states have parental involvement laws, 26 states have informed consent laws, and 34 states have funding restrictions.
The U.S. Census Bureau gives us projections for 2009 of females age 15-44 in each of these states. Then it’s a simple matter of cross-referencing the number of women of childbearing age in each state with each abortion restriction. The grand total number of abortions reduced by these laws is 124,947.6, per year. This is a minimum. FOCA will strike down other laws, state and federal, that reduce abortions, and will force states to facilitate abortions.
Even with this minimum, that’s 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we have these laws, and 125,000 children (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) who will be killed in 2009 and every year after if FOCA is passed. FOCA is indeed a staggering expansion of abortion, both in principle and in actual lives lost
125,000 more abortions is only the tip of the FOCA iceberg. It will also make criminals of Doctors and Nurses who refuse to perform abortions and will allow for tax dollars to be used to fund abortions. Don’t forget that since Roe v Wade abortion has become a $1 Billion industry in this country and Planned Parenthood is the leader in the abortion business.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Obama the Postmodernist
Ok, I couldn’t come up with a better title than the one the author of a very good article I want you to read, so I just used it as my title as well. I’m so glad I came across the piece in USA Today written by Jonah Goldberg. It sums up perfectly the worldview of Barak Obama, and that of so many people today, and not only in our country. The link to the article is at the end of this post, but if you’re not sure what postmodernism is then this quote from Mr. Obama is a good example. Mr. Obama was asked if he could define sin and his reply was that
“Sin is being out of alignment with my values ."
Read the article to get the full extent of Mr. Obama’s view on Truth. What scares me is that his view is very popular in this day and age. You see the postmodernist doesn’t believe in absolute Truth. To him there is no standard outside of ourselves that determines objective Truth. There are truths, but no Truth; values, but no ultimate Value.
This is how the worldly man copes with his sin; how the postmodernist thinks - If I convince myself there is no objective Truth; nothing outside of myself to hold me accountable then I can determine what is right or wrong. AND, the more people I convince to agree with “my” truth, the better I can feel about it. Case in point, abortion. How this horror can be carried out in our country legally escapes me. Yet it is; why? Because people have exchanged the Truth of God for a lie and have the nerve to call that lie truth. They say, “A woman should have the right to do with her body what she wants”. Question: Does God ever give anyone the right to do that which is wrong? NO, of course not! So what we have here is the redefining of the concept of ones “Rights”. If you ask where they got that right, they’ll say from the government, the Supreme Court. And how was it that the government made that decision? Did God say it was ok? No. In fact that decision to grant the “right” to an abortion is in actuality based on the peoples preference. It all comes down to preference. If it’s the people preference to allow same sex marriage, or the sale of child sex slaves or whatever is the preference of the day, then that is determined to be a right. In other words, truth is subjective.
Shame on us; every one of us.
Here is the link to the article: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/obama-the-postm.html
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
By Chance Given Time
Ok, I haven't written in a while, but I was just reading some online articles and one caught my eye called New Research Suggests Simple Approach to Beginning of Life, by Michael Schirber of LiveScience.com. In the article, which I've quoted below, we once again find the popular scientific formula for the formation of life. It goes like this: Space+Time+Chance=Life.
In a previous post I wrote called The Soft Pillow of Science (Wednesday, July 11, 2007), I wrote how scientists today ascribe power to the word chance; and not just any power, but the power to create something from nothing. You can go back and read that post to understand what I mean. Here is the quote found in the article:
That quote (emphasis mine) shows the prevailing alternative to the idea of life being created by a self existent, eternal, purposive Being who is the cause of all effects; the Unmoved Mover as Aristotle called Him. Chance is not a thing! It can not create anything no matter how much time is allowed.
Oh, and by the way, if I were around in 1953 I would have asked Stanley Miller and Harold Urey if they could recreate their primordial soup experiment once again, only this time they first need to also create their own hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water starting with nothing. How did those chemicals get in place before a stray lightning bolt caused the supposed reaction? Ex nihilo nihil fit!
In a previous post I wrote called The Soft Pillow of Science (Wednesday, July 11, 2007), I wrote how scientists today ascribe power to the word chance; and not just any power, but the power to create something from nothing. You can go back and read that post to understand what I mean. Here is the quote found in the article:
Primordial soup
Many scientists believe the origin-of-life story is that complex biological compounds assembled by chance out of an organic broth on the early Earth's surface. This pre-biotic synthesis culminated in bio-molecules being able to make copies of itself. The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they generated amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water. If amino acids could come together out of raw ingredients, then bigger, more complex molecules could presumably form given enough time.
That quote (emphasis mine) shows the prevailing alternative to the idea of life being created by a self existent, eternal, purposive Being who is the cause of all effects; the Unmoved Mover as Aristotle called Him. Chance is not a thing! It can not create anything no matter how much time is allowed.
Oh, and by the way, if I were around in 1953 I would have asked Stanley Miller and Harold Urey if they could recreate their primordial soup experiment once again, only this time they first need to also create their own hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water starting with nothing. How did those chemicals get in place before a stray lightning bolt caused the supposed reaction? Ex nihilo nihil fit!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Awesome!
Did you know that today, March 10th, is (was) the International Day of Awesomeness? Isn’t that awesome! Check it out at http://dayofawesomeness.com/ and then come back and read on.
If you read the first page of the website, you would see that the day really has a comical side to it. But still, it also is the straw that broke the camel's back for me in terms of the use of the word itself. Unfortunately, the word awesome must now be entered onto the official list of words whose actual meaning has been dumbed-down, changed, ruined and otherwise rendered unrecognizable because we decided the original definition wasn’t good enough for us.
Awesome! I just got Halo 3. That football game was awesome! If you were to ask someone what the word awesome means, they would tell you that awesome means cool, exciting, or amazing. But the real definition of awesome is an adjective describing awe. Now what is awe?
Awe (noun) - an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God.
Can that definition ever accurately be applied to a sport, a video game, a steak, a TV show, a job, a car, a vacation, a joke, a new computer, my blog, etc?
Think about how awesome God is. Have you ever looked at the night sky in a really dark place? Have you seen one of those science shows showing the process of human conception and development in the womb? Think about God’s plan of redemption? This only scratches the surface.
Our lives are full of all kinds of exciting games, delicious food, entertaining TV shows, interesting jobs, cool cars, fun vacations, funny jokes, fast computers and intellectually stimulating blogs. I for one plan on doing my best to keep the word awesome restricted to describe those things that inspire awe.
If you read the first page of the website, you would see that the day really has a comical side to it. But still, it also is the straw that broke the camel's back for me in terms of the use of the word itself. Unfortunately, the word awesome must now be entered onto the official list of words whose actual meaning has been dumbed-down, changed, ruined and otherwise rendered unrecognizable because we decided the original definition wasn’t good enough for us.
Awesome! I just got Halo 3. That football game was awesome! If you were to ask someone what the word awesome means, they would tell you that awesome means cool, exciting, or amazing. But the real definition of awesome is an adjective describing awe. Now what is awe?
Awe (noun) - an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God.
Can that definition ever accurately be applied to a sport, a video game, a steak, a TV show, a job, a car, a vacation, a joke, a new computer, my blog, etc?
Think about how awesome God is. Have you ever looked at the night sky in a really dark place? Have you seen one of those science shows showing the process of human conception and development in the womb? Think about God’s plan of redemption? This only scratches the surface.
Our lives are full of all kinds of exciting games, delicious food, entertaining TV shows, interesting jobs, cool cars, fun vacations, funny jokes, fast computers and intellectually stimulating blogs. I for one plan on doing my best to keep the word awesome restricted to describe those things that inspire awe.
Monday, March 03, 2008
What's The Difference?
The people I work with all know I’m a Christian and I do my best to show them exactly what being a Christian is. The opinions vary. One person I work with always challenges me in various ways, mostly concerning science and evolution. Recently he posed a new challenge; one concerning right and wrong.
This person’s opinion is that since us Christians have all the answers we must also have a “holier than thou” attitude. In reality I can see how he could get that opinion with the way some Christians act. Anyway, my friend came to me and asked my opinion on something that had happened to him over the weekend. He had gone to the Home Depot and paid for his items with his debit card. As he was leaving the store a clerk ran up to him and said “Sir. You forgot your change.” The clerk was holding $50 in cash. My friend said that he knew he didn’t select to receive any cash back and he knew that the money wasn’t his, but he took it anyway. Here is how the conversation went (I’ll call my friend “Rod”):
Rod: So, would you have taken the money?
Ed: No I wouldn’t have. If I looked at my receipt and saw that I didn’t accidentally choose cash back, then I would not have taken it. That’s stealing.
Rod: Do you know how much those stores make in a single day? $50 isn’t going to ruin their business.
Ed: That doesn’t matter. It’s still wrong.
Rod: Oh like you’ve never stolen. Have you ever taken money that wasn’t yours?
Ed: Yes.
Rod: So what’s the difference?
Ed: None. I am equally as guilty as you are. The thing is that you need to understand why some people go to hell because of their sin and some people go to heaven in spite of their sin. The reason that happens is because of Jesus. Jesus is the difference.
Jesus is the difference. Jesus. Jesus!
This person’s opinion is that since us Christians have all the answers we must also have a “holier than thou” attitude. In reality I can see how he could get that opinion with the way some Christians act. Anyway, my friend came to me and asked my opinion on something that had happened to him over the weekend. He had gone to the Home Depot and paid for his items with his debit card. As he was leaving the store a clerk ran up to him and said “Sir. You forgot your change.” The clerk was holding $50 in cash. My friend said that he knew he didn’t select to receive any cash back and he knew that the money wasn’t his, but he took it anyway. Here is how the conversation went (I’ll call my friend “Rod”):
Rod: So, would you have taken the money?
Ed: No I wouldn’t have. If I looked at my receipt and saw that I didn’t accidentally choose cash back, then I would not have taken it. That’s stealing.
Rod: Do you know how much those stores make in a single day? $50 isn’t going to ruin their business.
Ed: That doesn’t matter. It’s still wrong.
Rod: Oh like you’ve never stolen. Have you ever taken money that wasn’t yours?
Ed: Yes.
Rod: So what’s the difference?
Ed: None. I am equally as guilty as you are. The thing is that you need to understand why some people go to hell because of their sin and some people go to heaven in spite of their sin. The reason that happens is because of Jesus. Jesus is the difference.
Jesus is the difference. Jesus. Jesus!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
It's Thanksgiving
I received an email from t-shirts.com telling me there is a 10% off “turkey day” sale. I see that term from time to time, now more and more. I want to scream “It’s not Turkey Day, it’s Thanksgiving! It’s about giving THANKS not about turkeys!!”
Ok, I’ve got that out of my system.
Look up Thanksgiving on Wikipedia and you’ll find “Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a traditional North American holiday to give thanks at the conclusion of the harvest season. Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November”.
Hmm, “to give thanks at the conclusion of the harvest season.” Ok I suppose. But here in America there is no harvest season for us to be really thankful for. We live in a perpetual harvest season. So it’s not really that special, is it?
If you want a real laugh go to www.happyturkeyday.org - “This Thanksgiving, when you sit down at the dinner table, please take a full 5 minutes of silence and/or prayer to acknowledge the millions of lives that were ended for this Day of Thankfulness.”
The lives their talking about are the turkeys (oi vai!), but at least happyturkeyday.org and Wikipedia acknowledge this is a day of thankfulness.
Today I want you to not only think about what you are thankful for, but to whom you are thankful to. Or should I have written, to Whom.
Yes, once again time and “progressive” thinking have separated us from the original intent of the holiday (Christmas is currently under this same attack). The folks at happyturkeyday.org want you take 5 minutes for silence and/or prayer and contemplate the fate of the turkey. I would like to ask you to take 5 minutes and read the two presidential proclamations that brought about Thanksgiving Day in America.
The first was written by President George Washington in 1789 which set aside one day that year as a day of Thanksgiving. The second written by Abraham Lincoln in Oct. 1863 proclaimed the day as an annual holiday. By the way, when reading the Lincoln proclamation, remember this is 1863 at the height of the civil war.
There is no doubt that this day of Thanksgiving was intended to be a day of thanksgiving and praise to God Almighty. May we all not only contemplate that, but share it as well.
Oh, one other thing about the Lincoln proclamation; please take notice of the second sentence. It is a thousand times better than any sentence I could ever write if I had all the time in the world to think and reflect on what I wanted to say. Lincoln probably scribbled it out as if it were no big deal.
Washington's Prolamation
Lincoln's Prolamation
Ok, I’ve got that out of my system.
Look up Thanksgiving on Wikipedia and you’ll find “Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a traditional North American holiday to give thanks at the conclusion of the harvest season. Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November”.
Hmm, “to give thanks at the conclusion of the harvest season.” Ok I suppose. But here in America there is no harvest season for us to be really thankful for. We live in a perpetual harvest season. So it’s not really that special, is it?
If you want a real laugh go to www.happyturkeyday.org - “This Thanksgiving, when you sit down at the dinner table, please take a full 5 minutes of silence and/or prayer to acknowledge the millions of lives that were ended for this Day of Thankfulness.”
The lives their talking about are the turkeys (oi vai!), but at least happyturkeyday.org and Wikipedia acknowledge this is a day of thankfulness.
Today I want you to not only think about what you are thankful for, but to whom you are thankful to. Or should I have written, to Whom.
Yes, once again time and “progressive” thinking have separated us from the original intent of the holiday (Christmas is currently under this same attack). The folks at happyturkeyday.org want you take 5 minutes for silence and/or prayer and contemplate the fate of the turkey. I would like to ask you to take 5 minutes and read the two presidential proclamations that brought about Thanksgiving Day in America.
The first was written by President George Washington in 1789 which set aside one day that year as a day of Thanksgiving. The second written by Abraham Lincoln in Oct. 1863 proclaimed the day as an annual holiday. By the way, when reading the Lincoln proclamation, remember this is 1863 at the height of the civil war.
There is no doubt that this day of Thanksgiving was intended to be a day of thanksgiving and praise to God Almighty. May we all not only contemplate that, but share it as well.
Oh, one other thing about the Lincoln proclamation; please take notice of the second sentence. It is a thousand times better than any sentence I could ever write if I had all the time in the world to think and reflect on what I wanted to say. Lincoln probably scribbled it out as if it were no big deal.
Washington's Prolamation
Lincoln's Prolamation
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Soft Pillow of Science
I was channel surfing the other night and as I did I came across a program on the Discovery Channel called Miracle Planet: The Evolution of Our World. The channel guide that describes what the program is about read, “Earth was born out of chaos, disaster and completely by chance. Travel back into the violent past to discover how the fragile conditions of life were created.”
Did you get that? This show will explain how the earth and even life itself were created by chance. Created BY chance? What IS chance? How can anything be created BY chance? Don’t get me wrong; chance is a perfectly good word to describe mathematical probabilities. For example we listen to the weather in order to find out if there will be a chance of rain. The weather guesser tells us that tomorrow there will be a 30% chance. Or if I ask you what the chances are, when I flip a coin, that it will come up tails? The answer is that there is a 50% chance it will come up tails. But tell me, when I flip the coin how does chance influence the outcome? What force does chance exert on the coin which causes it to come up tails? None! It can’t! It isn’t possible because chance is not a thing. It’s nothing! It’s simply a word used to describe mathematical possibilities. Yet some scientists, many scientists, have given chance magical powers; even the power to create.
I’ve read it and heard it so many times, Space+Time+Chance=The Universe. What is time? How much does it weigh? When I see that formula, which is the formula ascribed to by all believers in the big bang theory, I see this: nothing+nothing+nothing=everything; =me. This to me is logically untenable, yet these otherwise brilliant people use the term chance as a soft pillow to explain affects for things that they simply have not, or can not, find a cause for. I would respect them if they would just say that. Just say we haven’t found the cause yet, but with more experimentation and study we hope to discover what the causes are.
The day after I saw that program description I came into work and flipped the page on my “Bible Verse a Day” calendar and here is what the scripture was: Hebrews 11:3
Did you get that? This show will explain how the earth and even life itself were created by chance. Created BY chance? What IS chance? How can anything be created BY chance? Don’t get me wrong; chance is a perfectly good word to describe mathematical probabilities. For example we listen to the weather in order to find out if there will be a chance of rain. The weather guesser tells us that tomorrow there will be a 30% chance. Or if I ask you what the chances are, when I flip a coin, that it will come up tails? The answer is that there is a 50% chance it will come up tails. But tell me, when I flip the coin how does chance influence the outcome? What force does chance exert on the coin which causes it to come up tails? None! It can’t! It isn’t possible because chance is not a thing. It’s nothing! It’s simply a word used to describe mathematical possibilities. Yet some scientists, many scientists, have given chance magical powers; even the power to create.
I’ve read it and heard it so many times, Space+Time+Chance=The Universe. What is time? How much does it weigh? When I see that formula, which is the formula ascribed to by all believers in the big bang theory, I see this: nothing+nothing+nothing=everything; =me. This to me is logically untenable, yet these otherwise brilliant people use the term chance as a soft pillow to explain affects for things that they simply have not, or can not, find a cause for. I would respect them if they would just say that. Just say we haven’t found the cause yet, but with more experimentation and study we hope to discover what the causes are.
The day after I saw that program description I came into work and flipped the page on my “Bible Verse a Day” calendar and here is what the scripture was: Hebrews 11:3
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Only!
When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the Judean wilderness He fended off every attempt of Satan by quoting scripture. The last recorded temptation involved Satan, the prince of this world, showing Jesus all of the kingdoms of earth and trying to get Jesus to worship him by promising all of it to Jesus. Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’.”
Serve Him ONLY. Christ knew that in order to fulfill His mission he would absolutely without fail serve the Father and Him only. If God said it, then Jesus trusts it and it doesn’t matter what Satan or anybody else says. What a difference between the second Adam and the first! And every son of the first Adam that has ever lived since!! We tend to take Satan up on that deal by serving God on Sunday and the world the rest of the week. So often Christians are afraid to serve God ONLY because that would mean we would have to be politically incorrect. Stand up for the Truth of God as it is written in His Bible. We have a real hard time trusting what God tells us.
Serve Him ONLY. Christ knew that in order to fulfill His mission he would absolutely without fail serve the Father and Him only. If God said it, then Jesus trusts it and it doesn’t matter what Satan or anybody else says. What a difference between the second Adam and the first! And every son of the first Adam that has ever lived since!! We tend to take Satan up on that deal by serving God on Sunday and the world the rest of the week. So often Christians are afraid to serve God ONLY because that would mean we would have to be politically incorrect. Stand up for the Truth of God as it is written in His Bible. We have a real hard time trusting what God tells us.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
When Fish Catch Men
In Romans 8:37 we read, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.” Brother Danny always asked the question, how we could be more than conquerors? I know what it is to conqueror, but to be more than a conqueror?”I am sure that God has some unimaginable ways to show us the meaning of that and there are many ways the meaning may be manifest in our lives. But, last week He showed it to me in a small, but significant way.
VBS was beginning is a few days and my role was to play the part of a fisherman working in a fish market. As the first day of VBS approached I began making my costume and thinking about what props I would have. I was thinking I need a fish as a prop and wondered if I would have to strike a deal with my 4-year-old niece to borrow some of her toy fishies. As I was driving to work on Friday my thoughts again went to what I should do about a prop as VBS started on Monday. While at work I went to visit a colleague who had just moved into a new office. When I entered his office there on top of a bookshelf was a 4-foot long, beautiful, stuffed toy catfish. I asked if I could borrow it the following week and my friend said I could have it. It was there when he moved into the office. Leaving his office I thought how God is so wonderful and loving even in the small things. But, I would soon learn that God always has bigger things in mind and can always work them out even through the small things.
Now back at my desk I have to put this large stuffed catfish somewhere! I’m not in an office, I have a cube and just outside my cube wall is a short two-drawer file cabinet. So on top of the file cabinet Mr. Fish goes. He immediately began to draw attention as if he were casting lures out into the office and attracting schooling co-workers. Soon he got his first bite, “Hey Ed, what’s the fish for?” I replied, “It’s for VBS. This year our theme is Galilee by the Sea, and I am the fisherman. Why don’t you come on by?” One bite, then another and another. It was at that moment it hit me. God not only provides, He more than provides. Just as in Christ we are more than conquerors. Not only does God provide a way for us to be freed from death, but we also inherit the Kingdom of God.
My words can not explain this sufficiently, so I’ll use the words of the Holy Spirit found in Romans 8:36-39 “As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
VBS was beginning is a few days and my role was to play the part of a fisherman working in a fish market. As the first day of VBS approached I began making my costume and thinking about what props I would have. I was thinking I need a fish as a prop and wondered if I would have to strike a deal with my 4-year-old niece to borrow some of her toy fishies. As I was driving to work on Friday my thoughts again went to what I should do about a prop as VBS started on Monday. While at work I went to visit a colleague who had just moved into a new office. When I entered his office there on top of a bookshelf was a 4-foot long, beautiful, stuffed toy catfish. I asked if I could borrow it the following week and my friend said I could have it. It was there when he moved into the office. Leaving his office I thought how God is so wonderful and loving even in the small things. But, I would soon learn that God always has bigger things in mind and can always work them out even through the small things.
Now back at my desk I have to put this large stuffed catfish somewhere! I’m not in an office, I have a cube and just outside my cube wall is a short two-drawer file cabinet. So on top of the file cabinet Mr. Fish goes. He immediately began to draw attention as if he were casting lures out into the office and attracting schooling co-workers. Soon he got his first bite, “Hey Ed, what’s the fish for?” I replied, “It’s for VBS. This year our theme is Galilee by the Sea, and I am the fisherman. Why don’t you come on by?” One bite, then another and another. It was at that moment it hit me. God not only provides, He more than provides. Just as in Christ we are more than conquerors. Not only does God provide a way for us to be freed from death, but we also inherit the Kingdom of God.
My words can not explain this sufficiently, so I’ll use the words of the Holy Spirit found in Romans 8:36-39 “As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
