The Politics of Violence

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Sten Hoyer: Members are at Risk

As Michele Malkin rightly points out,

The fact that plenty of Republicans get threats every day and nobody says a thing notwithstanding, taking Hoyer’s words at face value, as a conservative Republican, I condemn real threats of violence almost as much as I condemn desperate claims that are manufactured in a cheap attempts to further broken agendas.

No one has been arrested or even identified for having threatened anyone. One can only speculate about who is guilty. It must not be overlooked that some are all of these incidents may have been staged by communist Democrats in order to generate sympathy. Democrat Hoyer is merely playing a petty political trick. By calling for only Republicans to condemn threats, he implies that only Republicans can have some influence over the perpetrators of these alleged threats. He is doing nothing more or less than asking Republicans to take ownership of the threats. His pretense of concern is disingenuous and flat out dishonest. Instead of responding to his call, I respond to Ms. Malkin's call to condemnation.

That said, I’d like Rep. Hoyer and people of all political stripes to condemn the assumption that any physical threats of retribution over the health care bill are coming from Republicans.

And Racist, Too!

Just when you thought the fascistic health care take-over couldn't be any worse... perhaps for the sake of tyrannical purity, it's racist too!

Under the Democrats' health care bill, if a medical school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should have a demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups. This is because the Democrats' health care bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these contracts to medical schools and other institutions.

American Thinker: Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill

Audio: Rep. John Dingell on How Long it Took “To Control the People” | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Audio: Rep. John Dingell on How Long it Took “To Control the People” | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

The Czar of Czars

Obamacare is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

"And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until on day ... we will awake to find that we have socialism. ... One of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

Healthcare Reform Really Is This Simple

Career politicians have no interest in reform or simplicity, and they certainly have no interest in less federal government power as prescribed by the U.S. constitution. Therefore, we are not likely to see workable solutions like these from D.C.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.
[...]
Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

My Healthcare Plan ~Ann Coulter

The Agenda was Never to Save the Planet

George Soros and Barack Obama conspire (that's right, I said it) with lobbyists for greedy industries to continue to cripple the U.S. economy.

The emails show that the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated their response to a damning Spanish report on “green jobs” with wind industry lobbyists and the Center for American Progress (the progressive think tank founded by John Podesta and funded by George Soros).

The report from Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos — which was the subject of a George Will column in the Washington Post on June 25, 2009 — showed each “green job” that had been added by Spain’s aggressive wind energy program cost Spain nearly $800,000 and resulted in the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Eight times, Obama had publicly referred to Spain’s program as being a model for a U.S. wind energy program.

The 900 pages of emails, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Christopher C. Horner, show staff members from the DoE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the EPA developing a response to the report. They also show them coordinating the response with the Center for American Progress, plus the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) — two wind industry lobbyist groups.

What the emails show runs contrary to statements made to Congress by the Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi — the Obama administration response to the Spanish report was in fact instigated at the request of the AWEA. It was then written with the close cooperation of the AWEA, the Center for American Progress, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The emails concentrate on the political implications of the Spanish study — and how to discredit it.

There also appears to have been significant pressure to publish an internal report from the NREL as a DoE report — bypassing the internal review and publication procedures — and to do so quickly.

The emails suggest that wind industry lobbyists and political organizations have significant behind-the-scenes influence on scientific reports from the Obama administration. This contradicts Obama’s insistence that his administration would get the politics out of science. It also calls into question the objectivity and quality of the information they provided to Congress.

BREAKING: Released Emails Show Wind Lobby, Soros Group Helped with White House PR (PJM Exclusive — Read the Emails Here)

UPDATE: More details as the content of the emails is digested.

The emails fall into three categories, each raising interesting questions:

1. Emails discussing how to spin the Spanish report: how to respond to this challenge to one of the Obama administration’s cherished programs?

2. Emails telling of pressure being put on DoE staffers by Cathy Zoi.

3. Emails describing the DoE’s relationship with Big Wind, the Soros-funded CAP, and the leftist UCS.

You might expect this to be a story of great interest to the mainstream media.

But I have excellent information pointing to at least one national newspaper being given these same emails by DoE, upon request, only to have its editors spike the story. In addition to being a case-study in Obama-style governance, this incident reaffirms the role and the importance of new media (such as PJM).

Examining the GreenJobsGate Emails: Obama Administration Takes Direction from Wind Lobby, Soros Group

Por Que? Good Question.

The Agenda was Never Health Care

There is no health care crisis in the United States. People come from all over the world for access to our health care. That may indicate a crisis for their native countries, but not for us. We have it very, very good. If "Progressives" (read: Totalitarians) had not imposed tyrannical policies that cause health care in the U.S. to be more expensive and more difficult to access than it would be in a truly free market, then our world class health care system would be even better!

The problems that we do have can be resolved simply and freely. For example: One Problem, One Bill.

But health care reform has never been the Progressive Totalitarian agenda. Kyle-Anne Shiver exposes the intense hatred held by Obama and his ilk for your God-given liberty in her article, Hidden Healthcare Reform Objective: Feds Want to Know Your Number.

Imagine an America where your Unique Health Identifier (UHI) is required for every access to a nationally controlled healthcare system. Imagine an America, where you must give your UHI, via a scan of your surgically implanted biochip, to pick up your prescription at the pharmacy and even when you buy over the counter medications. The number could eventually be required to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, perhaps even to track quantities of bakery goods, chocolates, trans-fats, beef, and even birth control products — or anything else the nanny bureaucrats decide to monitor.
Sound farfetched? Like a plot from a conspiracy-theory movie? Like something from a sci-fi novel?
Think again.
The plans to make these very things a reality right here in America are being made in this administration, under the leadership of the president’s science guru, John Holdren.
...
Only a scientifically controlled populace, according to these gurus of population and health control, can survive. These scientists see their mission as one of absolute control over even the most private aspects of human life.
Not since the aftermath of WWII — when the ends of the scientific-progressive state were revealed to the world in vivid pictures of the Nazi death camps — have progressives dared to raise their heads in America to such a degree as they are now, under the leadership of Obama’s science guru, John Holdren
...
Part of HIPAA legislation was the requirement for the development of the Unique Health Identifier (UHI) for individuals.
...
In 2003, privacy rules were enacted that purportedly protect the individual’s right to healthcare confidentiality. However, a provision of these privacy rules includes a powerful, blanket waiver, which can be used at the discrimination of a “Privacy Board,” acting under HHS. All privacy rules can be disregarded for research or other “necessary” purpose:


If the covered entity receives appropriate documentation that an IRB or Privacy Board has granted a waiver or an alteration of the Authorization requirement

In other words, American citizens will continue to have the right to privacy and confidentiality between themselves and their healthcare providers, if and only if, the Department of Health and Human Services deems that right justified. If, on the other hand, the HHS deems the open availability of an individual’s or groups of individuals’ healthcare information to be necessary to the “general welfare,” then a waiver will be granted without the citizen’s consent or even his knowledge. And this is perfectly legal.

And here is the best part...

According to my source on the health and technology sub-committee, ultimate biological control of the population is the end goal of the federal healthcare initiative, now being force-fed by the president and the Democratic Party congressional leaders.
Members of this sub-committee were even heard discussing how women’s menstrual periods could be state monitored. How people’s defecation might be monitored and used to detect broad health concerns through electronic toilet management systems. How sexual habits could be state-monitored by managing the sale of all birth-control technology through the use of the UHI.
...
Perhaps this explains why President Obama and his Party are willing to commit political suicide for the passage of this particular healthcare overhaul. Without it, they may fail in their grand plan to “re-make” America according to their scientific-state, progressive delusions.
...
It doesn’t take much more than a casual glance at the downfall of the others who’ve tried this mad-science controlled government scheme to see that it isn’t a winner. Both the Nazis and the Soviets, who built their own totalitarian regimes on Malthusian scientific themes did fall – albeit only after killing untold millions of their own citizens.
The scientifically controlled state as a vehicle for advancing human progress? Hardly. As human beings have tragically learned, over and over again, science without morality can indeed be the most efficient killer.
It’s not hard to believe that big government would want this kind of power over the lives of individual citizens. What is indeed difficult to believe is that this is happening in America.
The only question now is who will stop it?

Like a Little Child

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." ~Mark 10:13-15

What does it mean for anyone to "receive the kingdom of God like a little child"? I've been taught and have believed that it meant accepting God the way a little child blindly trusts and accepts his parents (or even others). I still do, but could there be more? Is there more of the character of a little child that we must embrace in order to receive the kingdom of God? Or can our likeness to a little child be refined in order that we may more fully receive the kingdom of God? I was reminded by the passage below that I, as a child, was ever hopeful and ever curious. I was always eager to explore, learn, and experience more.

Now, as an adult, of course, I am so burdened with the mundane life. I just want to get through the boring routine of the day. The fewer new experiences the better! Too often, I look back to the "good old days" and long for the freedom from anxiety and responsibility. Truly, I also miss the blissful ignorance. Is this not a result of weak faith?

So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. ~Matthew 6:31-32

I came across the following in a book with multiple authors called Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. Chapter 4 is by David Powlison. While making the point that "repentance is a lifestyle", he quotes Martin Luther and writes:

The trumpet call, Thesis Number One of Luther's Ninety-five Theses, was this: "When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said 'Repent,' He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance." That first of Luther's theses dismantled all the machinery of religiosity and called us back to human reality. Luther glimpsed and aimed to recover the essential inner dynamic of the Christian life. It is an ongoing change process. It involves a continual turning motion, turning toward God, and turning away from the riot of other voices, other desires, other loves. We tend to use the word repentance in its more narrow sense, for decisive moments of realization, conviction, confession, turning. But Luther uses the word in its wider, more inclusive sense. If we are living in Christ, we are living from-to.
...
Luther went on to describe the transformation that occurs as we live from-to:


This life, therefore,
is not righteousness but growth in righteousness,
not health but healing,
not being but becoming,
not rest but exercise.
We are not yet what we shall be, but we are growing toward it.
The process is not yet finished, but it is going on.
This is not the end but it is the road.
All does not yet gleam in glory but all is being purified.

Lifelong progressive sanctification was the trumpet call back to biblical faith. It was a call back to this life ... in which the living God is on the scene throughout your life.

Since God is with us and we trust him, we can move forward in life with eyes wide open not only unafraid of what we will see, but also eagerly expecting to rejoice in the glory of God as he has determined it will be revealed in his plan for us. And why not? God's abilities are so much greater than ours. His knowledge is better, his wisdom is better, his power is better, his love is better, his promise is better.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. ~Proverbs 3:5-6

Obama at the Bat

Very nice take on the old "Casey at the Bat" from PJTV. Obama at the Bat

Climate Bombshell! CRU's Jones Confesses!

The science of Climate Change has been settled for a very long time. Finally, the truth is coming out. Will the media repent and be spared the doom of all liars? Look for this story in the 'mainstream' media. You may have to look very hard.

Now that Climategate ringleader Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming (man-made or otherwise) since at least 1995, and that the world was warmer in medieval times than now, I only have one question. Where do the so-called global warming skeptics go to get their reputations back?
...
Had the skeptics not succeeded in preventing the U.S. from signing on to the Kyoto Protocol and to President Obama’s cap-and-trade crusade, we would all have been in for a world of hurt as misanthropic socialists — hiding behind their shields of “the environment” and “the children” — destroyed our liberties and ran our economy (further) into the ground.

Hug a skeptic. They saved your bacon.

Climategate: Phil Jones Finally Proves Al Gore Right — The Debate Is Over

Have Celebs Been Blackmailed Into Supporting Castro's Tyranny?

Hmm.. this would explain so much. I'll be on the lookout for any backlash against the author. If the implications are realities, this story is HUGE!

Interestingly (and tragically) The ECPAT Network – (End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism) in a study titled Child Prostitution and Sex Tourism in Cuba, reports that: ”In Cuba, the link between tourism and prostitution is perhaps more direct than in any other country that hosts sex tourists.” Such is the desperation of the brutalized and impoverished residents of a nation that prior to the glorious Castro/Che revolution enjoyed a higher per capita income than Japan and half the nations of Europe and who welcomed more immigrants (primarily from Europe) per-capita than the U.S. Prior to the glorious Communist liberation people were as desperate to enter Cuba as they are now to escape.
“Famous Americans are the priority objectives of Castro’s intelligence,” reports Fernandez. “When the celebrity visitors arrived at the Hotels Nacional, Meliá Habana and Meliá Cohiba, we already had their rooms completely bugged with sophisticated taping equipment. But not just the rooms, we’d also follow the visitors around, sometimes we covered them 24 hours a day. They had no idea we were tailing them.”
...
“Socialism works. I think Cuba might prove that” (Chevy Chase).
“Castro is very selfless and moral, one of the world’s wisest men” (Oliver Stone).
“If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!” (Harry Belafonte).
“It was an experience of a lifetime to sit only a few feet away from him (Castro)” Kevin Costner.
“The eight most important hours of my life,” (Stephen Spielberg describing his dinner with Castro, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.)
...
Castro’s top intelligence people would gather for the screenings of these tapes almost like Hollywood types for an upcoming movie, reports Fernandez. “Hummmm, these scenes are more scandalous than anything in any of her movies!” Fernandez recalls a top intelligence officer chortling while watching the nighttime cavortings of a famous Spanish actress. “Now, it really seems to me, compañeros,” the Castro intimate snickered as he looked around the room, “that this señorita should be making more respectful comments about our regime, right?”

Castro Catches Useful Idiot Celebs on Candid Camera

Will Americans Fold to Obama's Climate Bluff?

Obama doubles down with the creation of, yet another government agency, the National Climate Service (NCS). This is not to be confused with NCIS, which solves crimes rather than perpetrating them.

Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com picks apart the disinformation and conflicting information at Obama's new website, Climate.gov. He also lists the religious fanatics and corrupt corporatists involved with the project.

With the information that NOAA presents, the only thing that you can plan on is being confused, misinformed, and frustrated.

The real purpose of the NCS, of course, has nothing to do with education. It has everything to do with the politicization of the natural process of climate change for the unnatural ends of egomaniacal profiteers like Al Gore, and international socialists who want to use greenhouse gas regulation as a means of imposing their political agendas.

Climategate: Obama's National Climate Disservice

Angry, Bitter Pro-Abortionists

After CBS announced it would air during the Super Bowl an ostensibly 'pro-life' advertisement presented by Christian organization Focus On The Family, Abortion advocates, like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and others flew into a rage, demanding CBS pull the ad. Pro-Abortion groups lobbed inflammatory accusations of hatred, intolerance, and misogyny. There were two different ads. Both were nothing but gentle, sweet, even humorous celebrations of family. This must be very embarrassing for the harpies of NOW.

Susan Swift takes on Pro-Abortion outrage brilliantly.

Come On, NARAL, Be Proud of Your Work on Super Sunday

The ad has evoked angry criticism primarily from anachronistic feminists (and, inexplicably, a few homosexual groups) who, I’ll wager, don’t even watch much football regularly much less tune in the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, these graying feminists have exploded in fury at Mrs. Tebow expressing joy for the life of her son – my son the college student, my son the Heisman Trophy winner. But why express such anger and venom at a mother’s pride?

If I were to guess, the reason is that these “aborto-fanatics” (my term) cannot respond in kind. Focus on the Family shows the triumph of choosing life. How Mrs. Tebow’s choice made a “we” out of “me.” What can NOW show? What proud accomplishments can NARAL highlight? A massive body count and the millions it has paid the abortion industry.

Hannah Giles Strikes Back!

Once again Hannah Giles, Robin to James O'Keefe's Batman, demonstrates she has superpowers of her own.

'Bob, You'd Better Just Pull Back' - Does Beckel Have a Problem with Women?

After he called me a ho, the panel informed him I wasn’t a real hooker, only pretending to be one for the sake of the story. He defends himself by saying I was a very “convincing hooker.”

BAM!

All I can say is, Beckel would know.

POW!

This isn’t the first time he has been befuddled by a young woman’s actions. In the summer of 2002 Beckel came to know 20-year old “Tiffany,” a professional hooker who, after establishing a business relationship with him, attempted to extort $50,000 in exchange for her not exposing their relationship to his ex-wife and employers.
Don’t believe it, don’t remember it, want to get the facts? Check the police report for the gory details.

KABOOM!

Palin's Genius or Serendipity

Now, I'm not as impressed with Sarah Palin as I'd like to be for a presidential contender, but I am pleased to give her credit for exposing Leftist Lunacy. Apparently, deranged Leftists were all in a tizzy because, during Palin's speech at the Tea Party convention in Nashville TN, it could be observed that she had written "notes" on her left hand. Surely this revealed that Palin is not bright enough to do without notes or, at least, to use paper. This is, of course, while their messiah cannot speak to a classroom of elementary school children without a teleprompter. But, perhaps Andrew Marcus is correct in SAYING

On the other hand, the outrage on the left is being completely misunderstood by the right. Democrats don’t mind that she needed a few notes for her speech. They’re upset that Sarah used her hand, proving once again that she is an unsophisticated hick. Everybody knows that whether you are talking in a sixth grade classroom, or talking dirty to the First Lady, using anything other than a presidential-level teleprompter is simply pedestrian.

HOWEVER, while campaigning for Texas governor Rick Perry prior to the Tea Party event, the words "Hi Mom!" could be observed also on Palin's left palm. She clearly expected her shout out to her mother to be observed, as it was. It exposes her detractors as truly desperate and frustrated. Thank you, Sarah.

Remember Elian Gonzalez?

Kenneth, What Is the Frequency: How CBS and Dan Rather Set Up Elian Gonzalez

So in effect, the man who until recently served as Obama’s Chief White House Counsel, once agreed to function as a fully deputized agent for a Stalinist regime’s KGB-trained secret police, and arranged to have Castro’s child-kidnapping smokescreened by his chums at CBS.

And lest we forget, the Deputy Attorney General who draped the legal veneer over the above was none other than Eric Holder.

"Pro-Choice" Woman Defends Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

For a Leftist, Sally Jenkins is startlingly open minded. She writes for the Washington Post so rationally in support of the Tebow Pro-Life Super Bowl ad that I imagine she is a far greater terror to Feminazi's that any Conservative could be.

Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are

I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
...
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell.
...
Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.
...
If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

WOW!

Holy Sidekick, Batman!

James O'Keefe gained notoriety from exposing severe systemic corruption at ACORN, and has been rightly treated as a hero among Conservatives and others who despise corruption and child sex slavery. James and his compatriot, Hannah Giles, having posed as pimp and prostitute, were able to gain assistance from ACORN expressly for the purpose of establishing a child prostitution business and avoiding taxation. As a result of O'Keefe's reports, ACORN has been partially defunded by Congress, who should be embarrassed for having ever funded ACORN in the first place.

Last week, O'Keefe was arrested while conducting a journalistic investigation at the Louisiana offices of Senator Mary Landrieu. HERE is a report from Andrew Breitbart on the arrest of James O'Keefe and false claims made by the Leftist mainstream media about the incident. And the statement from the Caped Crusader himself: Statement from James O'Keefe

I confess, based on the videos and interviews I've seen, I thought for sure that O'Keefe had no more than a cute twist for a sidekick in Hannah Giles. I was wrong. She writes well enough and displays truly admirable gumption and conviction in the article below:

Once Again, James O'Keefe Strips Away the MSM's Mask of Neutrality, Revealing the Bias Below

Andrew Breitbart has made the new media trendy, and after the ACORN videos everyone and their conservative dog was on the new-media campaign bandwagon. “Yay, yay we are back to save the day. Glory and victory all the way!” But then, the second things got a little spicy, POOF, they’re gone.
For instance, Michelle Malkin, a once avid supporter/defender of James and all his work, called for an example to be made out of him, and instructing other young journalists to not follow in his footsteps. Again, this was before she knew his side of the story.
The bottom line is, conservative elites are afraid of the MSM. They are constantly two-steppin’ to stay in their good graces while secretly cursing them beneath their breath. It is no wonder they’ve had their rear ends handed to them so badly in past elections. I’m telling you, if conservatives don’t put on their game faces and strap on their big-boy boots, our nation’s demise is imminent.

O'Keefe appeared as a guest on "Hannity" last night. He claimed that some questions he was not allowed to answer because an investigation was still underway. But, he did say that he wanted the video he took, which is currently in the possession of law enforcement, to be released because it will disprove claims made by the Leftist media. He also, it seemed to me, tried not to admit that he would be initiating litigation of some sort. Such legal action might occur as a result of the circumstances of his arrest. It has been reported that he was under arrest for 28 hours before he was allowed counsel. Sean Hannity asked O'Keefe directly whether he would take any action against media for slanderously false reporting of the incident. O'Keefe did not commit.

My prediciton is that not only will O'Keefe be exonerated, but his investigation will be vindicated, and false arrest charges will be brought, all resulting in the end of Landrieu's career and the careers of some law enforcement personnel in Louisiana.

Barack Obama vs. George Washington

God Save the U.S. and Our Courts

President Obama renominated pro-abortion activist and former NARAL attorney Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen has come under fire for calling women "fetal containers," labeling pregnant women "losers in the contraceptive lottery" and comparing pregnancy to slavery and pro-lifers to the Ku Klux Klan.
...
James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, explained the relationship between religion and law: "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. ... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Actions Speak Louder...

POLITICO: Dem. senators spent weekend with bank, energy, tobacco lobbyists - Ben Smith

Twelve Democratic Senators spent last weekend in Miami Beach raising money from top lobbyists for oil, drug, and other corporate interests that they often decry
...
The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's "winter retreat" at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn't include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000. There, to participate in "informal conversations" and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez
...
The retreat's guest list is a marked contrast to Menendez's recent rhetoric, which has echoed the White House denunciation of "special interests" and "fat cats."

“In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies -- or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests," Menendez said in a press release last Wednesday.

Holder? Holder?

It's one thing for the media to be biased, but when the Attorney General shows favoritism in one case and prejudice in another, then we have a clear and severe case of corruption yet again, from yet another Obama appointee.

Ben Stein: Free James O'Keefe

When was the last time you read about federal charges against a liberal reporter for going undercover? The behavior of the feds here is not just worrisome. It is something beyond that. But, Mr. Holder, here is a line from the civil rights struggle I worked in before you were born: We are not afraid. And we're not going away.

Persecution of Homeschoolers in Germany

Homeschooling German Family Awarded Political Asylum in U.S., Where is U.S. Media?

“The two highest courts in Germany have ruled that it is acceptable for the German government to ‘stamp out’ homeschoolers as some kind of ‘parallel society.’
...
Some might think that a democratic western nation losing some of its citizens to another democratic western nation through a case of political asylum would be quite a story for the media? Unfortunately, the story has an element of homeschooling so the story stays under the radar. And there certainly seems to be a bias of omission being committed against homeschooling in the American media.

Che is so "GQ"

There nothing Hollywood loves more than a good mass-murdering tyrant!

In Venezuela, Rage Against Chavez's Marxist Machine, While Movie Stars Sport Che's Icon

In a famous speech in 1961, Che Guevara denounced the very “spirit of rebellion” as “reprehensible.” “Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates” commanded Guevara. “Instead they must dedicate themselves to study, work and military service.”
...
Today the world’s largest Che Guevara image adorns Cuba’s headquarters and torture chambers for its KGB-trained secret police. And Johnny Depp seems delighted to flaunt this emblem from his pendants, shirts and kerchiefs.

Par for the Course: Leftist Group Promotes Racist Policy

Violence Policy Center: Reinstate the Black Codes?

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) — the anti-gun rights group that Barack Obama repeatedly voted to fund while he was a director of the Joyce Foundation — believes that African-Americans are too violent to deserve the entire Constitution. Thus, it wants to reduce their access to firearms.
...
Calls to limit the access of African-Americans to firearms specifically echo the “black codes” adopted immediately at the end of the Civil War.
...
The goal of the Violence Policy Center in this report is the goal of the group in every report it has ever issued: an erosion of gun rights for all Americans, with the ultimate goal being the prohibition of all firearms save those under state control. Towards that totalitarian end, the VPC does not seem to have any qualms about advocating a return to racist policies that left African-American communities helpless targets for most of a century. Nor does Sugarman or his group explain how disarming law-abiding blacks will make them anything other than victims for those that refuse to follow existing prohibitions against murder.

What Does it Matter?

Heather Mac Donald is the John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of The Immigration Solution. She writes a fine, admirably lucid and articulate article.

Reengineering the Family

The main answer to the “Why does it matter?” question is this: The institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood affirms a growing trend in our society, that of men abandoning their biological children.
...
Gay child-rearing undercuts another understanding of why fathers should stay with their children: that mothers and fathers bring complementary attributes to child-rearing.
...
The facile libertarian argument that gay marriage is a trivial matter that affects only the parties involved is astoundingly blind to the complexity of human institutions and to the web of sometimes imperceptible meanings and practices that compose them. Equally specious is the central theme in attorney Theodore Olson’s legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8: that only religious belief or animus towards gays could explain someone’s hesitation regarding gay marriage.

Conspiracy but No Theory

Was Democrat's Health Care Strategy Written in Federal Prison? "Creamer’s broader aim, as laid out in his book, is the “democratization of wealth” in America and “progressive control of governments around the world.” As he recently wrote on his blog at the Huffington Post: “If we succeed in winning health insurance reform we will have breached the gates of the status quo. We will demonstrate that fundamental change is possible. Into that breach will flow a wave of progressive change.”"

The Blueprint Penned from the Pen: Manufacture a Crisis, Manufacture Rage "This is about money and this is about power." "The problem is: it's all a lie."

Obama's political strategy for the take-over of health care was conceived and written by a criminal, Robert Creamer, while in prison. The strategy includes the manufacture of an imaginary crisis, and has as its explicit purpose to eventually control the world. His book includes an endorsement from Obama's top political advisor, David Axelrod. Every single detail of Creamer's communist strategy has been followed by the Obama administration. Creamer was in jail because he had been convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. So, naturally, he's a perfect fit for the Obama administration. He's now an Obama advisor and may be the only ex-convict to ever attend a Presidential State Dinner.

Obama has embraced a design for deception, fraud, intimidation, and even violence in order to establish a communist health care system in the U.S., the express purpose for which is to force all citizens (of the entire world, eventually) to be dependent on government health care.



We typically scoff at conspiracy theories. It may be unfortunate that we are so eager to do so because, in this case, while it sounds like some bizarre, comic book world-domination conspiracy, it is far beyond theory. These facts are known. I only pray that American's will learn the truth in spite of the media's brazen complicity.

The Beauty of the Bride

Some say the Church must appeal to the lost and make itself more attractive to 'the world' in order to draw people to attend worship services. They reason that the mission of the Church is evangelism, and the success of the Church must be measured by the rate of its growth, therefore all activities must be oriented toward growth; growth is defined by numbers, therefore the Church must direct all its efforts, including worship, toward attracting lost souls to the Church. Therefore, worship service must be made appealing to 'the world' with irreverent music and visual aids, coarse language, a loose grip on scripture and the mandates of God, flashing lights, or any number of other lures.

Those who reason this way are mistaken. To them, God says:

"Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." ~2Corinthians 2:2-7

As the whore scorns the virgin, so 'the world' scorns the Church of God. Shall the virgin paint her face and expose her flesh for the sake of fellowship with the whore? Shall she debase herself, discarding her virtue as if it were refuse, for the sake of fellowship with the whore? What quality of fellowship will the virgin then have to offer to the whore? In order to 'save' the whore, shall the virgin become a whore?

No. Indeed not. Not all the lost will be saved. It is not for the Church to decide. Indeed the Body of Christ saves no one. Only Jesus saves. The virgin shall "Let light shine out of darkness" as a beacon of hope and a reflection of the glory of God. So also shall the Bride of Christ.

Galatians 6:1-5

I was so caught up in this passage, I felt compelled to share the thoughts racing around my head...

"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load." ~Galatians 6:1-5

The first verse makes the point, and verses 2 through 5 elaborate. As to the first sentence, he who should "restore him gently" is "you who are spiritual". But does this mean all of "you" because you are spiritual or does it mean only those of "you" who are spiritual? Verse 2 expands the idea with direction that clearly applies to everyone. Obviously, it is not only important for those "who are spiritual" to fulfill the law of Christ! Therefore, it must be concluded that "who are spiritual" is used as a counterpoint and describes all of those who are not "caught in sin".

Of course, also worthy of note is that someone "caught in a sin" should be restored gently. This alone is worth considerable meditation. Certainly soft words alone are not at all gently restorative. We must be guided by following the recent verse 5:14, which refers to Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

When hearing "But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted", I used to imagine a person entering a bar to find his friend who was indulging in alcohol only to find himself swilling beer. But the temptation referred to here is toward pride of being "you who are spiritual". For, "if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself wihtout comparing himself to somebody else". This is quite plain. But merely connecting verses 3 and 4 with the second part of verse 1 is revelatory for me. The temptation we face when gently restoring our brothers is less in being caught in the same sin, but more in being tangled in pride.

An apparent contradiction lies between verses 2 and 5. How can it be that we should "Carry each other's burdens" when "each one should carry his own load". Upon brief reflection, it must be recognized that while each should carry his own load, verse 1 makes clear it does not always happen. Sometimes, "someone is caught in a sin", not carrying his own load. We must always endeavor to carry our own load and, when necessary, fulfill the law of Christ to "love your neighbor as yourself" by carrying "each other's burdens".

Against Civil Debate

When you and I seek to achieve the same goal, yet disagree about the best manner by which our shared goal might be obtained, then we are likely to benefit by sharing our points of view and seeking to learn from each other and to persuade each other. In addition, civil society survives only when we peacefully resolve such conflicts.

As another example, if I have concluded that, for your own good, your home must be burned to the ground with all your possessions and family inside, you might find it more difficult to civilly discuss the merits of my solution. Such a solution would be a violation of your rights and those of your family members. If I, nevertheless, consider burning down your house with your family inside to be a necessary part of making your life better, how much patience could you muster for civilly discussing the validity of such a proposal? Should it be considered rude or uncivil of you to object so vigorously as to preclude thoughtful debate? Of course not. In fact, if I were to then begin to implement my plan in spite of your objections, one should reasonably expect you to not only take exception, but also to raise your hand against my efforts in order to save your family and your property. And you would be right to do so.

Those persistent, disruptive, sign-carrying, slogan-yelling, camera-wielding citizens who attend town-hall meetings to peacefully object to the subjugation of American citizens to government dictates regarding health care have made themselves objects of ridicule and violence by standing strongly for liberty and against tyranny and corruption. They are American heroes and are to be applauded, celebrated, and revered!

Incontinent

I have always thought of incontinence as the inability to control one's bladder. This is the only manner in which I've heard the word used. But it has come to my attention through the King James Version of the Bible and subsequent research that the definition covers other realms of behavior as well.

1 Corinthians 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. ~KJV

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ~NIV

The same word or words are translated "incontinency" and "lack of self-control".
The definitions I find for incontinent include:

in⋅con⋅ti⋅nent  [in-kon-tn-uhnt]
–adjective
1. unable to restrain natural discharges or evacuations of urine or feces.
2. unable to contain or retain (usually fol. by of): incontinent of temper.
3. lacking in moderation or self-control, esp. of sexual desire.
4. unceasing or unrestrained: an incontinent flow of talk.

And the following from a medical dictionary:

Main Entry: in·con·ti·nence
Function: noun
1 : inability or failureto restrain sexual appetite
2 : inability of the body to control the evacuative functions

Also very interesting are the related words that are given:

Related Words for : incontinence
incontinency, dissoluteness, self-gratification

Clearly, there is an aspect of incontinence that relates to sexual desire and the inability, or unwillingness, to control that desire.
Now, you have encountered puppies that urinate on themselves (or on you) because they get so excited. We could consider those puppies to be incontinent. Don't forget that they will also hump your leg with no provocation.

Given these things to consider, it seems entirely reasonable for us to conclude that temptations to lust or sloth or gluttony or any other activity of over-indulgent self-gratification are temptations to behave like pitiful little puppies who can't help peeing on ourselves.

The Power of Jesus

Can you save your own life? Is there any potential circumstance in this world from which your abilities are insufficient for protecting yourself? Of course, there are. You and I are imperfect and less than expert at so many skills that might be relevant in a given situation wherein our lives might be in danger.

But, can you imagine a hypothetical individual who is supremely adept physically, athletically, intellectually, emotionally, and academically? What if there were someone who had all the knowledge and all the skills and all the physical abilities that are possible for any human being to have? Would he always be able to save his own life? Well.. the answer has to be "no". But, here's why. While such a person might successfully face every challenge the world can throw at him, there is still Jesus. Such an individual might land safely from a leap from an airplane without a parachute. He might be able to instantly calculate the speed and trajectory of a bullet and apply his strength and dexterity with perfect precision in order to avoid being touched by said bullet. He may "McGuyver" his way out of any number of technically challenging situations. Such a person would be capable of avoiding every danger there is in this world.

But such a person would still be a human being. That is, he would remain less than God. Not only so, but all of his skills, abilities, and mental faculties were given and are maintained by Jesus. It is only by the will of Jesus that such a person (as well as you and I) continues to exist. Jesus holds together this person's body parts, the cells, the molecules, the atoms, even the subatomic particles. Such a powerful and capable person would cease to exist at the merest thought of Jesus. At the slightest whim of Jesus, such a person would never have existed. There would be no written record or memory of him because there would be nothing to record or remember. All the history of his own life and the lives and events he impacted would be changed, not because of his departure, but because he never arrived! That is the truly awesome power of Jesus.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ~Matthew 28:18

And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. ~Colossians 1:10-12

Federal Agency Promotes Gender Confusion

The Environmental Protection Agency facility in Durham, North Carolina displayed this approximately 25 foot high banner and several much smaller signs in celebration of "Gay Pride" month in June 2009. It's interesting to note the tactic used by excluding the words "gay" and "homosexual" from the banner. However, the elements in the banner such as the flag, the verbiage of the poem "Equality", as well as the absence of specificity and the fact that the advertisements were displayed during "Gay Pride Month", all serve more than sufficiently to make clear the "pride" to which the title refers is pride in sexual perversion born of gender confusion.

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

I did. I had read the comics years ago and anticipated the ridiculous plot resolution. Still, I was so very disappointed. I suppose that's because the movie touches on issues that I care about, like peace and liberty among others, yet responds to real challenges with only absurdities. In fact, it goes so far as to punctuate its absurd fantasies about human nature by mocking the best provision of peace and liberty that actually was offered and proven in the world during the time period of the film. (I'm trying to avoid spoilers in case you'd like to be disappointed, too.) THUMBS DOWN!

A "Defense of Marriage" Amendment is Gay

The proposal to add an amendment to the United States Constitution is driven by a desire to protect marriage because it is the foundation of society and necessary for its continued existence. Note that I am careful NOT to say marriage is merely the foundation of our society, as if marriage were an American institution. The life of all human society depends on husbands and wives committed to life-long union.

A Constitutional amendment defining marriage appropriately might not be the worst thing to ever happen. However, it would be a violation of the Conservative principles, particularly that of limited government, that have served to make the United States of America history's strongest most prosperous nation and to enable the U.S.A. to export desire for liberty, as well as its reality, around the world.

Conservatives, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others, rightly understood that people can only possess liberty when the government is restricted as our Constitution was designed to do. So-called 'Liberals' disagree. Communists, Atheists, Homosexuals, and others, have repeatedly applied methods to use the government, both in legal and illegal ways, to force tyrannical, unconstitutional policies onto our people.

I'm not at all comfortable with government at any level requiring me to be licensed in order to marry the woman of my dreams. When a marriage covenant is enacted between a man, a woman, and God, an oath has been taken. Two people are married. What has government to do with it? Who is some bureaucrat to tell me, my wife, and my God whether or not we are really married and our vow is legitimate?

It does occur to me that, in its appropriate role to protect us from each other when necessary, some level of government may need to know who is married in order to prevent and/or punish bigamy, for example. But, can you see that allowing marriage to be defined by government gives it too much power over our personal lives?

Because of its profound significance, defense of marriage is not only good, but also necessary! But, like flying planes into buildings full of innocent Muslim civilians in order to defeat Islamic Fascists, to propose a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is to adopt and condone the tactics of the tyrannical homosexual agenda.

They Are Us!

I'm now prepared to speak more rationally about the killing of George Tiller and its indications. I do not, by any means, recant! I merely intend to elaborate. George Tiller's acts were not merely murder. No, indeed. He mutilated helpless babies. If there is no sympathy for Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer or any serial child rapist, how then could there possibly be sympathy for such a horrible monster as George Tiller?

Regarding my thoughts and feelings about the killing of a human being who I find despicable because of his engagement in the butchery of infants, I am torn. How could I support the cold-blooded slaying of a man while he serves in his church on Sunday morning? I've imagined what it might be like to shoot a person. It makes me shiver. It seems so cold and hard-hearted and such a violent, brutal thing.

One must realize that so-called 'abortion' is a nearly identical act, different only in that it is more cold, more hard-hearted, more violent, and more brutal than gunning down a stranger in cold blood. Therefore, we must in fairness to the first question, also ask, how could I stand by with full awareness while such an act is committed? Wouldn't complacent inaction be just as worthy of guilt? But these are the only choices, are they not?

Some may argue that another choice is to lobby for the legal protection of those helpless babies so that the law would then prevent the atrocities committed by George Tiller and so many others like him. This is absolutely a worthwhile effort, but it just as certainly takes time. Any amount of time is more than unwanted babies can afford.

When the alternatives are either to kill a serial murderer in order to prevent him from continuing in the wholesale slaughter of defenseless babies or to stand by and do nothing as the body count of helpless, innocent victims daily grows, continuing to mushroom, ultimately approaching 60,000 babies, how could anyone with even a trace of human compassion be still?

While I'm not quite (perhaps I should say 'not yet') prepared to condone the 'extra-lawful' killing even of a murderer, I would say in defense of drastic action that the law is insufficient to protect us. That's right I said, "to protect US." Even in the U.S.A., where we profess to hold it self-evident that all people are created with equal value and equally endowed by God with certain rights that cannot be denied, our nation has sunk deeply into tyranny of the oppression of those whom our society determined were "not like us".

When our nation was founded, slavery was an accepted institution in most, if not all, of the world. But for the West at least, slavery was not merely economic tyranny, it was also racial tyranny, as demonstrated by the fact there were no White slaves. Our nation could only have condoned slavery and segregation by imagining that people of significantly different appearance and culture are "not like us" and, therefore, not equally endowed by God with rights that cannot be denied. I think it is now generally well understood that this proposition of our ancestors (and even our parents, in some cases) was false. I do believe that cultures can be of greater or lesser value and every person is different with there own strengths and weaknesses. Yet, each person has the same intrinsic value and undeniable rights.

It is a grave mistake for anyone, especially for we who acknowledge the undeniable right for everyone to live, to imagine that little babies are somehow "not like us" and therefore less deserving of respect for their most basic of rights. We must understand, however unlikely it may seem, that when the undeniable rights of any group of people can be universally and indiscriminately violated, then every other group is vulnerable to the same tyranny. But I don't mean to suggest that we should have only cynical motivation. I believe when we correctly and thoroughly comprehend that babies are, indeed, like us and have all the same irrefutable rights as we adults, we will be on fire for their defense, not merely because of the potential implications for our own rights, but also, I hope, because of our compassion for other human beings and our love for justice. They are us!

Some have said, "a fetus isn't fully human. You only think so because of your religion, and you can't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else". I would respond, "what religious beliefs?" First, let's not forget that our national identity is rooted in our acknowledgement of the fact that God has given the same undeniable rights to all human beings. This is a religious belief without which we would have no concept of individual liberty or any opposition to tyranny. If not for the Christian world view of our 'founding fathers', the U.S.A. would have been just another kingdom and would not have propagated hope for liberty and prosperity throughout the entire world. So let's be careful not to so easily object to religious beliefs. After all, should we reject the concepts of equal rights and free speech because the have their origin in religious conviction?

But does my conviction about the beginning of a human life have the Bible as its source? The Bible does very emphatically indicate that human life and its intrinsic value do begin before birth. But my conviction is driven more precisely by science.

1. An unborn child at any and all stages of development is genetically human. That is a scientific fact!
2. An unborn child at any and all stages of development is genetically unique. He is not mere 'tissue', part of the mother's body. That is a scientific fact!
3. The life of an unborn child begins at conception. That is a scientific fact that any honest biologist will tell you!

For those concerned about the imposition of religious values on all of society by a fanatical few, some religions may demand that we reject science and the fact that life begins at conception, but you may rest assured that denial of these three scientific facts is NOT found in the Bible. But, as mentioned earlier, what the Bible does contain is the command to care about the rights of all people.

Considering these scientific facts, we must refuse to participate in the delusional discussion of 'abortion' as if that were the issue. Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is not the issue. I think we can agree that we have the same concern about 'abortion' that we have about embryonic stem-cell research. We cannot hope to address any issue appropriately if we cannot first correctly identify the issue. And no case can be made that justice is served by ending the life of an unborn child. Therefore, the real question must always be, "under what circumstances is it acceptable to murder a helpless, innocent child?"

"What gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?" Nothing gives me the right, and I do not seek to obtain any right of the sort. I know you have heard this question. Such an accusatory question is known as a "Straw Man Argument". When experiencing difficulty arguing an opponent's points, one might attempt to deceptively misrepresent the opponent's points as something different and more easily defeated. It is a dishonest practice relying on trickery and driven by weakness. That is, when it is not merely being repeated by those who have no thoughts of their own.

But since the question is so common, I'd like to address it. First, should it be legal for a man to beat a woman to death with his bear hands? After all, he is doing as he chooses with his own body. What right do you have to support a law against such behavior when doing so would certainly be an attempt by you to tell that man what to do with his own body? Every law that exists is an attempt to control behavior. All behavior is acted out in some way or another with our bodies, whether one is robbing a bank, driving drunk, or anything else you can imagine. Because we all are endowed with the same rights, it is inevitable that our rights must be limited when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. This is the only way to ensure equality of rights. So that man should be allowed to do with his own body what he will unless and until the exercise of his liberty hinders some else's free exercise of liberty.

This brings me right to the second part of my response to the question. What the woman does (or arranges to have done by someone else) to her own body is of no concern to me. The assertion that 'abortion' is the exercise of a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body is not only false, but also patently ridiculous. Does 'abortion' take the life from the woman's body? Is the woman's body painfully and horribly cut into pieces while she yet lives? Is the woman's brain sucked from her head by a needle jammed into the base of her skull? Considering the effects of 'abortion' on the baby's body, I find wailing and moaning about a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body profoundly offensive and entirely irrelevant.

George Tiller and his ilk are hired assassins. This may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the definition is perfectly accurate. Justice can be sought for what has been done, but atrocities cannot be undone by the death of this butcher and justice cannot be achieved by a vigilante killing. However, there is certainty that he would have killed as many more helpless, innocent babies as his lifespan or life plan would accommodate. All of those potential victims have been rescued from slaughter, if not absolutely, then at least from the prolific hands of this particular vicious and demented individual.

"Do you love me?"

As ever, Oswald Chambers profoundly cuts right to the heart of the matter. His June 19th entry of My Utmost for His Highest addresses an aspect of church life (and my life) that has troubled me for some time. I call it intellectualism because, no matter how inadvertently, it encourages "understanding" Jesus rather than knowing him. Intellectualism encourages a legalistic, if sincere, pursuit of righteousness rather than a devoted pursuit of Jesus. It focuses on doctrine instead of focusing on love.

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
~1 Corinthians 13:2

Chambers' identification of the problem decades ago and his Holy Spirit inspired prescription give me hope. It's a great relief to know intellectualism is not a unique problem or even new to this age. I'm excited to know that God can free us from it as he has done to others.

What's Good for the Goose...

Praise the Lord! George Tiller, the baby killer is dead! Hallelujah! The vicious butcher is dead. The mass murder/serial killer, George Tiller, established a reputation for performing late term 'abortions' and for brutally murdering the babies of 10-14 year old rape victims without reporting the crime, which allowed the rapists to continue their assaults unimpeded. I've read that he was responsible for the deaths of over 60,000 infants.

In spite of these facts, some Christians have argued that he should not have been murdered as he was. Such a solution may be less than ideal, but it is undeniably a solution. Concerns about the potential negative impact of Tiller's murder on the public debate of the daily slaughter of thousands of babies is nothing short of craven cowardice. This is no time for mourning, but for jubilation! Any claim that the murder of a mass murderer is somehow unjust is the epitome of hypocrisy. Tiller finally had done to him what he had for so long done to so many others. Our government is supposed to protect us from horrors like George Tiller. Infanticide has not ended, but Tiller's reign of terror is at an end. Thank God!

Review: The Goode Family

Wednesday, May 27, "The Goode Family" debuted. The animated sitcom is powered by Mike Judge (along with two others whose names are new to me), creator of "Beavis & Butthead" and "King of the Hill". The Goode's are environmentalists who struggle to meet the PC demands of being responsible residents of the planet. For example, they actually ask themselves, "What would Al Gore do?"

Judge's previous work, this subject, and the previews gave me hope for a laugh. However, the first episode was a tremendous disappointment. While I did not expect the show to go so far as to embrace all of my values, I was looking forward to seeing some good-natured fun being poked at "greenies". The debut did have some fun by honestly pointing out the irrationality of some Liberal ideas, but also encouraged sympathy for environmentalists' sincerity. In stark contrast to such gentle treatment, the culmination of the episode's plot was a grotesque and flagrantly dishonest mockery of Christians and abstinence in the form of accusations of overt incestuous tendencies. I felt ambushed.

The Goode matriarch has said about Christian abstinence proponents, "They're not like us", making reference to their cross pendants and flag pins. After seeing Christian fathers and daughters participating in a mock wedding to celebrate abstinence (I know, it's weird and thoroughly divorced from reality), the Goode's daughter, who is struggling against the PC notion that everyone must have sex, says, "Mom was right, they're not like us". If those who assert themselves as higher than animals by exercising their uniquely human quality of self-control were the sexual perverts (and up were down and east were west) as The Goode Family would have viewers believe, then who would disagree?

But, "They", are only grossly misrepresented here. I'm careful not to judge a series by only its first episode, but so far, we have a giant, poisonous Politically Correct pill, lubricated with humor for easy swallowing.

It is interesting that a show about a 'green' family would attack God; there is no obvious opposition here. But perhaps, we see in this attack an acknowledgement, however inadvertent it may be, of the more subtle reality that environmentalism is indeed a religion. This introduction may also reveal that the show will not critique PC behavior as advertised, but rather support it just like nearly everything else from La La Land.

The Thrill of Victory

I had a 'big thrill' this morning. You don't have to know me well to know I am not much for cleaning house. I make no secret of it. But I do wash myself daily and have, for years now, been concerned about my dirty bathtub. I've tried many different cleansers, but have been unable to make any real progress against the gray stains in my tub. I would scrub and scrub and scrub, then step back and look, thinking, "Hmm. That might be a little lighter gray than before."

Recently, I've been more committed to finding a solution. I collected all the cleansers and lined them up on the bathroom counter, determined that I will vigorously apply each in turn until I find one that can do, at least, some damage to the dirt. It looks like a superhero fight from a comic book: Bam!, Pow!, Kaboom!.

I have developed the 'intermittent habit' of spraying one of the cleansers on the tub right after I get out of the shower. Returning to the shower this morning, I first ran some water and tried to scrub the tub with a rough sponge. To my slack-jawed amazement, the dirt began to move! Most of it came up! Only the 'ring' where the dirt was thickest remains for later attention. I don't know why it worked this time, but not before. The bottom of the tub is a big clean spot. While showering I frequently rubbed my big toe on the bottom of the tub just to hear the clean squeak!

That's right. This is a big thrill for me. I'm often amazed at the things that little children find amusing or amazing. But I'm no different in the simplicity of the sources of my amazement. I laugh as I say this, but it's so true: it's healthy to have goals, and there's no shame in rejoicing in success, no matter how insignificant it may be to others.

So, as easy as you have found it to be to clean your own tub, I'm sure you have not neglected the task for so long as I have. I now have hope. That's right. Even from this relatively trivial thing, I have hope and inspiration for completing, not only this one thing, but also other tasks that have seemed daunting to me. Am I pathetic? Certainly. We all are, though some of us are mercifully reminded more frequently than others. Surely, everyone has some kind of challenges at almost all times. If life is easy, as we would all like very much for it to be, then we are doing it wrong! What can be learned, gained, or created from an easy life? We should enjoy even struggles because through them, we are challenged to grow and to learn. And victory is so very sweet. Over what will you have victory?

It Goes Without Saying...

I enjoy puzzles and games. Obviously, such diversions are a commonplace part of our culture. I just solved a puzzle. Its solution is a quote from Erma Bombeck, a humorist whom many younger folks will not know. It's not important to know who she is. Her quote is this:

It goes without saying that you should never have more children than you have car windows.

Now, I suppose that's kind of funny in an understated way. It seems harmless enough. But, I started thinking about what it means. First, the intention I believe is to imply that parents can have too many children. Second, and of more interest to me, is the implication that parents should control how many children they have. Mrs. Bombeck jokes that the first must go without saying (although she does say it). But, it must be obvious to her that the second also goes without saying. However, neither the idea that parents must exert control over the size of their families in order to avoid having too many children nor the idea that there is such thing as 'too many children' should go without saying. These are topics well worthy of discussion.

Whatever you may think about the size of families and the use of birth control is beside the point that I am making here. This quote exemplifies the ability of popular culture to influence its participants to a particular point of view with such gentle subtlety as to go completely unnoticed by an unsuspecting audience. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs, must be vigilant against such subtle persuasion. In order to avoid being misled, we must never allow anything to "go without saying".

Can you see this principle active in your own interaction with popular culture? Please share your examples. What have you been taught (rightly or wrongly) by our culture?

Got Surf?

I have a dream...



..to surf in Hawaii. I know that sounds frivilous. But, here's the fact: I get choked up watching movies or videos about surfing.



I'm so moved, perhaps, by the idea of being in the center of such beauty and power, both attributable to God himself. It makes me think of being right in the palm of his hand.

His splendor was like the sunrise;
rays flashed from his hand,
where his power was hidden.
He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal.
You trampled the sea with your horses,
churning the great waters. ~Habakkuk 3:4,6,15

50 Year Old Video Predicts the Future

Pandora's Music Box

I discovered a website called Pandora. They call it "A new kind of radio - stations that play only music you like". You name an artist or song you like, and then you can listen to a "station" consisting of songs determined to be similar. This determination is produced by a database called the Music Genome Project wherein each song is assigned various and sundry characteristics. No genre is excluded and no songs are too old. Having built several stations, I have to say it is very impressive. I'm able to listen to songs I know I like as well as discover some real gems. You can create multiple stations, customize your stations, research music, share what you find, and use other features I have not yet apprehended. I'ts an absolute blast and I highly recommend it.

Hints, Allegations, and Things Left Unsaid

I'm sure every believer in America has heard Christians being accused of being hypocrites. Several years ago, I wondered if it might be true and dealt with this question honestly. It was easy then, because as a recent convert, I did not feel that the accusation applied to me. I was new at this and felt no responsibility for the reputation that may have been earned. In my conclusion, I was in agreement with my fellow believers: some professing Christians, who may or may not be the genuine article, are overly judgemental and angry. The rest of us also sometimes appear to be hypocritical because, in our imperfection, we can fail to live up to our ideals.

Now, as an adult more confident in my faith, I have very little concern for false accusations. But I find an interesting irony. I do not believe that Christians are generally hypocritical. We do not judge people for things of which we are guilty. In fact, good discipleship leads us away from judging people at all. In that sense we are not hypocritical. That is, not usually and certainly not intentionally. However, I do believe we Christians are most definitely hypocrites. But I use the term in an entirely different way from that used by those who hurl angry accusations at us because they groan under the pressure of their own sin.

I have become quite good at controlling my behavior, especially when not alone. While the reputation for being hypocrites as earlier described is largely false, Christians have earned a reputation for being uptight sticks-in-the-mud because, somewhere in the dark recesses of our hearts, we do know that we must protect ourselves from opportunities to be who we really are. Our impulses must be suppressed. This also improves as we grow in Christ, but it is also very easy to disguise. We spend so much thought, energy, and prayer in correcting our behavior, I fear we neglect our hearts. Again, I find in myself another way in which I may inadvertently try to achieve righteousness. Perhaps, not to earn heaven, but in order to please God and, unfortunately, probably also to please man. However, keeping quiet about feelings of anger, selfishness, pride, etc. does not result in less sin. Rather, it results in habits of hypocrisy and, perhaps, even pride. We become actors.

We really are hypocrites, not as a result of judging others for that of which we also are guilty, but because we hide the truth in our hearts behind a facade of righteous behavior. We wear masks which, by the way, God sees through. I would rejoice with my brothers and sisters if we could all be honest with each other, even to the point of expressing the selfishness, anger, and impatience we sometimes feel, just so that we could share in those struggles, overcome them together, and build each other up in love.

I'm not quite suggesting that we should say and do the things we truly desire to say and do. I do suggest that we truly desire to say and do the things we should say and do. I do not know the path to this end, but I do know that somewhere along the way, we must pass through a place where we are exposed in bright light and our weaknesses are revealed. We are all familiar with the concept of confession, but let us confess the truth for a change and leave none of our own stones unturned. Let us face the truth of our own sinfulness, which is found not in our sins, but in our very selves. Let us embrace not only our weakness, but also that of our brothers and sisters—not to revel in it, but to fully accept it.

Then, let us turn to Jesus who IS our righteousness. His righteousness for us did not stop at the cross. It is not limited to his intercession for us. He is also righteousness in us. We must not fear our feelings and hide them behind righteous acts. Rather, we must confess them and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. ~Matthew 5:20-21a

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. ~2 Corinthians 12:9-10

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! ~Romans 7:24

Hat tip: Collective Soul

Beauty from Ashes

This may just make you hang your head. I hope it makes you lift your hands to "him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us."

The Choice: A One Act Play

Evan Sayet Hits Another Home Run

In his second speech at the Heritage Foundation on March 3, 2009, Evan Sayet insightfully explains why "Liberals" must support that which is wrong and evil over that which is right and good. Evan brilliantly details, with examples, why the Liberal claim to neutrality is actually evil and demonstrates their insidious hypocrisy.



However, Mr. Sayet never explains the motivation for the support of "diversity" , "multiculturalism", or relativism. Understanding such behavior would certainly be worthwhile. I propose that many relativists (who think of themselves as noble multiculturalists) simply believe what they have been taught and have a desire to be fair to everyone. I think of them as "Relativists by Default" because they know of no other perspective.

This, by the way, is the primary reason Liberals are very illiberal regarding the issue of school vouchers. At private schools, children will learn other perspectives that stand up to debate. And, as discussed in the video, the impossibility of a multiculturalist worldview to stand against reasoned thought is the motivation behind the Liberal move to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would essentially silence talk radio. Liberal talk radio shows fail because Liberal positions cannot withstand debate.

However, as I ponder Evan's observations and conclusions, I see that some Liberals are compelled to "level the playing field" regarding all issues of apparent disparity. I refer to these as Committed Relativists, and I believe these folks have something to hide. Perhaps one has embraced an obviously sinful lifestyle and strives to justify it by denying that anything is sinful. Perhaps another simply hates God. If anything can be said to be objectively good or evil, then there must be a higher authority to make such determinations. There must be a God. To deny the Truth of His existence, one must deny that anything is good, and by extention that anything is evil.

Evan's conclusions seem eerily conspiratorial. By habit, I am reluctant to accept such things. But we know Satan is at work behind many of the evils in the world. So, it should come as no surprise at all that human beings serve him, knowingly or not, in a similar manner.

Here's a nice article Evan wrote called "Bruce Springsteen: One-Hundred Percent Republican"

Evan's blog is called Sayet Right. Beware. Many of the comments are brutal.

Evan's first speech at the Heritage Foundation was on March 5, 2007. It's also brilliant. See it here.

Depravity & Legalism

I think it's fair to say our depravity leads us to legalism in at least two ways. First (the one I normally think of), I want to know the rules so that I can dispense with knowing Jesus. You know, if I can just know what hoops to jump through, I can skip the relationship that is so much more emotionally and intellectually demanding than a mere list of "dos" and "don'ts".

But the second way that I see depravity leading to legalism is more insidious, I think, because it is more subtle and possibly more dangerous. Because we know that we are all depraved, we don't trust each other. You cannot know for certain whether I really feel remorse for sin. You cannot know if I have truly put my faith in Christ. So, in the first part, you might feel it necessary to make a determination about my standing before God by assessing my outward behavior. While I would not say such assessment has no purpose at all, I have seen Christians sincerely desiring righteousness in others and 'purity' in the church (that is, the absence of unbelievers) conscientiously judge another by what can be observed, as if his salvation depended on his own righteousness. I know you've seen it too.

In the second part, my ability to lie and my depraved inclination to it are the valid reasons for your mistrust. Aware that you cannot know my heart, I may believe that I am 'free' to lie with impunity. I may claim salvation that I do not have. Having salvation or not, I may claim remorse I do not feel. Thus, in addition to these sins, I may be complicit in the conspiracy of legalism in order to avoid its judgment.

And, perhaps, therein lies the most grievous irony. You and I can relate to these temptations to legalism because, I suppose, they are shared by us all. But the darkest part of the sin of legalism is its misdirection. While we must most certainly and sincerely fear God's judgment, legalism turns us away from the fear of God from whose wrath we can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Legalism tempts us to fear instead the trifling and fickle judgment of man from which we attempt to escape by pretending to have no need for Jesus.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. ~Matthew 10:28

Technology Renders Abortionist Fantasies Obsolete (revisited)

The Stem Cell Wars are Over

I'm reminded, once again, of one of my favorite quotes:

A little science estranges man from God. A lot of science brings him back. ~Francis Bacon

Excuses, Excuses

I've developed a distaste for unsavory things in my past. I indulged in drugs, alcohol, and self-pity. But, I eventually tired of those things. Other temptations remain relevant in my life, but I am only occasionally even tempted by mind-altering chemicals and self-pity. I think this is because I now actually see them as unsavory. This is a blessing from God, for which I am truly grateful.

I suddenly realize that, at such times of temptation, I could still give myself permission for those poisonous behaviors. Perhaps, I could find some pleasure or relief in them. But these are weak temptations at best. They seem so far behind me and so unfulfilling. Yet, for other temptations like lust, anger, or pride I do give myself permission. I had not thought about it quite this way before. But, surely, that is precisely what I do.

"She has on a bikini; she's not nude!"
"At the moment, I have no alternative! What else can I do?"
"He has no right to treat me that way! My response was just!"
"I don't usually do this."

You see, I make exceptions. I have excuses or I accept the ones Satan offers. It's all right because of my unique circumstances. I deserve special consideration. Oh Lord how dangerous this is! Where is the limit to my self-indulgence? It is only where I decide to put it! That is in no way reliable or trust-worthy! My gauge is internal and, therefore, subject to the influence of my sinful nature with which I remain afflicted throughout this life. Worse still, I sometimes don't give myself time to consider, but rush headlong, knowing that I might resist a temptation well considered. Obviously, this must not be allowed to continue.

I see a distinction between my perception of sins I permit and others I no longer permit. I have been successfully resisting temptations to sins that I perceive as destructive while struggling to resist others that I perceive as merely prohibited. In truth, they are all destructive. This is knowledge I already have, but I must focus on and remember the destructive power of sins I too often permit, in order that I may have understanding that is greater than mere knowledge.

I must remember also that acts of sin are not merely "slips" or "momentary lapses", but nothing less than giving myself permission to sin. It seems like such a silly thing to think I have given myself permission to disobey God Almighty. Yet, there I am.

But, I am not required to give such permission. Though alertness must be important, I am now, by the power and grace of God through Jesus Christ, free to withhold that permission, free to reject the demands of my sinful nature, free to reject excuses, and free "to stand [my] ground, and after [I] have done everything, to stand."