the quistian perspective

Facebook... Talk Radio

2008-11-04T05:36:00.006-06:00

I might not post here much at all anymore. Facebook is great for me. We've reached a certain point in the End-times: the testimony is so strong, the people are increasingly blind. I've expressed a lot of thought already. If I feel like sharing or journaling here, I might. Something's got to be said about Obama. But what? He's so completely bad. How do you categorize and describe something so amazingly, thoroughly bad. Thank God for talk radio. The message is already available there.

Predictions and Hunches

2008-11-04T04:40:00.007-06:00

Well, I predicted Romney to be the next president. Because I think that God will have mercy on us and let us down gradually. But I was wrong on the specific, obviously; and I could easily be wrong generally about the pace in which the country falls. We certainly would deserve something more swift like an Obama presidency.

We've already given ourselves to gradual falling: allowing illegal aliens to such an extent, allowing abortions to such an extent, following Evolution and now Global Warming to such an extent -- which idolizes scientists and Science and even Man and Creation -- and promulgating Secular Humanism in schools and handing our Education itself over to the government to such an extent, and even our own care (Welfare and eventually Healthcare) over to the government to such an extent.

I thought Romney would have been not as good as George W. Bush. I thought from the beginning that Bush was a merciful relenting from the degenerate pace Bill Clinton had us on. In McCain we have a similar effect as Romney or Bush -- to a lesser "relenting" degree. The pace accelerates over time, just as communication has. Communication is prophesied by Daniel in the Bible -- a major sign of the End-times. Think of the acceleration of communication in the last century, decade, or even year.

It's better that I not purport my hunches as predictions. Although I still want to give some sort of predictions. I think "predictions" can be analytically insightful to very real potentialities. By default this blog is for my own journaling of my ideas etc.; yet in light of the End-times and Scripture and fascinating current events and the amazing pace of degradation of society, a watchman's alert is valuable.

Whether or not Obama wins he is a testimony, a precursor, a foretaste.... of the dynamics history has seen before but is manifestly kind of new to the U.S. Truly amazing to be a witness to this. After all the history and information and communication and knowledge we have!!

Similarly, Sarah Palin is a testimony for the good.

But if Obama wins... Wow! The End-times took a whole new step to a whole new plateau. "It's the end of the world as we know it." It's the justice we deserve -- and the World deserves. I want McCain because that is Mercy. Hopefully we would get some good reform, though, along the way to the inevitable.

The ship is going down. A full step might be a great revelatory call to Christians to "step it up". That would be very good. God's grace will still abound as we see sin abounding. It's important that we recognize sin so that we don't take the grace of our call for granted.

"The Suicide of Reason"

2007-08-21T12:26:00.000-05:00

Dennis Prager had a guest on today who authored a book called "The Suicide of Reason". The author is a self-proclaimed knee-jerk liberal and a homosexual, yet he is all for the war against Islamic Nazi-like Fascism and he doubts the our capacity to fight evil.

The Christians are the Homosexuals' biggest friend. The Islamicists want to kill homosexuals even for their behavior. The Christians recognize this and that the Islamicist as evil *and* want to fight against them. The Christian's beef against the Homosexual politically is only political: that is, against politically sanctioning the anti-family sin. The current Christian has no penalty for the Homosexual's behavior. That is up to God. If there's no resurrection the Homosexual doesn't have to worry about it. The Islamicist has taken it upon himself to tread out eternal punishment in this world. But God in the Bible says "Vengeance by me; I will requite."

Dennis mentioned how it's like the Left and Israel. The Left should be all behind Israel. On every other issue, Israel -- among the Middle East -- champions the concerns of the Left: women's rights, treatment of the poor, secularism. Except Israel fights evil. Like Dennis said, it's such an upside-down world. You can't negotiate with people set on destroying you; you can't reason with the irrational.

It's enough to think that there's a God and a Devil... and that God allows the Devil to deceive people.

It makes me think of ancient Israel making a peace treaty with its enemies that God told Israel to annihilate. It was essentially making a peace treaty with the Devil. But the Devil is a liar so of course the peace is a fraud. And so Israel is in the situation it is in now. The Devil is out to kill the people of God. God tells us to fight evil but too often we prefer to listen to the Devil instead, and make peace with him instead of fight against him which God said.

{This discussion requires a basic understanding of the distinctions between the proper natural/political stance and the Christian/spiritual stance. They are two separate, though correlative, realms in which to take a position. Ephesians says we war not against the natural but against spiritual things/beings -- this is the spiritual stance. The Left believes that people are basically good and that heaven can be obtained in this world. Since both of those points are false, there exists the reality of relating to people (politics) that must include fighting, killing, and war. Someone is right, and the evil must be fought.}

Liar!

2007-03-21T23:03:00.000-05:00

I'm actually not-at-all exercised about this. I'm completely bored with the topic and with Al Gore. Yet as an objective value, it deserves a good exclamation point.

Al Gore went before a joint-session of Congress to peddle his fear tactics designed to shame you into an end result of Left-supportive living. A senator replied to Al Gore (I heard on the radio): Al, you've been in error; the science is uneven and evolving. (An accurate use of the word "evolve".) But Al has been on TV for the past year or more saying "The scientific debate on this is *over*". Liar.

It came out this month that Al Gore 20 times the national average on his utility bill. And his bill *increased* from 2005 to 2006! I think I heard he's got a 20-room house. A pool, definitely. And definitely I saw him on the "Oscars" saying it's not as hard as you might think to cut down and conserve. ...Well, it's too hard for the preacher. Hypocrite.

Just an additional note. I heard an expert (a real expert) on one of my favorite radio shows say that there *is* a relation between global temperature and greenhouse substances. But the cause-and-effect is reversed. The increasing temperature causes the greenhouse substances (ozone problems etc.). How can that be??! ...that's not what "everyone" *says*.

Well, the bottom line is that Man's effect on the natural sustaining of this natural world is completely negligible. Like Rush Limbaugh has said: we can't destroy the environment[/the world] if we *wanted* to. Even using a nuclear bomb, we would kill each other directly, but the effect on the Earth would be negigible on a global scale in the long-run; the Earth would bounce back quite easily... even though we would be dead. God is going to ~destroy~ the Earth and make a new Earth. We can't do it. Stop thinking so highly of yourself. Redirect your sights on the valid hysteria over Islamicism, not the deceptive fraudulent one of global warming.

John Kerry is a baffoon. Al Gore is a crazy-man. Have you ever heard clips of him going off in some of his speeches? Wow. But he almost got away with all of it; he almost got elected President. Half the country was duped. This is an example of the "Age of Stupidity", as Dennis Prager coined it, and as I have adopted. It happened before, it could happen again; anything could happen. You have to take every prediction with a grain of salt. What's the source? Will the stupidity of the people get worse? What's going to stop the digression of the people. The Left has most of the Media and most of the Education system. I've quoted before, one of the founding fathers said, "The education of one generation will be the government of the next. We are teaching and announcing craziness. Maybe I got a little worked-up at the end. The Left has dain bramage.

American Idol 6:Results from 11 to 10And Foul Play from That Voting Site

2007-03-21T22:23:00.000-05:00

Give me Sabrina back, and then you can have Stephanie. I had a small little AI epiphany... a repeat actually. The website votefortheworst.com is targeting my worst: Sanjaya. It's really too bad that website exists. Though after thinking back on this season and then the other seasons, I couldn't help but laugh, literally. Their aim is to get funny entertainment from terrible performances to get back at AI for the supposed bad audition process. I think it is fair and reasonable, the process. To have a range of styles is not so much a matter of lucrativeness as is sensible. No many want a narrow-dimension competition, week after week. But the spoiler website does, and they're bitter about it, and loving it. After this epiphany of mine I'm actually relieved... it is so good for me to *understand* things. I wonder what AI can do to spoil the spoilers?? It's certainly not giving time to the crying girl who is a fan of the spoilers' choice. Dumb dumb dumb. I wonder if AI should go back to voting for the person to be gone instead of the favorite to stay. The spoilers have the advantage.

Looking back to the final song sung by Taylor Hicks last season. It was awful. I liked Taylor but he didn't stay in his proper, narrow song-choice realm. These laughable performances that I have recognized turn out to have rational cause.

Now to the comments of the the results show:
I was going to say, as Ryan started the broadcast: "Sanjaya, go back to reality."
Peter, who are you to come on to someone else's show, yesterday, and disrespect how it is supposed to work! I think Peter is arrogant in a worse way than Simon is. It *is* supposed to be a singing competition.
Chris R. had a great singing night yesterday, but sang a ballad. Remember I was wondering how that would treat him?
Stephanie had a bad night. So, I'm going to change my voting strategy to try to match the spoilers a little.
Sanjaya *is* funny in a humiliating entertaining sort of way.
I bet you what Chris R. whispered to Stephanie is that she "can know you're not 'the worst'". It made her laugh.
I'm going to vote for my favorite top half. No use spreading out my vote trying to kick out the worst.

American Idol 6:11 RemainDon't Let Sanjaya in the Top 10 Tour

2007-03-21T05:00:00.000-05:00

Contestants

Haley- She has a narrow style to her voice. And it still doesn't fit for me. This was her best performance, and the most likable. Simon's right: I think she'll get votes for her sexiness. Megan says she has amazing legs, I agreed.

Chris Richardson- Sang straight. A ballad. Probably safe to do a ballad with Sanjaya on the line. It was good for me, but if that's his best, then I'm not impressed for him to be an idol.

Stephanie- Fine. Nothing special. Where's her "fun" and "edge"?

Blake- Very cool! Brilliant is right (Randy). Ryan Seacrest is my hero.

Lakisha- Rooting for her during the song at every note. I liked the sass, i wished she put a little more sass with a punch in a few places. That's how that song should be sung. She performed excellently. Simon was wrong about even the intention of his comment. That song is a very dated and narrow song, and I think she matched it very well in her performance.

Phil- Not as bad as Simon said.

Jordin- She is cemented now as my favorite for the girls. Flawless performance (...except for the very very end, but this is being extremely picky). Awesome. For me, you can't beat the full full voice of a full full range. Bam! Simon is missing the effect factor of songs. For a song to be emotional is a factor of a song. Hello!... Simon! The depressing effect is part of the power of the song, and she pulled it off greatly... and I didn't even get depressed. Jordin still talks like a child.

Sanjaya- Get him off the stage! What a femme. I'm just still upset he's still there. Sundance got robbed. Another laughable performance. Remember: "Sanjaya is love". Puke.

Gina- She didn't do what the mentor said. She didn't bust-a-gut (my terms). Simone was right on this one. But! Why put her down when Sanjaya didn't get the proper (clear) put down to make it clear to the voters? It's all about the votes,... at least to get rid of Sanjaya. Anyone feel my pain? Gina was in denial, clueless. She has a hard time seeing objectively.

Chris Sligh- Walking through the audience is not Chris Sligh. I still really really wish he'd be his real real self. That one look he gave to the side, that was him. Pretty good performance even though I don't care for the song. Fro Petro!

Melinda- Quite good. She's finally chilled the humility thing. She *is* a pro up there (Randy).

------------

Judges and Host

Paula- Continues to tread a decent path this season. Wow. What a refreshing, much-needed change. I'm so glad Ms. Positivity is gone. (Compliments are good, mind you.) If you saw last season you would know what I mean. Puke.

Randy- Pretty good tonight. I wouldn't say it's his best performance.

Simon- Off tonight. More than he's ever been. When he was off last season, he had a good excuse. He didn't like the genre of the week: Country.

Ryan- He's my new entertainment hero. He strikes me as genuine and he does his job well. And he's likable and I love his sense of humor. He's a nice guy. Simply calling out Simon's narcissism each season gets him mega points. Seeing him dance next to Blake made me crack up in cheers for him. What a dude.

-------------

Voting

I can't believe I'm voting for Haley and Gina. I voted for everyone once. That's 10 votes because you can only vote 10 times maximum. Then I voted for everyone once from my wife's phone. There are 11 contestants. Guess who didn't get a vote? Everyone else got 2 each. The contestants are anxious/eager to get into the top 10 so they can do the American Idol Tour across America. It would be tragedy if Sanjaya made it

---------------------------

There's my first post for American Idol this season. I've been taking notes on every episode since the top 24. But I haven't gotten them to the blog till now. I'm wondering if anyone would care about old news if I posted my comments on the past weeks, especially since I have mentioned most opinion to some already. What do you think?

"The Nativity Story" Movie

2007-03-21T04:41:00.000-05:00

I saw the movie with my family. Very good to do that. If I were to suggest the movie to someone I would have to say it is "slow". For a movie it is quite slow. I didn't mind the speed. In fact, the places where they went fast, I wish they would have gone slow. Because then I could have gotten a better look at the authentic details of the many authentic things that were put in the movie.

I like how Mary was portrayed over all, contrasted to any other portrayal of her. At first I didn't like how she seemed nearly disdainful of the spiritual happenings. Mary was possibly afraid and clueless initially to the angel's announcement, but she was very pure, so I don't see her being so dis-interested. Yet, allow for her to be a common person, your typical girl.

The magi were a very good ingredient to the movie. Although the cheesiness was too much a couple times. The makers mentioned they tried to bring some levity to the serious tone of the rest of the movie. The makers compressed the timing of meeting the Child. He was not in the manger when the magi came. He was a child (probably a toddler), not an infant. But, hey, it's a common tradition -- ya can't get everything right all the time.

It was a simple story, but oh the depth of the *meaning* in the story. Much to contemplate. Much to appreciate even if you know the story.

The angel. I liked something and didn't like something else. I liked that the angel was portrayed to be in human form. I don't know if angels have bodies but it's good not to have the super-spiritual ethereal angel like seen elsewhere. I didn't like how the angel seemed creepy. What's up with that! Intensity in an angel is nice but creepy is creepy. Yuck.

Other than my criticisms, the movie was excellent. I liked it a lot!
A great, though simple, movie. It should be a staple in every Christian library. ...along with "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Gospel of John".

sprucegoose and my comments on this movie there

"The Outsiders":Mormons and Homosexuals

2007-03-20T15:24:00.000-05:00

I blog about homosexuality a lot, don't I. Well, it's so topical and crucial of a subject in these days, and I think I explain this fixation in one of my posts -- if not, then it's a post that is still in draft form.

Anyways, this post is *not* predominately about homosexuality. I saw an ABC TV news/article show called "The Outsiders" last month. They did a piece on a Mormon sect which still practices polygamy, actually stays true to Joseph Smith's teachings. Another example of this faithfulness is that they are racist against Blacks. One personal observation: the women seemed very wholesome and genuine; the males seemed weird. At dinner with the journalist, the husband/father dropped the bombshell that Jesus was married to multiple wives. There was a painting in their home which, the show editors made to look like, *proved* that Jesus had wives.

"Conspiracy theory" time on the quistian blog now. I suspect there is a two-pronged agenda in airing this story on a news show. 1: I think they want to show Mormonism to be bad (which it is) in order to cast bad light on Mit Romney who is a Mormon Conservative running for president. And B: I think they are trying to show polygamists, who are living very wholesome and legal lives to be innocuous, thereby inoculating the public to the acceptance of homosexual marriage which is monogamous and therefore supposedly even less foreign.

Follow-Up on the Way of "socialism":Ideas Have Consequences

2007-03-20T14:59:00.000-05:00

The workings, effects, fruits of an ideology don't have to be intentional in order to happen. This is basic, but even this simple understanding is confusing to the Left. And: does a deceived person know they're deceived?? ...Because the Left-influenced mind is so entrenched in the pre-dominant supremacy of good intentions. Ironically, as Dennis Prager says, Humanists only hurt humans not to mention humanity. One example of this foolishness might be the peace movement -- again a deception. As Dennis has said in the past, they don't want peace, they want America to not fight. It's a big difference. America gets attacked and they are not supposed to fight back. Iraq was worse under Saddam but America is supposed to stop fighting, simply because people are dying. People dying is the supposed ultimate to them, yet millions (Black people, Christian people) having been slaughtered in Sudan doesn't matter.... just that the mighty America not fight. Fighting is bad.

Do you see the deception of the foolishness? Do you see the childish (immature, unrealistic) mindset? Do you see how the effects come from the ideology/worldview of Humanism/socialism? Ideas have consequences.

------------------------------------------------------

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. -Matthew 7:13-14, NAS Bible

For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, "Eat and drink!" But his heart is not with you. -Proverbs 23:7

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,
for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, -2Corinthians 10:3-5

Deceptive Socialism Cloaked as Compassion:The Leaven of the Left

2007-03-20T12:46:00.000-05:00

Dennis Prager devoted an hour yesterday to the reactive issues springing from a baseball game played by his friend's son, where they changed the score from 25-7 to 0-0. Dennis was exercised about this one.

He said it is the kind of Political Correctness that cripples the child -- on *both* sides of the baseball game! The losing kid will not learn how to deal with life, and it's disappointments, always relying on the government to take care of him. In this case the government of his reality was the umpires et al. who changed the score. He'll never grow up. Dennis says that is the hallmark of the Left: they don't want to grow up. He's never met a mature Leftist who argued his own (extremist) views. The winning kid will learn that no matter what kind of effort he puts forth, it won't produce a decent result.

Dennis got his "Master's" in Totalitarianism. He referred to the fact that Totalitarians worked so pervasively, like the Politically Correctness of the Left in America, that they would not just teach Math but indoctrinate political views while doing so.

Granted, in George Washington's time there was an English Primer that was thoroughly Christian as kids learned English. Two things to say about that: religion is different than politics ; that is already the subjects that the *culture* would talk about whereas Math is obviously a-cultural.

Dennis said Political Correctness in America has hijacked Psychology, "not caring about the science but about the agenda". I say: not to mention philosophy. Today Dennis, referring to this topic from yesterday, said no generation has got more wrong than his generation (the Baby Boom generation). Yep, the 60's were tragically pivotal in America's downfall. "Politically Correct" actually directly comes from the same Communist term. If you didn't act or speak the prescribed party way, where everyone is equal (equally miserable, miserably non-free and non-diverse), then you were Politically Incorrect in the Soviet Union. Nice, huh? That's the end effect of what's pervading our culture. Dennis said PC is defined this way: *Lie* so no-one feels bad. PC is promoting a lie. The lying PC philosophy sounds good at first. (Leftism always does. But it also always denies reality.) The lying philosophy deludes the parents to lie to the children that there is no score.

Socialism is the stage on the way to Communism. The leading Left ideology today is Socialistic, whether the Left knows it or accepts it or not. Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it doesn't work in China, but I have heard that some Leftists in America who deny the conclusions too, holding on to the "hope" that the philosophy of Communism can bring and so that there are redeeming qualities in the system. This sounds to me like a blind faith -- like a religion. Hmmm. Another example of "Godless"ness: "The Church of Liberalism".

The kids need to feel bad... SO they can DEAL with it!. And then, instead, they need a man to say as Tom Hanks did in "League of Their Own (1992)":

"There's no *crying* in baseball!"

Hugh Hewitt "Best Of" Interviews:Andrew Sullivan, Helen Thomas, and Eric BlackLeftist Ideas Can't Stand

2007-03-14T02:21:00.000-05:00

Hugh Hewitt is self-proclaimed "Center-Right". He had a great week of radio the other week. It was the best-of interviews with the Left. Hang-ups, frustrations, and confusions.

--------

Andrew Sullivan

He had a new book and went on Hugh's show for his new book. He got offended by pertinent questions and tried to turn the discussion into a debate rather than what it was, an interview. Hugh kindly pressed on with the interview. Hugh asked him about Christianity and about Catholicism since it's in his book. Sullivan called Hugh's interview a Spanish Inquisition. Hugh challenged Sullivan on a clear Constitutional error in his book. Hugh is a Constitutional teacher at college, and a lawyer. He is an expert on the Constitution. Sullivan was upset and Hugh kindly allow him to dodge a real answer to that, after properly pressing. Andrew Sullivan is a fraudulent Conservative, and a fraudulent Christian. The only thing Sullivan believes that is Conservative is in lower taxes, but that's not even saying much, since JFK lowered taxes.

Helen Thomas

She wigged out, and hung up. Hugh asked questions about her political beliefs. She thought it was inappropriate and accused Hugh of not being a real journalist. Helen doesn't understand the distinction of journalism. Hugh has asked these same questions to many a media person. When they're from the Left, they mostly don't answer most of those type of questions. There's a strange bondage, a code of bondage that has taken over the Mainstream Media to not divulge their political opinions, which is supposed to help them (actually supposedly *prove* that they are) to be objective. Hugh explains certainly that it didn't used to be this way and that it certainly doesn't have to be this way. In fact, recognizing that everyone does have a bias (which the Left Media denies), stating the personal beliefs helps the listener/reader to evaluate *how* objective the journalist is; this is how Hugh sees it. I heartily agree.

Eric Black

Eric Black is a local columnist for the StarTribune. He followed the elections. Especially focused upon by Hugh was the unbalanced treatment between Patty Wetterling and Michelle Bachman. Eric Black's team called themselves "The Truth Squad". Eric tried to dismiss that as not his choice for the title. But that doesn't excuse the responsibility! How foolish. Hugh called him to recognize a "lie" and to have him call a "lie" a "lie", *especially* since he promotes himself to be "The Truth Squad". He refused by playing word games and by obfuscation. Eric Black clearly favored Patty Wetterling by only calling her advertisement "misleading" instead of a lie.

--------------------
These are the people who have some power. There is power in a Media position. Depraved humanity.

Yet also, this is all another example of why Liberal radio won't work. When you can challenge an idea from the Left, it doesn't stand. When it's not being preached but is actually open to discussion via challenge, it just doesn't hold water, because Leftism ideas don't work in the real world.

More on Jerry Doyle:Illegal ALIENS and Alienating Conservatives

2007-03-14T01:17:00.000-05:00

The other week he was really laying into global warming and other anti-Christian spins and anti-Christian cultural hackings. Showing the hypocrisy of how the Media treats Al Gore and his mistakes versus mistakes on the other side, and hypocrisies from every angle. It was great to hear the clear-minded observations.

Today he's giving George Bush a hard time on the immigration issue. Bush did say something stupid: "Family Values don't stop at the Rio Grande". Jerry claims Bush never was for America's side concerning the Border and Illegal Immigration, referring to when Bush was a governor. I have to say, Bush's stance has been decent, I think, but then it's very disappointing. Where's the fence? It's going to take 2 years to get 10% of it done. Bush's comprehensive plan might not be that bad, but to make moral equivalences and impertinent comments like that is disheartening to say the least.

The law is broken. That doesn't mean you digress principles to meet the broken law (the broken justice/executive system). It means you *enforce* the law and strengthen the law! Jerry has a point.

Many Conservatives have given up on Bush solely because of the Border issue. Jerry Doyle is one of them.
I can't see how Bush has been wrong, except by not enforcing well. It's doublely unfortunate, then, that it causes fragmentation in the Conservative side. Third parties and the like only make the group with the solution weaker.

Jerry Doyle:The Shady Next To The Felon

2007-03-14T00:48:00.001-05:00

Jerry Doyle is a late-night radio talk-show host that is really hitting things right on recently. He harps on flagrant Christianity and he harps on the subtle Media/cultural disrespect of Christianity. Today he compared Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton. The point was the "sin of omission" from the (Mainstream) Media. He surveyed how the story of Newt's admission to adultery was covered in the Media. Then he pointed out how they made the story to be that Newt was an adulterer while pursuing Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, implying Newt was a hypocrite. Jerry then pointed out that the real story -- left out by the Media (and could only be *purposefully* left out -- that Newt not only apologized, but repented, and Newt's act was truly under personal cover, *while* Bill's was lying! Newt pursued Bill (legally and politically required) for the perjury not for the morality of the sex act. The Media is still twisting the reality of the situation. Do you think they have an agenda?? Jerry called Newt slimey (I call it shady), and called Bill "The Felon".

The world is losing and losing the ability to make distinctions -- basically to judge. Because we're losing the sense of right and wrong... on many levels and in the various dynamics required in the wisdom of life. The Media knew right and wrong though. And they chose wrong. They chose to present wrong, and wrong*ly*.

Jerry Doyle goes too far for me. He gave up on the Republican Party. He has a valid "beef" and some great points. But leaving the reservation remains to be counter-productive... even to Americanism. (See my posting on The Constitution Party.)

Newt may not be completely sincere in his apology, or the timing of it. First, we should take him at face value, like anyone else -- as, yes, I have done and do for the Clintons (e.g.). Newt may be trying to warm up to the conservative Evangelicals to prepare a way for a campaign. Newt could never win. If not for his poor family record, he's a thinker. And as such, he has said so many things that are way too hard to account for as a Candidate. For the most part, that's too bad. The reality is that politics has to look good.

Ann Coulter Next To Bill Mahr:Grace in All Conversation

2007-03-08T11:00:00.000-06:00

I love Ann Coulter. She is a hero. Her incisive speech is refreshingly clear and appropriate against the insanity of the Left... so often...

Look at the treatment she has received juxtaposed to the *absent* treatment Bill Mahr gets when he verbally allies the idea: the fact that the Terrorists attempted to kill Vice President Dick Cheney. Bill Mahr is a nasty despicable person... if you have tracked him at all you could see it.

Ann was trying to be provocative; she was joking. She was trying to chide John Edwards into a fight. I hate to say I am torn. She did cross the line, but I am sooo glad it was done. It's good to get some exposure on the derogative nature that homosexuality really is. I almost want to say that even the word "homosexual" is too gracious, too objective -- thereby avoiding the inherently deviant, immoral, ugly, repulsive, unnatural nature of it.

Hugh Hewitt had a big problem with Coulter's comment on the Jersey Girls. Though harsh, I liked it. It was appropriate, if you think about Coulter's case and the Jersey Girls' context. Michael Medved has a problem with this current comment on Edwards. And I have to agree, because there's nothing appropriate that points to Edwards being homosexual.

Alas, the Bible says to have grace in all conversation. And this is good. So, I do hope that Ann Coulter apologizes. She does so much good for Conservatism and for sanity and for the American political course. Snubbing false accusations is one thing. But crossing a line like this -- even though it is probably really in letter and not in spirit -- is enough for an effectual, poor testimony -- absent an apology.

--------------------------------------------------------

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. -Colossians 4:6 NAS Bible

The Nightmare President of the United States

2007-03-07T07:22:00.000-06:00

No, she's not a Communist. But she is certainly a socialist. And this we can know because of my recent posts. She is essentially a Socialist, and she plays it out as a pragmatist. I learned this back when I read the beginning of her book: "It Takes a Village" to Raise a Child. Her morals are situationally equivalent, similar to Bill's but worse. Bill is solely directed by the people's opinion. Hillary pushes her agenda as much as possible up to the limit of the people's opinion.

Hillary has now been on every angular side of the "War Issue". And they contradict each other, of course. As individual stances, they are untenable with the others. ...But, alas, the people are stupid, just as Al Gore said in an interview that I saw a year-and-a-half before the 2000 elections. He dismissed the problem de jour, refusing to apologize or explain himself because he said it doesn't matter, the electorate memory is only about 6 months long. And she doesn't mind lying, as she has about her Christianity -- when it's pragmatic to do so.

Do you remember how corrupt the Clinton presidency was? Even if you didn't believe so at the time, do you remember how corrupt it must have been once you realized the corruption at the unfolding of the Lewinsky scandal and his *lying* under oath?!

The Worst President of the United States

2007-03-07T07:18:00.000-06:00

Jimmy Carter. He equivocated the evil of the Islamicists that we are fighting in a world war now, by accommodating a false security for Israel. He initiated the foolish deal with North Korea, which Clinton re-affirmed -- North Korea, who now threatens us as another megalomaniac with nuclear weapons. He brought down the Shah of Iran, leaving an instable powderkeg Middle East, which he just can't see because of the deception of the Left that says all people are all good. The mad extremists got to take over that place too. Looks like at least 2 parts of the present "Axis of Evil" is accounted for. "Two out of Three ain't bad." And he gave us the a huge (real, not false hysterical) recession, an Energy Crisis, and the Department of Education. That's right, boys and girls, the Department of Education wasn't always around. Localities used to do a job that got our kids to number one. Now, we spend more and more and get worse and worse results in the kids (umm, in their scores too).

Dennis Prager calls him the worst president ever. So, I think so too. I don't know a lot about the other bad presidents in the various ranking surveys that exist. (I know some.) I think, if worst means most destructive, then Jimmy Carter wins the prize. It's not the Nobel prize this time, Jimmy. What a hoax *that* was! Twenty-two years after the fact, in a political environment that blindly hates war and childishly hates Bush, Jimmy Carter gets a peace prize for something that he wasn't even responsible for. Sadat would be the one to deserve that prize, if anyone.

And Jimmy has been the worst Ex-President ever too. He has broken the code repeatedly to not speak against the sitting president. And then the pinnacle is Jimmy Carter sitting next to Michael Moore, in honor, at the Democratic National Convention. The Democrat(ic) Party has sold out to the extreme Left, illustrated by Michael Moore and that instance.

Here is a link of various rankings of the Presidents of the United States.
answers.com
The best one is the far-right column, the Wall Street Journal ranking. It puts Ronald Reagan up where he belongs. And it puts George W. Bush properly above William Clinton.

The Next President of the United States

2007-03-07T07:04:00.000-06:00

This is my prediction. Of course, I wish I had posted this sooner: as is the case with all predictions, the sooner they are given the more powerful they are. No big deal.

McCain is not conservative even though he has fooled some and the Media would like you to believe he's conservative. Guiliani is socially Left. Other Republicans have discounted themselves during the last election; unfortunately George Allen didn't survive. Santorum might end up in the Supreme Court; that would be awesome. I think Hillary would draw too many negative votes against herself. Though Obama has more experience and merit to be president than Hillary, he is having trouble not being technically "Black".

Conservatives have been making compromises in the election process in order to sustain wins. Politics *is* about the better, not the best. George Bush, 41 was allowable since he was Vice-President. Bob Dole?! He was a decent Senator, and terrible candidate. George Bush, 43, was the classic compromiser used for a compromise, in the "Ol' Boys" network. Yet the digression continues. Romney, potentially could be better than Bush, but I believe the Mormon issue is the threshold to be broken through in order to maintain the best "better". I suspect that it will be seen as the compromise to support a supposed true-blue conservative, while it will actually be an excuse for Romney to be more Centrist than George Bush, 43. I don't think he will go as far as Scharzenegger in fraudulent conservatism (centrism). So, having Romney would probably be a prolonged relief from the headlong Carter/Clinton destruction upon this country. What I see in the macro-level is the gradual compromise of principles and values and gravitas of true Americanism, as it leads to the diminishing of America in the End-times. Thomas Jefferson was a Diest. He was a great President. It would be possible for Mit Romney to be a great president while being a great Conservative. Will the Evangelicals accept this vis a vis Mormonism being a cult (false, distortion of Christianity)? I think so. And the thing is, there's no one to blame on this one. The blame would be on the lack of morality that preceded this time. Any other president would be worse.... or fiction.

Scooter Libby Next To Bill Clinton

2007-03-07T06:29:00.000-06:00

The justice system in America takes another hit. Scooter Libby is convicted of perjury -- perjuring himself. There is no evidence that Libby lied. There is only circumstantial conjecture! Libby couldn't remember enough to satisfy a skeptical judge and a prosecutorial hack. There is no evidence to match up an alleged lie. Tim Russert didn't say: yes, said so-n-so which is a lie. Libby has been condemned solely because his memory doesn't match up enough within itself, not that he said an explicit lie. Just because the witnesses say that they didn't tell Libby about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent, doesn't mean it must be concluded he perjured, or even lied; and it doesn't mean it was uncommon information. Libby's memory did not match up with others'. I admit it does look suspect. But: nothing is proved. Yet, as Laura Ingraham said on her radio show, the underlying crime did not occur. And the judge kept the jury from being presented with that point.

Perjury is difficult to prove. And Joe Wilson has already been proven a liar. Nothing about Valerie Plame's status was covert. In fact, she told practically everyone, freely. She let it flow like a river. She told her husband the first night they dated. That's how secret it was. And now to think of the stupidity in the justice system. Ludicrous!

This ruling should be shot down by a higher court. It won't be. President Bush should pardon him immediately. The case has no substance, no standing in justice. He might at the end of his term. The blow to justice is the success of absurdity and of hacking and of the decimating of standards and of the confusing of objectivity. This is the success of political hacking. The persecutor (prosecutor) of Tom DeLay had a case that was absurdly vapid. Nonetheless he had a successful effect, even though the case itself essentially died (which is only right). This Libby trial is a full success of destruction -- of the legal/justice system.

The ubiquitous appointments of independent counsels. Dennis Prager says these special prosecutors, with unlimited funds, could find something on which to indict anyone. A terrible double standard we have. The independent counsel is supposedly independent. The Right concedes to it's use. The Left abuses it, and then "cries 'Bloody Murder!'" when the independent counsel finds bad with a Democrat, like with Kenneth Starr on Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton obviously perjured himself -- a "high crime and misdemeanor". But the people, via the Left side of the government (along with Trent Lott), did not have the conviction of morality to allow proper consequence to responsibility... a previous strike against the justice system. This time, for the Democrats, perjury matters. When we've lost the integrity of judging then how do we know what's right or true: we don't.
...At least not naturally... right??

In Decline and Still the Last Best Hope for this World

2006-12-28T23:59:00.000-06:00

Gerald Ford died this week. By the Mainstream Media you can tell that he wasn't a good president, because that Left media loves him -- at least his legacy. Ford was a great person personally. No one disputes he was honest, a godly Christian, proper, and kind.

He was a bad president. Listening to the survey of the talk-show hosts, he should not have pardoned the draft-dodgers. Also, by listening, I believe that he represented the view of Nixon and Kissinger, that the nation was/is in decline. Ford also played the nice world-view. He denied the obvious conditions of the Cold War, he politicked toward false unity with the Left (as Bush sometimes does), he opted for negotiating with the bad guys (as the Left yearns to do with the super-crazed bad guys of today). Politics can't be nice through and through, because people are bad. Believing in fantasy, politicking like their making a movie and like the Mainstream Media is playing the movie and like the people are watching the movie, the Left is going to get us killed. Buchanan was very observant titling his book "The Death of the West". It is upon us. With the exception of Ronald Reagan and aside from various political perks, this nation has been in decline. The moral and political trend has been downward, certainly, and certainly since 1963 when the Bible was taken out of schools. Not to mention the rest of the Sixties which included disrespect for life by the Pill, among other things. I'm not sure if this is the same decline that Nixon and Kissinger viewed it to be, but it is monumental decline nonetheless.

Yet! This country is still, as Bill Bennett titled his book, "The Last Best Hope". The Left looks to the failed model of Western Europe as they abandon God's values and run blindly and deceptively to false freedom, false peace, false economics, false science, and false life as their new model of government that will result in a Communistic Totalitarianism actually spreads by murder.

I am sure a Leftist reader will misunderstand that, so let me just expound on one part. God does value peace. But as Dennis Prager deduces about the Left's fault, God does not place peace as the greatest value. And the way it turns out, peace must be often sacrificed to higher values. Reality is that people are bad and the "bad guys" among the people will not do a good thing like just stop and have peace.

So,"it's over!" Until Jesus comes back I believe we are on the final decline-trend, to say the least. What's over? Well, we don't actually have a Communist government in the U.S., do we? No. What I believe is over is the possibility of mass persuasion. People's hearts are waxing too cold toward love. Ears are getting too dull. Delusions are too much. Humanity is too strong.

We won't have another president that's even as good as "W" -- forget Reagan. The pressures in the world are too strong. The snowball is already rolling. Ford's failure caused us to get one of the three worst presidents of all time, Jimmy Carter. Carter played the "nice game" even better. And the election was close. But humanism doesn't respect the wrong kind of nice, like pardoning, so Ford had to go.

Is it the "End"? No. But it might be at the beginning of the signs that immediately precede the beginning of the End.

"Homosexuality Is Sin"

2006-11-30T16:20:00.000-06:00

It is against the law to tell someone "homosexuality is sin" in Canada, from what I've heard. It's so misguided and blind I can barely believe it. I've also heard this past week on the radio that there is currently a legal push to make the same thing illegal in the United States -- I think it's starting as a bill in a particular state. Sorry for my lack of details.

The battle during the 80's was for the value of life -- against abortion. It was/is a foundational value crucial to the fabric of society. The current social battle is against homosexuality. And acceptance is their gradual path to victory -- victory for their conscience, supposedly. (Even if it's made completely legal, their conscience will still bother them, because the Bible says the Holy Spirit comes to convict the world of sin.) Homosexual marriage legitimized/recognized by the State would destroy the main foundation of family and therefore society. Not only does homosexuality as sin destruct culture from outside, it destroys the base institution of society -- family -- from within. What's remains to battle?... the "End" will have to come, by sheer (natural) consequence.

Homosexuality is sin. It is anti-productive, just as it is evident from the base sexual level. It is un-natural. It progresses by anti-reason, twisting truth and reality, just as it itself is a twist of natural, normal function.
The existence of the sin of homosexuality is proper evidence for the existence of spirituality. For how else could something so un-natural seem so natural to some of those who practice it. Some homosexuals say that it's the only type of sexual desire they have ever known. Sin is a relationship between self and the Devil. We all first sin as soon as we know right from wrong, our left from our right. Some people initiate the sin by them-selves, and for some it is initiated by the Devil. For once we are fallen we are his "children". This is one bondage of many which, then, requires a savior. The only way to be saved from this perception-perverting deception is to repent from it and to the one and only God, the Lord Jesus Christ. His Cross and Blood can forgive and heal and transform and restore.

It's important to have the right to say any of this that we want. Thank God for the First Amendment. Too bad Canada didn't follow the U.S. model. The entire societies are at stake. I suppose that the lack of value upon life lead to the commonality of abortions and so then gave us more deaths (killings) and increased apathy toward life in general. I suppose the casual attitude toward sin lead to increased acceptance of homosexuality and to increased homosexuality itself and so then gave us more sin as the result. All of it deadening us, quite literally. The Savior from this all this, too, is the Fountain of Life, the Pearl of Great Price, the Holy One: Jesus.

On Thanksgiving And a Hunting Story

2006-11-30T14:50:00.000-06:00

I love Thanksgiving. To me it's the most family-oriented gathering. And it is essential for it to be about God, if it's going to have any meaning whatsoever. The history is very clear that it was meant to be for thanking God, the Provider, the one who blesses and sustains and gives and everything.

I prefer to eat chicken, but Grandma makes great turkey. I figure why eat a less tender and tasty bird? Oh, tradition, I guess. I heard from Michael Medved, who is an expert historian, that the original Thanksgiving did not have turkey; but they did have beer. Interesting. Well, I had more of a traditional Thanksgiving again this year, than an original one. By the way, Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird. It was a common, very American, bird. The Bald Eagle won, which is more fitting for "the greatest nation on God's green Earth", as Medved says.

In the past five years, my mother's place has had wild turkeys pass by in the neighborhood out of the woods. Very cool. This year, after being gone for a year or so, they came back! I saw them in November. Three of them this time. They are quite big, but these are quite lean. No "good-eats" there.

Thanksgiving will always remind me of the spectacularly rare time my dad and my brother and I shot 6 turkeys while hunting. I guess it's a hunting miracle. It was tremendous. We were going to a field to hunt grouse. Talking in the car, someone noticed turkeys. I'm not an avid hunter, but I've been out several times in my life. They started counting the turkeys. Nervous pandemonium ensued -- in the car. Supposedly expert turkey hunters dream of catching just one in a season. Dad and my brother started talking, actually whispering, real fast, and jostling around to load their guns as quickly as possible. Dad was in a euphoric daze -- he almost forgot to load his gun. And then was shaking as he did load it. They discussed how we would get out of the car very quietly and sneak up to the first small pine tree, always being alert to charging if the turkeys are startled to flee. I was about ten yards behind them as we crept to the tree. I didn't hear or see what caused them to run out. They stood up and out and fired a couple shots. I came up to where they were. Immediately they ran toward the birds on a gradual decline. There were a grove of pine trees forward to the left and some sort of dried marsh area forward to the right. They kept shooting the birds and calling out in excitement. The birds kept moving, completely surprised but not fleeing. And! The birds weren't going down. You could tell they were being hit most of the time, but they weren't going down. Where was I? I was still standing forward of the tree. I was watching them as I looked for a safe shot (which wasn't available for a little while) and as I watched out for fleeing birds to chase. We had planned to aim high to hit the head so the body wouldn't get pellets in them when we eat. We started shooting lower to make sure we down the birds and don't lose them. One of the two shouted for me to shoot. So I gave up on sighting the birds that went in the grove and assessed the angle between my family and the birds. It wasn't quite 45 degrees. I shot and saw the bird's neck move, but again, he didn't go down. Dad called out, "Oh my God, [quistian], that is loud!". I kind of chuckled... in a very cautious way. Next I remember things went into a quicker pace and birds started going down, and they called out about their shots and how many they got. Somehow I got forward between the grove and the marsh, while my brother was chasing birds thoroughout the grove. I saw one that came out. My brother said "Get 'im, [quistian]", because the bird was running and I have some speed. I chased the bird to cut him off against the long thin grove. After only a few seconds, my brother calls out that he got him. I was bummed. I cut the bird off well, too well. The bird came out to the other side where my brother got a good shot. Still, it was all so exciting... and enjoyable. Wow.

One major facet of God's Will is for us to be thankful. Meditate on that. That is good. God is good. Think of how good it is that being thankful is his will. At the outset, logically, that implies that God gives good things. Yes, he does. I also see good relationship in that will. Amen.

Dick Cheney Exemplifies the Christmas Spirit:Conservatives Give More

2006-11-28T19:31:00.000-06:00

A guest reporter on the Hugh Hewitt Show tonight talked about Dick Cheney. People talk about a huge financial deal that he benefits from, but they don't mention that Cheney gives a lot. He gave $6-million. That was 80% of the benefit from his deal. Like Hugh said, how would you like to give 80% of your paycheck! So much for money-grubbing with Haliburton. Too bad he's not going to be the next vice-president, to Mitt Romney. On the radio show it was mentioned, by study, that Conservatives give a lot more than Liberals, across the spectrum. Sometimes Liberals give more often, but Conservatives always give a lot more in amount.

The End of the World is a Political Environment

2006-11-26T15:59:00.000-06:00

The End-times may be more than political, but one thing it is: it is in a political environment. It may not be the only environment. Looking at the book Revelation in the Bible, it is obvious that politics are involved. In the End-times context, politics may not be a focus of concern in a way that I commonly blog, but politics are involved, and therefore should be of some sort of concern to the Christian.
As citizens (and therefore Christians) in the USA are especially and uniquely responsible to and for their government, Christians should be alert to political dynamics while the "End" comes and Jesus returns as a lion warrior.

So I think Christians should be aware and involved more than ever -- praying if by no other extra involvement (for there is no excuse not to vote as a Christian in the USA). I think we can see the political formations toward the End-time situations, currently. Politics is not the religion. Politics is not the Way. But the Way will see and deal with politics. And the responsible Christian will be as active as they reasonably can, just as the responsible Christian will their best in everything, as much as they reasonably can.

Judging

2006-11-26T15:02:00.000-06:00

The Biblical Greek word "to judge" more literally could be translated "to distinguish". I think to be able to judge one needs to distinguish. Also, one needs wisdom, since wisdom is the (proper) application of knowledge.

Generalities are the soul of wisdom, Dennis Prager says. Deft use of analogies used to be the key sign of intelligence, I was told by a teacher in High School. Ann Coulter accuses the Left of taking analogies out of the SAT (Schoolastic Aptitude Test) because the Left can't understand them. If true, I would say that shows they can't align their anti-reason with the basic reason of analogies. The Left is becoming void of wisdom. Generalities to them are prejudices. Furthermore, to them, wisdom is religious. It's true wisdom is from above. Unfortunately, Humanism's reason is sourced out of the human, obviously -- based on the sinful, fallible, limited being. True wisdom is sourced out the the holy, eternal, infinite being who ought to continue to be the standard.

Some things are "black and white". To God everything is black and white. He is the Judge. He can distinguish among all morality. He is the standard, he is righteous, because he is holy. God gave the Ten Commandments. They are black and white decrees for behavior. Maybe most of the other things in life are more personal and therefore judged more personally and moreover more gray, therefore more difficult to judge of another. When it comes to law, we see they are not all absolutely difficult. For law is an expression of morality. Some say Morality and Law are separate, as if they are mutually exclusive. They are distinct, but law is directly linked to someone's morality. In America it was traditionally linked to Judeo-Christian morality. Increasingly, it is being tainted by the new presiding worldview: Secular Humanism. This religion/culture/worldview feigns to purport amorality like tolerance when actually it is extremely intolerant of those outside itself.

Like Dennis Prager has the motto that he prefers clarity to agreement. Isn't it good to see things clearly.

The "Constipation" Party

2006-11-18T16:31:00.000-06:00

Third parties. There is a political party called the Constitution Party. It used to be the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is mainly Christian in composition, totally based on Conservative, uncompromising, (accurate and proper even) positions of Constitutional government. At one time, they voted on "Jesus Christ" to be in their mission statement, and it passed by 51%. Though that's as close as you can get, it shows how conservative, and how conservative Christian, they are. That is a good thing. It's the existence/promotion of a third party itself that is a bad thing.

Radio talk-show host Michael Medved calls this party the Constipation Party. He promotes this idea secondarily to calling the Libertarian Party, the Losertarian Party; because it's futile, vain, and factious.

I was once enamored by the Constitution Party. Voting your conscience is a strong argument. For the same reasons I supported Alan Keyes at one time. Gratefully, when it came down to it, I realized I had to vote for George Bush in 2000. The issue is beyond conscience. The issue is bigger than conscience. Rather, conscience does not apply to the issue as touted by Alan Keyes and by the Constitution Party. Of course, one should do everything according to one's conscience. Conscience is applied within a sphere of wisdom. The Constitution Party is outside of proper wisdom. The sphere of wisdom is not just voting. No, the scope for proper wisdom is in a smaller sphere. Basically one must understand, and realize, and accept. Understand that the political system leaves a third party with only the power of testimony which, granted, potentially can be positive. Realize that the fragmentation and detraction from the main party is only negative, because of the structure of the political system. Accept that when one loses the proper course is to reform the fight, not form a new party -- certainly not when, thankfully, most of the Republican platform is proper.

Good intentions are not good enough, even for Christians. The Constitution Party is unwise, and to persist in it is folly headed for stupidity. They are wise in their positions. They are stupid in their place in politics... and in their testimony. I believe strongly that the testimony is poor, and actually does more harm to Christianity, as it does to Republicanism, than it does to help. It probably does help the remembrance of Conservatism. But, hey, one out of three is bad.

Third parties are a distraction at best. They fragment the vote at the least. The political system was set up to support two parties. The Electoral College does this. From the founding of the country, this wisdom has been used. Since the second election of George Bush, Hillary Clinton and some Democrats have wanted to remove the Electoral College. Though not obvious, it's as basic as basic gets to the structure of our great nation. The Electoral College sustains the states's influence and reflects the "republic" part of our government being a Democratic-Republic, not a pure democracy. We allow all parties, sure. But the best two succeed. This encourages dynamics that sustain several good things in our structure and accountability of government.

If you don't see the best candidate for you, or even the better candidate of two, then you need to go back to earlier in the process. (I'm speaking to Constitution Party members especially.) Not all the way back to starting a new party. Back to reclaiming candidates in the primaries and caucuses. Since most of the Republican platform stands for conservative values. The Constitution Party seems to be made of sincere, wholesome, moral, upright, conservative, nationalist, christian people. But the way the party comes off is as apathetic, spiteful, mocking, fanciful, arrogant, unrealistic, insincere, with a chip on their shoulder. Standing for the extreme proper values I admire, yet not in their alternate reality. As tough Christians, they probably don't care how they are viewed. There's something to that, but, no, basically they should. Because they are simply being factious. There is no constructive outcome to the political process. They have a mock reality, playing mock politics. They don't care about the outcome, necessarily? Then they care about their testimony to stand for proper positions. But the testimony, at best, is futiley wasted. Because the reality is that politics is about the better, not the best. The place for testimony is to fight or stand for what's right even after you lose, or even in a losing party (losing main party of two). As it is, the testimony is that the Constitution Party christians are not only of another world, they are in another world.

In fact, the only way I can see The Constitution Party being reasonably consistent with reality is if they believe in Post-Millennialism. That is the only way their intentions would make sense. Then, furthermore, if they were correct, they would be well within wisdom. The reality is that the End-times is Pre-Millennial, not Post-Millennial. But if they really believe that Jesus will come back after the Millennium, and that they will take over the world in God's timing to usher his return, then they are reasonably consistent as to how they should affect politics; because they only need to stand, God will make them reign. In general, that saying is true. Again, their positions are right and real, their method is unreal and therefore wrong. This world is fallen. Jesus clearly starts his second Coming before the Millennium. God works through Christians, but Jesus is still before us. We are not the source that causes or moves him. In him we live and move. The first Coming was for salvation. That happened before Christians became righteous. The second Coming is for judgment. That must happen before we reign. In conclusion, I find that the Constitution Party and Post-Millennialism even prove each other wrong.

ANOTHER POST OF MINE THAT RELATES TO THIS ONE:
Politics for Christian Americans: And the Separation of Church and State

Trickle-down Immorality

2006-11-18T10:55:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure who coined this title phrase. It was probably Michael Savage. Ronald Reagan proposed Supply-side Economics, which was derogated as Trickle-down Economics. Supply-side Economics basically grows the economy by lowering taxes. The lower taxes benefits the rich more since the rich have more taken away in taxes. The rich are more of the business owners so they are freer, then, to pass on the financial prosperity to their employees. The effect of growth "trickles down". Ronald was right. It worked. Although it was cut short by Democrats and wasn't able to be seen in all its glory. Yet the same thing happened when George Bush 43 lowered taxes, the economy boomed. So we see from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George Bush, Supply-side Economics initiated by lowering taxes, works, and works wonderously, and works wonders.

Bill Clinton had the sex scandal. Then he lied about it. Smooth as silk most of the time, he is. But so is the Devil. The Bible says the Devil comes like an angel of light. The Bible says Antichrist (who will be possessed by the Devil as Judas was possessed by the Devil) will be more stout than his colleages. Relationally, Bill Clinton is a terrible person. Regardless of his social failure, he was impeached appropriately. He lied to a grand jury. According to the law and to the Constitution, which is "the supreme law of the land", it was appropriate that he was impeached. It doesn't matter what he lied about. The Left was desperate to emphasize that. The issue is that he lied. Yet Clinton forced the issue by lying, as if it doesn't matter. And he made the cultural impact worse, as if it is defensible.

But let's go back to the social issue -- what he lied about. The Democrats lauded that a lie about sex is personal and therefore impertinent to Bill's job -- they're mutually exclusive even. It was his insistence, denial, and refusal that created the insensitivity to immorality, to a whole new level. Like a local radio host Jason Lewis said, "At least Nixon resigned". Well, Conservatives were concerned that kids would be more active in this sexual act, and that a certain degree of innocence was lost already in the culture to lead to the increased activity. And now we see it has happened.

Michael Medved had an author on his show yesterday November 17, 2006 who wrote a book called "Unprotected". It's about the myth of unprotected sex, about the increased activity of children and even younger children in oral sex, and about the bad counseling given to these children and the devastating fruit (effects) of this counseling. Case-in-point, this is the most direct instance of Trickle-down Immorality. Our culture needs to repent. God help us.

Preposterous Legal Marital Distinctions

2006-10-29T14:37:00.000-06:00

I got this news listening to Michael Medved. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision is more like the Vermont's decision than the Massachusetts's decision. The New Jersey court gave the state legislature 180 days to legislate a law allowing for Civil-Union-type partnerships to have legitimate standing for taxes et al.

This is essentially calling it "marriage" -- pure sophistry, a smoke screen, and inverted process. Not only do we need a U.S. Constitutional Ammendment defining marriage yet also protecting the institution of marriage. Futhermore, it must be clarified that marriage (between and naturally-born man and a naturally-born woman) is the only institution of spouse-hood which is encouraged by the government. We need to include parenthood too, but that is ahead of it's common conceptual time, I'm sure. Acknowledging a "Civil Union" in tax law etc. makes the institution of marriage meaningless.

The process is upside-down in New Jersey, too: the judges are forcing the legislature. This is a fraudulent way of claiming that the people will decide... because, as I mentioned above, the legislature is contrained to producing something that acts just like marriage. The process in New Jersey is going from a few downward, instead of from the masses upward in representation. Not to mention that the judiciary has no business requiring the Legislature to do anything, which is yet another way that the judiciary is being "activist" or "making law".

Neo-cons and Theo-cons and Paleo-cons

2006-10-10T17:08:00.001-05:00

Michael Medved has commented on the recent label, Neo-Con, as in neo-conservative. He says the origination of the term is anti-semetic, a part of the conspiracies of the Jews ruling the economy and government. The neo-conservative term began as a pejorative since there was a small phenomenon of a relatively few Jews (yet a noticable amount) that flipped to voting conservative, voting for Bush.

The Jews realized that the Conservative side of the political spectrum is the real friend of Israel, rather than the fraudulent friend found in the Left. Most Jews still believe, as Dennis Prager says, that when they vote for a Democrat they are voting for FDR, who helped to usher in the state of Israel. If there is an appropriate use of Neo-Con it would have to be the more-moderate Compassionate Conservative of which "W" Bush is.

Andrew Sullivan was on the Michael Medved Show today. Sullivan is a homosexual Conservative. He is a fraudulent Conservative, inconsistently hiding behind a mask of small-government. He is nothing like the integral, homosexual Conservative, Tammy Bruce. Sullivan says Conservatism has been lost to Christian Conservatives, whom he labels Theo-Cons. "Theo" is a nastily derogative allusion to "theocracy", as if Christians want a theocracy. That is preposterous and absurd: once again, denying the evil of the real theocracies in the rest of the world; once again, denying the historical Christian basis of our government; once again, misunderstanding and mislabeling the differences among "Separation of Church and State", and the "Establishment Clause" in the Constitution.

The fact is that Conservatism is inherently of the Christian worldview and value system. Conservatism has lost its Christianity per se, and has reclaimed only some of its boldness. Sullivan has it backwards. This backwardness is characteristic of the typical homosexual persona and the Secular Humanist worldview.

Paleo-Cons, like Pat Buchanan I suppose, are currently viewed as the old-school conservatives. Specifically concerning the war in Iraq, they revert to their Isolationism roots, and would therefore opt to retreat from Iraq. Hugh Hewitt considers himself as Center-Right and a Neo-Con. Of course, he does not prescribe to the general status of Michael Medved's sourcing of the term "Neo-Con".

Nationalism in Paleo-Con-ism is great. Isolationism can be great. We don't police the world. We need to stay in Iraq and win the war. At least to complete a full-functioning government. Then if we leave -- although we still have troops in Germany and Japan after transforming them -- we can know we won and did our best and their failure would be their own.

The Separation of Church and State

2006-10-10T14:19:00.000-05:00

In Minneapolis, the city has sanctioned Muslim taxi drivers to refuse service to riders bringing alcohol into the cab. The StarTribune wrote about this on September 28, 2006. I heard about it from Dennis Prager today. Alcohol is against their religion.
At the Minnesota State Capital, a few years ago, the Dahli Lama was honored to speak. A Christian leader (e.g. Billy Graham) would not be afforded this opportunity, nowadays.
I also heard recently about Muslim students proselytizing other students. We know this is a vehement taboo to Christians. The Muslim students were overlooked, for fear of a lawsuit.

Muslims currently have a strange privilege in America. It is the result of the evil of Political Correctness, which is sourced directly out of Communism. This pro-Muslim discrimination comes from a misguided worldview distorting equality and diversity, thereby producing cowardly toleration. Dennis comments that this is the start of religious bigotry and should be confronted now, versus later. The Secular Humanists have created a political environment that really is separation of Church and State. Completely irrational. It's not separation of religion and State, even though "Church and State" was understood in the sense of "no establishment of religion" -- it was understood this way by all obviously, even the original destructionists. Removing the Christian basis for law and Christian influence on culture leaves us in America with the blind-leading-the-blind worldview of Secular Humanism -- blind even to common sense delineation like this.

ANOTHER POST OF MINE THAT RELATES TO THIS ONE:
Politics for Christian Americans: And the Separation of Church and State

"Free Israel!": Cowardly Reporting

2006-10-10T13:06:00.000-05:00

Dennis Prager mentioned something on his radio show today: that he learned about the lack of courage in reporters by the cause to free Tibet. Reporters would not go to Tibet and report on the oppression from China, because China would kill them. Instead, reporters readily station in Israel to report on the supposed oppression of Palestinians. Reporters are willing to report on that because, as Dennis says, Israel will not attack them. Proportionally, Israel has the most foreign reporters than any other country. Free countries are more vulnerable. News coverage is not comprehensively illuminating. Where has the reporting of Sudan been for the past two decades? Blogging might have been the requisite finally allowing for barely competitive awareness of the mass slaughter of Blacks and Christians in Sudan. It wasn't going to be the United Nations. Koffi Annan doesn't care about Christians dying; he cares about the false oppression in Israel. Oh, in addition, Sudan has murdering Muslims; Annan must be consistent and fair by protecting them since he protects them in Israel.

October Surprises

2006-10-07T09:41:00.000-05:00

In the 2000 Election campaign, the big October Surprise was that "W" was a drunk -- actually that he was a drunk 25 years previous. This is thought to have affected the election. Evangelicals who already weren't terribly impressed with Bush, sealed their apathy and didn't vote. Thus the desired effect from the Left.
In the 2004 Election campaign, the surprise was an accusation that Bush went AWOL in his service in the National Guard. This didn't work for at least three reasons. There was no evidence it was true. John Kerry was potentially worse in his integrity of military experience. And third, Carl Rove, Bush's strategist, was able to reclaim his supposed 4 million missing Evangelical votes from 2000. The voting differential from 2000 to 2004 was about 4 million.

In 2006, there are a plethora of October Surprises. The Foley scandal which I posted on. David Kuo's book vented on 60 Minutes. Bob Woodward's book aired all over to regain favor with the Left. John Kerry's revealed prejudice against military service. Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals, was outed by the male prostitute that he was involved with for three years.
I saw the 60 Minutes segment. I conclude that any misunderstanding Bush has had about supporting Christian values in politics, Bush has curtailed. Actually and unfortunately, Bush is the thoroughly ecumenical, to a fault. David Kuo shows he himself does not understand the limited role in government toward Christian values. David Kuo spoke as if its the governments responsibility that poor people still exist. This is a Left worldview, and its wrong. Bob Woodward was exposed in this third book on the President as lying. In the first two books, he wrote favorably toward Bush. In this one he rips on him, but he also lies about some important person being on his death bed and confiding in him. So, conservatives conclude that Woodward just wanted to regain acceptance by the Left again, and that if he lies about this what else of larger magnitude against Bush would he lie about. John Kerry is a baffoon. Gratefully, his presidential potential is probably done. (Of course, he probably doesn't realize it.) Ted Haggard. Never heard of him. Most Americans have never heard of him. Very bad thing, he did. But like Michael Medved says, the saturation coverage of him in the election cycle is inexplicable except as an alignment by the Media with the Left's agenda. It is very good that he is purged. The Right holds its own accountable. The Democrat juxtaposed to Foley, actually had sex with a minor, and he continued to be in office. Foley resigned. Haggard is finished. Corruption exists on both sides. But the Right corrects itself. The long-term problem is that the Right should go back to its conservative platform roots but history of election losses point to parties moving to the Center.

Locally, the StarTribune wickedly slanted their polls to favor the Democrats, by even 10 percentage points or more. They have done this for the past few elections. Where do they print their corrections? In the back of the paper, hidden where no-one will find it, after the elections. Ah, but the damage is done: all that touting promotion of Democrat candidates, falsely tabulating and falsely reporting Democrats being ahead in campaign races. In 2006, they might have succeeded, though the losses were national.

All of this purging is good. The election was about ethics and values, it seems. The Right holds its own accountable, the Left does not. But, the Republicans did not accomplish in Congress what they were expected even by conservatives to do, so fecklessness can be added to the corruption that has been purged. So, the balance of which side is worse is mistaken, but republicans can't complain about the ultimate outcome.

Classic Liberalism is Neo-Republicanism

2006-10-06T13:41:00.000-05:00

Liberalism is different than it used to be. Earlier in the 20th century, Liberalism had some good positions. John F. Kennedy, a Classic Liberal, lowered taxes, knowing that it would stimulate the economy. It sounds a lot like "W", President Bush. Dennis Prager has the idea that if you give the text of the JFK inaugural address to any student without telling them who it is, all of them will think it is a Republican. One thing is: JFK mentions God. Another thing about JFK himself, beyond the address, is that he was very opposed to Communism, and more than that: able to recognize evil and willing to go to war against it. The Defense Department was 43% of the budget during JFK. Before 9/11, it was 16%. JFK on social programs: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The Left today is hardly like any of these positions.

Dennis Prager says, just as the North saved this country for a century since the Civil War, the South will save us for the next century (into the present 21st century). His case-in-point was the red state political landscape of the past 2 presidential elections. But the only thing that would really save us politically, especially for the longevity of our nation is classic conservatism, a position that does not compromise (as Bush often does, unfortunately), because they are principles, and principles that founded the great nation, and technology evolution and moral devolution do not negate these higher principles.

Conservatism is inherently compassionate, especially since it has more-recently adopted some classic liberal philosophy. Classic liberalism is now neo-conservatism, the Compassionate Conservative. This next example reflects a few things about the differences between the political sides. Black people, only reasonably, should be voting Republican. To prove this might take an individual post. The Right liberates and incentivizes all people to be self-sufficient (the "pursuit of happiness"), and treats all people equally. The Left uses/abuses the Black population. The Left gives the Black a crutch, that additionally requires the Black person to depend on the Left, not to depend upon themselves. If Affirmative Action was ever proper or necessary, it is no longer. Opportunity abounds for all, IF one is actively willing to... work, basically... and to take responsibility, not irresponsibly use the Welfare State. The Left still divides by color while saying they want to treat people equally, while treating people unequally. The Right distinguishes by accomplishment, treating people equally.

The classic Conservative is losing ground in politics. With all the divergent third parties, there is a decreasingly decent place to be found. That place is impotent and counter-process. The American political system was built to sustain two political parties. The electoral college, which operates for the states' benefit, is the catalyst for that sustaining. There still exist decent voices for conservative positions. An accurate name for the classic conservative would be Conservative Nationalist. One cautious example of this would be Michael Savage. Take his positions minus many of his impulsive propositions. Better would be the positions of the Constitution Party. Alas, this is hypothetical. For the only feasible place for conservatives is to move within the two prominent political parties.

The way I see it, this is completely true: the entire American political spectrum has shifted left. Furthermore, there has been a trend for Republicans to leave the Republican platform; and some of this has been to accept socially liberal candidates as Republicans, eventually called RINOs (Republicans in name only). The Left (the main thrust of the Left) today is a neo-liberalism at best, and really not a liberalism at all. For instance, they've taken up the new label "progressive". Whether the core of the Left is liberal or radical, the leaders have taken it to Michael Moore Land, with the full approval of Jimmy Carter, and with the tacit and even over support of the Mainstream Media. This all could be expounded upon. Jimmy Carter sat next to Michael Moore, the two most-honored seats, at the Democratic National Convention. Bingo.

Foley Fiasco: Another Double Standard from the Left

2006-10-03T18:24:00.000-05:00

Mark Foley, a Republican congressman, is in the news this week. He is disgusting. He sent sexually perverted instant messages to a 16-year-old boy who was a page. Foley quit.

This shows two things... and some more. First, it is granted, that both Republicans and Democrats are both fallible morally. Although it seems less so for Republicans; and one cannot accurately conclude by the quantity of accusations to tabulate this, for the Left create extra accusations and tend to treat one as guilty who is only under allegations, even calling for resignations simply because of the "seriousness of the allegations". Second, when Republicans are caught, Republicans quit. Democrats excuse themselves and give non-apology apologies. The Left-biased major-Media works with the Left by pressing harder on Republicans and omitting pressure on Democrats.

If one has the correct political positions, the Left will sacrifice all standards and reason to sustain him. Foley not only harrassed a child but a male child. The major Media first omitted this fact, in worship of homosexuality. Then I saw on CBS, the news report a startling turn in the story: "Foley is gay". People already knew this. The Right calls a spade a spade and calls for responsibility and executes accountability. Foley is gone. If you listen you know the litany of Democrats that are still around, and more than that, lauded. The one that stands-out to me today is Ted Kennedy's son from his moral failure this past year. Oh, and of course there's Bill Clinton vis-a-vis the current attack to get Dennis Hastert removed. The heart of Leftism: hypocrites. Nancy Palosi is making a sweeping call for accountability; what a hypocrite. How can you not say the heart of Leftism is devious. This is similar to when Democrats lose campaigns -- the Left champions them. The neo-Left is not about values or standards, they are about their pre-suppositional positions (i.e. opinions). The neo-Left is not concerned with justice, they are preoccupied with themselves gaining and maintaining power, at the loss of the political opposition.

I am glad that the party I support purges its moral failures. And in this case, it is good that a so-called RINO (Republican in name only) is gone. Foley voted against the marriage ammendment and is pro-abortion. You can hear support of most of this post by listening to Michael Medved's and Hugh Hewitt's radio shows on today's date.

Scandinavia: A Brief History

2006-10-02T18:16:00.000-05:00

793-1066 A.D. (In the Year of Our Lord) Vikings dominate in North America, North Africa, British Isles, Scandinavia, and elsewhere.
~1000 Norse settle Greenland.
~900~1250 Scandinavia is Christianized to a comprehensive degree, initiated by Sweden's King Erik. Kingdoms/nations consolidate: Lands of Sweden (including most of modern-day Finland), Lands of Denmark (including southern tip of modern-day Sweden), Norway (including Iceland, Greenland, a few British Isles islands).
~1250 Finland incorporated into Sweden.
1397-1523 Scandinavia unified under Danish Crown.
~1500-1814 Various internal Scandinavian wars.
1523 After earlier fighting, in resentment of Danish domination, Sweden fought independent, leaving the rest of Scandinavia to be Denmark-Norway.
1530 Protestant Reformation hits Scandinavia.
1563 They fight again in a Seven Years War. Very deadly, no gains by either side.
~1700 Sweden went expansionist and lost Finland to Russia, and fought Denmark-Norway.
~1800 After Napoleonic Wars, Scandinavia became reorganized into two unions: Denmark (including former Norweigan territories of Iceland, Greenland, etc.) and northern Germany; Sweden and mainland Norway.
Norway ceded to Sweden to save Denmark. Norway created a government. After brief warring coercion, Norway chose to join Sweden.
Finland became autonomous, though still under Russia.
~1900 Those unions dissolved.
1904 Iceland granted home rule.
1905 Norway independent.
1917 Finland independent as Russia in revolution.
1918 Iceland independent but in personal union (for international relations) under Denmark until after World War 2.
1979 Greenland autonomous, yet today still under the Danish crown (involving defense).
2000 Sweden no longer has Lutheranism as state religion. The other four (main Scandinavian) countries still do.
2006 Sweden has a conservative to be the new Prime Minister. No party in Sweden has a plan to dismantle the "Welfare State", even with extremely high unemployment.

Interestingly, Canada is still technically under the British Crown, but it seems to be extremely nominal, and therefore less involved than Greenland with Denmark.
I'm posting this to chronicle my own studies if nothing else. It's not the most important of my recent studies but it's a blogging beginning of those studies. Information for this post was learned from wikipedia.

Y2K

2006-09-03T19:12:00.000-05:00

When I first heard of the potential Y2K bug, it was a several years before 2000 and it wasn't yet called "Y2K". I saw it on the cover of a computer magazine. The first thought I had was "bogus". The history of computers lended one watching to understand that computer problems continually appear and then are fixed, more-so with PC's, especially learned by Microsoft. This problem was unique yet I still disbelieved. I thought it was sure to end-up a conspiracy-like hysteria. The more I heard about how it was unique and the consequences would be unpredictable in quantity and quality, I gradually warmed-up to the potential of the problem yet was still a disbeliever. Eventually, when some Christians started survival-preparation talk, coupled with the absence of a containing comprehension or solution in the world, I fluctuated back-and-forth: it could be catastrophic, it probably won't be much at all. Finally, I settled with thinking it would probably be a sizable problem, YET I was not sold-out in certitude.

The wisdom in the matter, to me, was preparation. With no real answers (until maybe the very end), that I was aware of, from the world, solutions of survival-preparation seemed prudent and wise. Even before I flipped to believing the threat potentially substantial, I foresaw the preparation process being providential and preparatory in-and-of itself, especially for the Church. The End-times is going to be no picnic, whenever it does climax, especially for Christians. The potential threat of Y2K was good preparation to be prepared. I should have mentioned it to more people before the fact.

So the Russians never really invaded us (...yet -- hah!), and the Muslims might not invade us. But after the recent war in Lebanon and hurricane Katrina and "9/11", it is more evident that catastrophies are not that uncommon -- they are increasingly common. For weeks in northern Israel during the recent war, thousands of people were under-ground in shelters.
What's going to keep America so isolated/protected? Certainly not our borders. Not our atmosphere or ozone layer. Not Democrats allowing wire-tapping. Decreasingly our culture. Decreasingly our government. Our morality?
What about tornados in Minnesota? Should we let catastrophies be bigones? Should we wait for a Dirty Bomb? I guess I aspire (keyword:"aspire") to be a visual boy-scout: "Always be prepared".

Common English Errors

2006-09-03T15:18:00.000-05:00

Do you think "gotten" is improper? Nope, it is not. Do you think "decimate" is synonymous with "obliterate"? Nope, it is not.
Is "nope" improper? I dunno. Check it out here. Is "dunno" improper? Yepp...
But my favorite, the one I'm thankful to be mentioned, a pet-peev of mine is "i.e." versus "e.g.". I figure if someone is going to be sophisticated enough to use something like that, they should know it to use it correctly. I can handle miss-spelin', but let my custom ponctuation go and follow this on the smooth tip.

"i.e." essentially means "in other words"

"e.g." definitely means "for example"

Peace, out!

Why Everyone Hates the Jews

2006-08-31T20:21:00.000-05:00

Why does everyone hate the Jews? I have some comprehensive answers though not in the same neat singular structure as in Michael Medved's article. And an answer or two may differ from his slightly.

Before the Christians, the Jews were/are "the Chosen". Without getting into their remaining status before God, sufficive to say they have been considered Chosen. This has created jealousy and offense. The realities and perceptions have had the range of the entire history of the world in order to promulgate.

As Jews or Israel, they have been prosperous, prominent, and successful. The world is jealous of this. Differing from Medved, I would say that God has not only required responsibility from them, yet also blessed them with priveldges: prosperity and victory. As the Chosen, they have stood for what is right. This is offensive. Accusations stick and stereotypes perpetuate. It aggragates to what is called Anti-Semitism.

I have seen time and again Israel making for terrible Public Relations presentation -- the enemy Muslims, on the contrary. That doesn't mean they're wrong (Israel). So many false perceptions, of both they're status and God's ways, consequentially exist.

Why particular groups may hate the Jews.
Catholics have hated the Jews because of the rejection of the Messiah. Thankfully, notably, the last two popes have done much to make peace and even bless the Jews.
Some other Christians, especially ones believing in Replacement Theology, struggle with an arrogant hate for the same reason, a sort of competition for being "Chosen". Very unfortunate. Briefly, the real deal is that, individually, as the Bible says, "the one who does not have the Son [Jesus] does not have [eternal] life". Yet corporately, the Jews are still beloved and will play a crucial part/role in the End-times and some of them will be "saved" ("individually").
Muslims hope to convert Christians but simply hate the Jews, thinking they are beyond restorable religous corruption. Muslims distort, backwards and up-side-down, all politics concerning the Jews... well, especially the politics that concern the Jews.
Humanists hate the Jews because they are so so blind. They have Socialistic compassion for the poor who they associate with the Muslim world, the perpetual under-dog, who deceives them into thinking they(Muslims) are tolerant (oh so sweet to the Humanist ears) and simply trying to survive. The truth is they(Muslims) often choose killing innocents over investing in their infrastructure, and the (topical, prevalent) Muslims would kill the Humanist in the blink of an eye.

The World, exemplified by Koffi Annan, hates the Jews, viscerally. The U.N. discriminates against the Jews constantly, calling to enforce rules only against Israel, requiring only of Israel, excluding Israel. In the U.N., before "9/11", Syria, a chief terrorist center, was put on the optional Security Counsel. Israel is often the sole country denied recognition. On the "eve" of this second war in Iraq, after Bush challenged the usefulness of the U.N., Koffi nearly crapped his pants on TV -- he was threatened to the validity of his preciously corrupt U.N. After trying his darnedest to avoid the second Iraqi war, he knew what was about to be exposed: the most costly direct corruption ever, putting Enron to shame -- billions of dollars in an IMF oil-for-food scandal involving primarily his son. The U.N. was in bed with Saddam, and orchestrating the World accordingly. Germany and France also deceptively had deals with Saddam for oil. In the latest war in Lebanon, Koffi requires Israel to adhere to a cease-fire before it's final/official, regardless of the opposing party (Hezbollah); and then he meets with Hezbollah, an unprecedented recognition of a non-state entity, a priveldge he denies Israel (a State) whenever possible.

Michael Medved article: "Why the World Hates the Jews"
(not focused on Koffi Annan)

A Worse Culture

2006-08-25T11:43:00.000-05:00

Tracking Dennis Prager again.

In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive. In many Muslim cultures women are treated as property. The women are circumcised, can't vote, etc. -- they are not free. The idea of multiculturalism is stupid. How can we not say that that culture is worse. Therefore, at least in this regard, our culture is superior to it. Even after considering the sexual perversion of our culture, I would say our culture is the best in the world. Wouldn't you?! SIMPLY, because you're FREE -- free to pervert, free to abstain, and largely free to avoid -- not to mention spiritual freedom. And this freedom is in the midst of a moral component competitive with any other culture in the world.

But we're not allowed to judge. That's racist to judge this way... which, of course, is a judgment upon us. Moreover, Racism is a non sequitur to this example. Race is separate from culture.

Saying that a culture is superior to another is not to say that every individual in the superior culture is a better person; neither is the inverse true. Once again, people don't understand generalities. Neo-Liberalism/Secular-Humanism/Academia has ruined and lost the component of generalities in wisdom in our culture.

A question on the side: why doesn't the Left tout and laud the new-found freedom of women in Afghanistan and Iraq... and attribute it to George Bush... Oh, that must be why. A Bush-hatred derived from Christian-hatred derived from Christ-hatred.

Within truth: understanding and wisdom consist of generalities. The Left has run so far away from truth, which used to be the goal of Academia, that they have so great an anger toward absolutes, and they despise generalities. Because, using generalities is a threat to their Secular Humanism, which is marching toward Egalitarian Utopia. Oh how counter-realistic. What faith they have.

The Hypocrisy of Racism on the Left, Example #1

2006-08-25T11:25:00.000-05:00

I like Senator George Allen for President.

Dennis Prager on his show reviewed his debate against a Lefty on the Tucker Carlson Show.

The Lefty had a problem with George Allen's debatable instance of an uncertain racial slur concerning an East Indian person in an audience. The Lefty wouldn't answer Carlson's direct question about the comment. The Lefty went on to destroy Allen's personal character and family. Prager asked Tucker what the Lefty did about Hillary Clinton referring to Ghandi running a gas station, or about Joe Beiden(D). The Lefty responded by saying he took on Trent Lott(R). This Lefty only takes on Republicans, not racial slurs.

Dennis Prager says declaring things Racist is the Left's form of argument.

Politics for Christian Americans:And the Separation of Church and State

2006-08-24T14:03:00.000-05:00

As a newly on-fire Christian in college, I was one of the worst politically-apathized and politically-revolted Christians ever. More than apolitical, I was disgusted by any Christian identification with the government. Because, of course, I knew people were so thoroughly depraved, and politicians especially corrupt. And therefore, the last thing Christians should boast about or propound would be Americanism. Ah, but the misunderstanding, I had! The lack of wisdom. The fact that America is the greatest nation is not that it is purely great or acts absolutely great. America's greatness must be seen comparatively, and so then the best. America has done great things, good and bad. Being that Christianity played a major role in this country from top to bottom, we must recognize and honor the potential and action of this great country.

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book,"In But Not Of", covering some of this. We Christians must have priorities yet must be involved politically, as much as possible. Especially Christians in the USA have a unique responsibility. This government is "of... , by... , and for the People". Communists can claim to be "for" the People, and they do claim to be "of" the People, but they can't say that they're "by" the People. You Christian must take up your unique calling, being God-ordainly placed as a citizen of this particular country, and execute your best, the Biblical morality.

The "End" is not post-millennial, and Reconstructionism is not sufficiently productive. This country was not founded purely Christian. One could say that this is a Christian nation, that would be accurate. Because the nation is composed of mostly Christians and was founded thoroughly in a Christian worldview of values and mostly by Christians -- and those Christians being mostly Christian. The United States of America is composed of many Christians, probably (still today) a majority of Christians. Yet for sure, the distinction should be made that the government was never intended to be a Christian government. That is to say, the primary religious concern of the founders was to form a government that was not a Church, as England was. Yet, Christianity was pre-supposed to be the only true religion, and therefore the best source of morality and values. And so, the government was wide open for the Church speaking into the State, and not vice versa. Hence, there was a separation, even a complete separation as Jeffereson wrote in a personal letter, which has produced the completely misunderstood phrase "Separation of Church and State", to keep the State from being a Church. But the separation from the Church speaking into the State is not a complete separation. The relationship was (to be) a one-way protection against State-run religion, and a one-way (the opposite direction) requirement for Christian-sourced morality to be infused into government. Initially, Christianity and morality were one and the same. The failure to make this distinction early enough, or to protect it later, probably helped lead to the confusion and wholesale abandonment of this crucial foundation stone. George Washington in his farewell address and elsewhere said that morality cannot be maintained without "religion" (Christianity), and that the U.S. government cannot be maintained without morality. Think of the profound and revealing ramifications of this.

The President is not king. The law is king. This concept is hugely effectual. For instance, the Bible says honor the king. Americans must honor the law above the president is not above labeling.

On the other hand, we must not compartmentalize our worldview to exclude promoting political concepts, like war, which we would not promote personally (or individually). The Bible says God manipulates the hearts of leaders. The Bible shows us that God ordains everything, including war. We Christians must be active to promote the righteous opinions on even the toughest purely-political issues. We are citizens of the New Jerusalem, but if you are a citizen of the United States of America, you are doubly burdened with responsibility, in the spiritual and the natural governments.

As Bill Bennett titled his book, America is the last best hope -- politically, obviously. Politics is not religion. (The Left has it as their religion.) In politics you deal with people. In religion you deal with God. Politics will never be perfect. To think so is extremely naive and even stupid. Yet politics is an arena that will exist until the "End". And just as we are commanded by Jesus Christ to first love the Father and then from that love people, we must involve in politics from our roots in religion. Moreover, as the people that we are to love are not viewed as perfect, but depraved, politics is not to be viewed as perfect, but corrupt, and yet to be acted upon.

News Nanny

2006-08-13T22:44:00.000-05:00

Did you notice your new nanny? As a bonus to the government being your primary nanny, your new nanny is the News.

Local news. Oh boy, I can't take the plastic-fantastic (fake) presentation of local TV news. On top of it they constantly teach us how to live. Have you noticed the stupid little stuff they make articles about, but more than that, give you simple advice on?? We, as a culture must be pretty dumb. Maybe the dumbing-down is over and we're just down, just dumb. The only dumb advice I can excuse is health stuff like "wear sun-screen". Isn't that me even being too nice though? I know newspapers are supposed to be written for 6th-graders so more people can know the news. This is different, this is nanny-dom.

While watching the Ahmadinejad interview I saw a Katie Kouric commercial promoting her new anchor position. She says they will "help you understand the world around you". Ouch! I don't want help understanding, not from the "Liberal Media" and their Secular Humanism worldview. And especially since the Media is going the direction it's going recently. Jason Blair, Reuters's fabricated photos, New York Times anti-American exposing national security programs. Isn't journalism suppose to be "just the facts, M'am"? You report, I'll decide.

Ahmadinejad/ Wallace Interview Follow-Up

2006-08-13T22:39:00.000-05:00

Conservative talk-show hosts are giving Wallace a hard time. He may deserve it, but not so much for how he interviewed. I have to say Mike Wallace did a fair job. He's talking with a mad-man. Wallace complimented and was conciliatory, which was sickening, but it might have been required ettiquette to continue the interview. I thought Wallace was not overtly pro-American, but he was both pandering and persistent. The opportune interview could have combatted into what would end up being a one-point argument.

This might go to show that the interview shouldn't have been done in the first place, like with the Dan Rather/Saddam Hussein interview. If Wallace is still anti-American back home talking with Sean Hannity, and the Ahmadinejad interview only gave him an oppotunity to make himself look good, then what is the purpose?

One thing I perceive for sure, Ahmadinejad is basically insane, and contentious in communication, and a spin-master in content.

"The Passion of the Christ" and "The Gospel of John"

2006-08-13T17:37:00.000-05:00

Two great movies about Jesus Christ.

"The Gospel of John" got overshadowed by "The Passion". I saw "The Gospel" during the few days that it was in the theater. It came out a couple months before "The Passion" did. It's not the production of the other, but it's quite well made. In some ways it's more accurate. It is a straight portrayal of the text of John's Gospel. Very cool. One small example, the spikes went into the wrist instead of the unrealistic hand like in "The Passion". Another thing, I wonder if "The Gospel" had more authentic knowledge about how he was hung on the Cross. He was situated like I've never learned. Also, although he wasn't physically unrecognizable, there were a couple other details that were different. Interesting nonetheless.
I really like the way the script is spoken in the acting, how each phrase is stressed in a realistic, interactive manner. It's slightly mellow-dramatic, but to me it makes for the best depiction of personal interaction of any "Jesus movie", even "The Passion". The way Jesus in "The Gospel" confronts the Jewish leaders, with passion and controlled anger, is gripping and, I believe, a great estimate.
The narrated version of the Bible used was the Good News version. Though it's not as literal as I like, it is plenty sufficient to represent the story and stand as a clear strong testimony.

My take on "The Passion". I'm fine with the liberties "The Passion" took. Although, I could do without the extra Catholic insertions. Sketchy retro-dated traditions don't match Bible-level authority. The first time I saw the movie, I thought I could recognize a pace to a couple sequences as if Mel had timed it while he was high on coffee/caffeine. But I digress. The Mary stuff was fine even though out of balance. The movie was unique. It required previous knowledge. That's fine. It's not meant to be comprehensive, nor straight entertainment.
Language and anti-Semitism: I'm glad those two issues worked themselves out at the time the movie came out. As long as you pay attention to hear the truth and give the benefit of the doubt.
I do wish the flashbacks would have been longer. That struck me, at the time, as the greatest movie footage ever,... and they only did segments. Bummer.
The point of the movie is Christ's suffering death. The movie could have had shown more of Jesus preaching/teaching and it wouldn't have taken away from the intensity of the suffering, in fact it could have highlighted it by contrast and relieved the groolingness of the suffering for the viewer. Yet, of course, it was meant to be tough to watch. It should hurt to watch.

A Fascinating Feminist

2006-08-13T04:58:00.000-05:00

Tammy Bruce substituted for Laura Ingraham on her radio talk show this past week. She sounded almost like an Ann Coulter -- except really: who else can be that sharp-tongued. Suffice to say: Tammy sounded quite conservative. And she kind of is. I was stunned to see her website bio.

She is a homosexual (I guess it's called "gay"), and "pro-choice" (booooooo), and a former NOW local president (hence "feminist"... which by the way is the biggest mis-nomer in the world, but must wait until another day to deal with nomers), and a former Democrat. She is an Independent. I have to say about "pro-choice"... I was going to list it as pro-death or the like. But I bet Tammy is actually pro-choice down the line -- actually intellectually consistent and therefore for the pro-choiceness of school-choice etc. Though not to concede that killing naicent human life is a proper choice to be legitamatized for anyone, of course. She voted for Bush. She owns a gun, she's pro-death-penalty.

I think it was Clinton that changed her. She views the Clintons as utterly selfish, and Bill himself as personally abhorent, and as having set-up the ruination of many things. Specifically she mentioned the crazy-radical (yet increasingly mainline Left/Liberal) MoveOn.Org. She blames Clinton for that, which at least indirectly is very accurate. The other thing she mentioned was terrorism.

I say even though Dick Clark made a stink, he was twisting things in ol' Clinton style. "Trickle-down immorality." He was, actually from Clinton's team, someone who Bush should have fired. But Bush has been too nice... and he gets beat-up for it.
Clinton had opportunity to get Bin Laden and failed to do so. Clinton could have clamped-down on terrorism since the World Trade Center was first bombed during his presidential terms, but only did so during the potential-"wag the dog" situation.

Tammy Bruce is very pro-Christian and pro-Israel and pro-national-security and very fiscally conservative -- lot of strong Conservative stuff. She said we could do without the IRS. I give a trepidatious "Go, girl!" She says she's trying to make up for the years of doing stuff like voting for Clinton. I just read she's on FoxNews weekly, too.

www.tammybruce.com

--------

Dennis Prager Discovers the Source of Liberalism: Feelings

2006-08-13T02:42:00.000-05:00

Feelings. After being a student of the Left and of human nature for 30 years, Dennis Prager was exhilerated this past week to discover the source of Liberalism. He was close, he said, until he recently pin-pointed it. The source of Liberalism is feelings.
This posting is a "book report". I will be echoing what Dennis said on his radio show for most of this posting. I took notes while listening.

Dennis recounts an a personal interview he did to a teenage Swedish girl on a ship which are quite international. He asked if she believed in God. She said no. He asked how do you know what is right? She said her heart. This explains 98% of all of the Left's positions. It is now a predicter.
"How do you feel about it?", is for buying a car. The Right says, "What is right?". Feelings can matter but are not the source.

Points/Examples of feelings
1. Self-esteem versus accomplishment. Giving medals to all kids. No scoring in sports.
2. Won't acknowledge religion. There is right and wrong, regardless of how you feel about it. Sin is a dirty word to them because it makes you feel bad about yourself.
3. The Left won't acknowledge that most abortions are immoral, because that would hurt the feelings of the woman. Policy is made upon those feelings is the question.

Christians will still say rape is wrong, no matter who feels it is good to them. This is an example of the consistency of reason/objectivity.

4. The Left loathes war. Violence doesn't feel good. Dying doesn't feel good.
5. Sexual liberty. Sex feels good, therefore sex is good, and is never bad.
6. Redefining marriage. Homosexuals feel excluded.

Though they are not. A homosexual may legally marry any woman that a heterosexual may legally marry. Making things equal that are non sequitur and unattainable and impossibly objectively equal.

7. The personal is the political. Subjectivity does not make many distinctions like this.
8. Attack on judgmentalism. Don't use red markers to grade tests; that is too harsh.
9. The phrase "I'm offended" is not used by the Right. The Left thinks the Right is stupid or selfish, intimating the Right has bad motives. The Left does not differentiate between the person and the position.
10. Dennis says liberalism moves by feelings, like a child does. The Left orients around compassion (feelings) while the Right orients around standards. His example here is the bumper sticker "Make Love, Not War", which is absurd for the adult intellect. And to make an insightful link from the previous example, the Left venerates people who have their correct positions, which is vapidly propagated in academia. The person with the correct position is seen, by the Left, to be the smart person. If this person can articulate his position well, he is only increasingly brilliant.

I, personally, learned this revelation at church. And I saw it first-hand so clearly and so pronounced on the University campus, politically and spiritually and educationally. As Dennis revelled in, it can be used to understand every stance of (current) Liberalism, the Left.

Dan Rather Interviews Saddam Hussein: The Sequel

2006-08-11T22:01:00.000-05:00

Mike Wallace interviewed Iran's leader Ahmadinejad. Michael Medved calls him "wackjob".

It's just like when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein. These two are feigning journalism, supporting two mad-men. They are supporting probably both unwittingly and wittingly.
Dan Rather was conciliatory with Hussein and respected him and sympathized with Hussein from his personal and national point-of-view.
Mike Wallace did a radio interview with Sean Hannity concerning Wallace's interview with Ahmadinejad. Wallace struggled to explain his answers to Hannity. Wallace sympathized with Ahmadinejad. He was impressed with him. Wallace excused any idea of killing Jews (on a mass/holocaust scale), which Ahmadinejad has explicitly purported elsewhere. Wallace praised Ahmadinejad for being smart et al. When Hannity asked Wallace about the smartness/impressiveness (per se) of Hitler or Stalin, Wallace shrugged it off. Wallace excused Ahmadinejad because he hasn't caused a holocaust. I think I heard Hannity interject (accurately and appropriately) "Not yet".

Another cultural standard (in a person: Wallace) exposed... as deceived by Secular Humanism -- a moral equivalence in particular -- and you know: all that bad stuff.

Journalists used to be nationalistic, patriotic to the USA. CNN helped to majorly change that when they made a deal with Saddam at the first Persian Gulf War. I think the Media is encouraged to fabricate and distort when they don't get punished: New York Times on NSA wiretapping. I think they feel they have no bounds in since they are embedded in the military field. The recent issue of fabricated photos making Israel look bad in the war in Lebanon has resulted in job terminations and photo recalls.

That's not enough to turn around the culture of corruption though, is it? What are you going to believe? Who are you going to believe? You can't trust the mainline "Media"; they are enemy-sympathizers at best. Unreal that they make a moral equivalence with heinous terrorists. How can it not be denial of reality? Unless they are so far gone, changed in their heart, the denial happened long ago. Or is it simply Bush-hatred? Everything else is. Cinton-hatred was not 1% as pervasive. But no, I think it's Righteousness-hatred, coming out in various forms like Bush-hatred, Anti-Semitism, Pacifism, Israel-hatred, Objectivity-hatred.

Unfortunate Anti-Semitism. A Great Apology.

2006-08-01T16:49:00.000-05:00

The Media and the comedians have gone gah-gah over Mel Gibson's anti-semitic tirade. Anti-semitism is bad. Apologizing is very good.

Heart. What you say does show/reveal what's in your heart. Druken anger can also exagerate.

Apology. Maimonides, a historic Jewish philosopher, said there are three parts to a true apology: stating what you did wrong, contritely saying you're sorry, and attempting to rectify the situation. Mel's apology (or all of them as a whole) does this, and well. He acknowledges he's a person in the spotlight, in the beginning, and reaches out the Jewish community for a real engagement on meaningful reconciliation and cooperation, at the end. Doubtful the Left will take him up on it. But Jason Alexander (George Castanza) volitionally called Dennis Prager's radio show and said you're right, Dennis, we have to forgive Mel.

Oliver Stone has a new movie, "World Trade Center". Michael Medved said Stone is a "bad guy"... who made a great movie (this time). Wagner was extremely anti-Jewish, yet he composed great music, music which all Jewish conductors play today. There's a difference between the artist and the art. "Passion of the Christ" still stands on its own, as attested to by two great Jews, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. Though, Prager says people saw two movies. The Christian saw Christ dying for their sins. The Jew saw the Jews killing Christ. And, according to Dennis, neither group could see how the other group could see what they saw. Now, the Jews on the Left are revelling in Mel's grievance.

Hypocrisy of the Left. Presidents Nixon and Truman said terrible anti-Jewish things in private, and each did great things in policy for Israel and the Jews. Marlon Brando on Larry King Live called Jews the terrible derogative term. He never got a mention from the Left... because Marlon was on the Left. But Mel is ostracised and condemned and ridiculed. Mel is a conservative. What about Senator Murtha, a Democrat, an ex-Marine (if you can really call him that being a Marine remains loyal to the Marines) calling our troops Nazis? Mel Gibson has to pay for his wrong-doing, while the anti-semites on the Left get a pass. The culture of hypocrisy.

A Muslim terrorist shot-up a Jewish community center in Seattle the same day as Mel's incident. How much of that have you heard about? What a comment on our culture. And a comment on the Left-biased Media who purport to be unbiased as "journalists".

Mel Gibson's outreaching, second apology.

Dennis Prager's column: The Passion: Jews and Christians are watching different films
------

Anne Frank was Wrong

2006-08-01T13:15:00.001-05:00

People are basically bad. Anne Frank was a girl murdered in a Nazi Death Camp. Previously she hid-out in a house from the Nazis, and wrote a diary, and it was made into a movie that I saw in grade school. I was severely moved by seeing that movie. I remember wrestling in my heart with this issue. I am quite sure it was this moment that played the biggest part in me becoming a pacifist when I was growing-up.
She purported that people are basically good. Leftists have often quoted her on this point. I remember distinctly the point she made about Adolf Hitler. Even though she recognized bad things coming from Hitler, she determined to forgive and excuse him because there must be good in everyone. And Hitler must not realize that what he is doing is bad. So she in effect called him innocent.

Well, I want to make another post on good intentions specifically. "Everything is so intimately related." Let me just recite open-endedly a saying: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". I agree with Dennis Prager who says that the biggest fault of the Left has become that they refuse to recognize Evil. Liberalism used to, now they don't. And if everyone is good then no one really has even a right to judge another. Do you see how this secular humanism works and develops? Even aside from the Bible, this philosophy does not reflect reality.

People are basically bad. Because God is the standard of goodness, and rightness is to be compared to him, not to each other. Worse than bad, God says of the human heart (before being "born again") in the Bible through a prophet: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9 NASBupdated)

If people were basically good then kids would not need to be trained, and prisoners would be "rehabilitated" every time. Furthermore, there wouldn't be war. In fact, there wouldn't even be sin. The pervasively growing philosophy of Secular Humanism is winning in the market place of ideas by promoting the "movie" of a Bizzaro-land -- a alternate reality where everything is upside-down, backwards, and inverted. They believe that people are good because they want people to be good. Stupidity has to do with repeatedly refusing to listen (to reality). Humanism is stupid.

Yet humanism is an anti-religion acting at times like an anti-God. Humanism wants to end wars by speaking out that wars are bad and should just stop. Humanism wants heinous criminals to be judged innocent by simply calling out that people are good in their heart and no one deserves punishment. The victims, past and future, are discounted. And the criminal becomes the victim. Dare I say, it's a magic, a witchcraft. Because God is the one who calls things into being. People are not supposed to call the bad good.

Another revealing scenario is the gun issue. After the Columbine school shooting incident, the Left wanted to make more anti-gun laws. There were already laws against guns. "If you outlaw the guns, then the outlaws have the guns." But if you believe people are basically good, you can't see that... until hopefully now.

---------------------------
"but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding." --2Corinthians 10:12
"THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD" --Romans 3:12
"God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." --Romans 4:17
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20

Homosexuality and Love

2006-06-23T18:00:00.000-05:00

The intuitive reason for instituting homosexual marriage is the appeal to "love". But the activists for homosexual marriage do not want to acknowledge the logical consequences of love being the basis for acceptance and normality in general, and for marriage in particular. Of course, what if someone because of love wants to marry more than one person, or a nuclear-family member, or an animal, or a tree, or an inanimate object? (A foreign woman has already "married" a dolphin.) That's not marriage, is it? Marriage is what it is. It has a definition, and history has not required a law or explicit definition for marriage until recently. So, homosexuals are attacking marriage by attempting to institute a new definition, and therefore we must defend the definition of marriage. It seems we must do this by an ammendment to the Constitution since the operation of Judges today is distorted to effectually creating law instead of interpreting and adjudicating law.

Love: the biggest misunderstood word. The Homosexual Agenda cannot quite yet successfully pervert the logic here. Eventually they might. Love is not enough. Love is not enough for even normal marriage, at least in the way we usually think of Love. If you love someone now and don't love them later then you quit the marriage. That's not right. For a marriage to last it must be from commitment, even covenant -- and commitment to (real) Love. Love is not (just) an emotion. So, we don't even know what Love is. But we can be so easily persuaded to concur with an ostensibly good feeling.

People say God is Love. As if that is all He is. As if they want him to be relevant upon convenience. He is Love, but consider this radical (although true) statement: He is going to lovingly cast people into Hell. How can we get our minds around this? "God is love" is mentioned near the end of the Bible. Simply contrary to common sense, people forget to consider all of the scripture that is laid -- and the knowledge of God that is revealed about God -- previous to stating "God is love" in the Bible. Love is one of the characteristics of God. It's not the trumping characteristic. The trumping characteristic is Holiness. Holiness has to do mainly with identity. Love has to do mainly with how someone acts, particularly a human, since then stating "God is Love" speaks to some merge of (his) identity and actions. Ultimately, to know Love one needs to know the Truth. To understand Love one needs to know God. The Bible says Love rejoices with the truth. And living in truth does not consist of homosexuality.

So Love is not what it is commonly thought to be. And it cannot be easily separated from God's identity, will, and plan. Homosexuality does not even consist of Love, and is against God's ways. Homosexual marriage destroys the institution of marriage and thereby the foundation of the family unit in society.

About God lovingly casting people into Hell -- briefly. God loves himself foremost. "His ways are higher than our ways." Loving someone else does not mean giving them what they want, necessarily. Yet we see in the history of the Bible that God does continually give people the consequences of what they want. Just because someone does not want to go to Hell, does not mean God, being loving, must submit to what they want. But, casting people into Hell does, as an act, submit to what God wants: holiness... and glory -- huge issues that make this a good place to stop for now.

------------------------------------
"God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply..." -Genesis 1:22
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." -Genesis 2:24
"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." -Romans 1:25-28
"Love... rejoices together with the truth." -1Corinthians 13:6
"...God is love." -1John 4:8
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." -John 14:15
"Because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy." -1Peter 1:16

Homosexuality and Hate

2006-06-23T17:14:00.000-05:00

This posting was inspired by the following blog link. It itself has links to a couple news articles.

sprucegoose

Homosexuality is bad. Homosexuality is sin. The sub-topic today is hate-crime. Homosexuals in their agenda -- and I hope you know they have an agenda -- created the idea of hate-crime. They want to be accepted as more than "equal", yet for homosexuality to be accepted as good. The impetus for promoting hate-crime was the desire to combat discrimination. Calling themselves equivalent to the Black racial minority has been their biggest rational, covert appeal. Love has been their biggest emotional, overt appeal. They are perverting the nature of both appeals, just as homosexuality is itself a perversion. Also they are pervert the meaning of "equal".

The crux of hate-crime is judging a motive. Judging a motive is preposterous. Traditionally, the evidence of motive is used to prove culpability in a crime. The motive has before never been punished itself. A motive is an action of the heart. Think about that line being crossed: judging the heart. Traditionally, a punishable crime is a behavior. Even when someone is charged with "Intent", it is because of a behavior. Intent itself is tenuous. Hate-crime blurs all these lines. And that's what the intent of the spirit of the homosexual agenda is: to blur all lines(dintinctions(judgments)) of the differences between race and sex, between intent and action, between love and marriage, between same and similar, between equality and value, between identity and behavior, between homo- and hetero-, between God and self, between science and desire, between good and bad.

In the news there is near-hysteria about a Black man being a victim under a White man or about a Homosexual being a victim under a Normal person. So, it's very telling that hate-crime is not about conquering hate, and it's not even about equality, it's about Black favortism (racism) and Homosexual favortism (reprobation), both through judicial retribution.

Reprobation is calling good evil and evil good. What's to keep Christians being falsely charged with hate-crime? And what's to keep it from being solely selectively applied? At it's beginning it's already not evenly applied... and this is to say as if it could possibly be evenly applied. Everyone's heart is bad (before salvation). People have bad hearts and they are supposed to judge someone else's heart, politically -- by law?!

We are free to hate; look at the crazy Bush hatred. A crime is a crime already without punishment for hate being added to it. Think behavior. The crime is the act of hate. The crime gets punished. Hate is not for us to punish. We are losing our moral and reasonable bearings in law and therefore in society.

-----------------------------------
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" -Isaiah 5:20
"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil." -Proverbs 8:13
"God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" -1Samuel 16:7
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, but the LORD weighs the motives." -Proverbs 16:2
"...the Lord who comes will... disclose the motives of hearts." -1Corinthians 4:5
"The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick. Who can understand it?" -Jeremiah 17:9
"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12
"And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh." -Ezekiel 11:19

Grassland

2006-06-20T01:47:00.000-05:00

Driving on the highways recently I noticed that the grass on the roadside is so long. I think it's beautiful. I bet the grass is not being cut because of raised gas prices. I don't know, this is my guess. I can't find any news articles on it. Why did the grass have to be keep cut so short all the time previously?

All I can see is this being a good thing, for everyone. Grasses are stronger than weeds if left to grow. The roots will grow deeper and stronger. The weeds will disappear. Saving money for the city is better. And the "Environmental Whackos" must be thrilled. And hey, like I said, it's so beautiful.

This area used to be predominately grassland; there weren't as many trees. Old, first pictures of towns starting up in Minnesota are telling: no trees. The Left has says that we bad European-Americans have destroyed the number of trees since the time of the peaceful, innocent American-Indians (labeling mine). But actually where people go they plant trees. I don't want to give Al Gore's movie the time of day. He is a part of the hate-America-first movement and hysteria-incitement. Hysteria is so destructive. Think of propaganda. It can be false or true. And hysteria dulls people to real alarms (e.g. terrorism now, end-of-the-world someday). It makes a false opposition.

Conservatives who are against environmental whackiness (hysteria) are also people who love the environment. The same people who shoot animals and drive everywhere also like to drink clean water and conserve wilderness. Some "Whackos" seem to think if you're not in hysteria then you actively want to cough pollution and give poison-water to your kids.

The wind in the grass makes for such a peaceful summer ride.

The Problem with Pat Robertson Is He Apologizes

2006-05-31T01:50:00.000-05:00

I am not an avid listener or follower of Pat Robertson, so I am not here defending all that he has said, stood-for, or omitted in the past. I do like his statements generally. Since "9/11", Pat Robertson has made three statements that have been particularly controversial. The statements made big news in the Media. I referred to the often-Left-biased online encyclopedia, wikipedia, as my current resource.

Assassination. Pat said of Venezeulan ruler Hugo Chávez:

I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. -wikipedia

First, Pat denied that he said "assassinate" which he did say. This was bad and touted by the Left. Second, Pat wrote a full apology and retraction of that policy. Third, on Fox News Pat advocated "taking him out", mentioned that "taking him out" can be done by other ways than assassination, yet the Left accusses him as if he equates the two. Assassination is illegal within our country to practice upon leaders of other countries. I don't think it should be illegal and so did Pat, ostensibly. Why not just explain yourself? Biblically, politically, I don't see anything wrong with a nation having a policy of assassination. It is within war bounds. Chavez is a bad guy who is bringing bad government (Communism) deeper into Latin America and threatening his neighbors. There's nothing wrong with advocating for a policy that is not currently within the law. Maybe Pat wasn't tremendously tactful, but he doesn't have to apologize. If he meant to actually call for assassination then why not just apologize for mis-speaking on that exact point? That's what he probably tried to do on Fox News.

Ariel Sharon. Pat actively loves the Jews and is an active friend of Israel. On the other hand, as is proper for a Christian, he speaks the general gospel, which can at times consist of rebuking Israel. Pat said the reason Ariel Sharon fell to bad health was because he, the Prime Minister of Israel, made unwise peace with the Palestinian Authority, particularly by moving Jewish settlements out of Gaza, since God gave Israel the Promised Land.

On January 12, Robertson sent a letter to Sharon's son Omri, apologizing for his comments. In the letter, Robertson called Ariel Sharon a "kind, gracious and gentle man" who was "carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation." He added that his "concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness...I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel." -wikipedia

The personal apology to the family is proper. And if people are ever hurt by misunderstanding then an explanation/apology is in order. But to recant a proper rebuke is wrong. A rebuke is bound to offend -- it is a rebuke. If a rebuke is right then one may use the instance of people being offended as an opportunity to explain. Proactive sensitivity may always be wise. Therefore more qualification (explanation) may be required -- !but not full retraction and recanting. Israel is still God's people in a certain regard. But as all people are, Israel has never liked it when someone rebuked them.

9/11. Jerry Falwell commented on the 9/11 attacks as being judgment on the U.S. because of the gross sin in our culture: homosexuality, abortion, et al. Wikipedia reports as follows:

Many of Robertson's views mirror those of the evangelical activist Jerry Falwell, who has made frequent appearances on The 700 Club. He agreed with Falwell when Falwell stated that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way." After public outcry regarding the dialogue, which was conducted via television monitor and took place only days after the attacks, Robertson claimed that his earpiece was malfunctioning, and that he was unaware of what he was agreeing with at the time.

Maybe Pat is being honest. On the one hand I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But on the other hand, even if it is so, this is very lame. I think I remember, according to the news, that the delay of his excuse made it dubious. Pat has said similar things, heartily. He probably agrees with Jerry's comments. In a more general way, I agree too. I would say it is sin more generally. Although the litany of sinners might be primary in cause, to a degree the rest of us have allowed them to sin so grossly, by our government of law. And maybe Jerry framed it more like that in the acutal situation -- I don't care to investigate it beyond my point of apologizing.

And my point is that apologetically recanting a righteous stance is moral compromise. Pat should have used the Media attacks on him as opportuinities to explain himself, not excuse himself. Instead of qualifying his statements he shrank back from standing for what is right, making the testimony of compromise doubly worse. Everyone mis-speaks or needs to apologize once-in-a-while for simply saying something wrong. And when the person truely apologizes, he can be forgiven.

At least Pat gives a real apology when he apologizes, unlike the Democrats Cynthia McKinney, Dick Durbin, and the notorious Ted Kennedy, just to name a few. Dennis Prager says traditionally a full apology contains three elements. One says "I'm sorry". Also, one specifically labels the wrong action as wrong. Thirdly, one shows contriteness or mentions not repeating the wrong. (Not repeating is the tough one for me; I feel unable to promise something won't happen again when I know I'm sinful... yet...) A true apology contains these. Cynthia McKinney says: I'm sorry he hit me (when really she hit him). Dick Durbin says: I'm sorry there was pain because people misinterpretted me. Ted Kennedy says: It doesn't matter what I say as long as I say something, the Left is sold-out to me. Ted Kennedy's son says: "I have taken full responsibility" (even though he abused his congressional priviledge and should go to jail for DUI; but he didn't mention either of those things; and he created a front of getting therapy instead of foremostly resigning). Furthermore, when Republicans are caught doing something wrong they resign. Recently they cry publicly, blubbering, yet seemingly completely sincere, and they really take responsibility: they resign. It's kind of like what Jason Lewis said, a former local talk-show host back when Bill Clinton was going through Impeachment: "At least Nixon[R] resigned".

Pat does not hold a political office. As a minister he should be able to say what he wants, and yes, anyone should be able to challenge him. Pat is overtly who he is and does not purport to be unbiased. I think Pat gets derailed by the political view, how he looks to people. That is "Man-pleasing". He knows better. He knows the God-centered worldview and the higher principle to be God-pleasing. He first speaks from this principle but then won't let the chips fall where they may. More sensitivity, by using tact or qualification, might be required, but certainly not by retracting and recanting.

As another disclaimer, Pat stands for more things in public than I probably ever will in my life. Concerning righteousness, the admonition still stands: to stand.

------------------------------------------
"As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." --Romans 11:28
"Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land." -- Joel 3:2
"On account of these the wrath of God is coming." --Colossians 3:6
"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." --Proverbs 28:1
"... and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, ..." --Ephesians6:13-14

The "Constipation" Party

2006-05-31T01:33:00.000-05:00

Third parties. There is a political party called the Constitution Party. It used to be the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is mainly Christian in composition, totally based on Conservative, uncompromising, (accurate and proper even) positions of Constitutional government. At one time, they voted on "Jesus Christ" to be in their mission statement, and it passed by 51%. Though that's as close as you can get, it shows how conservative, and how conservative Christian, they are. That is a good thing. It's the existence/promotion of a third party itself that is a bad thing.

Radio talk-show host Michael Medved calls this party the Constipation Party. He promotes this idea secondarily to calling the Libertarian Party, the Losertarian Party; because it's futile, vain, and factious.

I was once enamored by the Constitution Party. Voting your conscience is a strong argument. For the same reasons I supported Alan Keyes at one time. Gratefully, when it came down to it, I realized I had to vote for George Bush in 2000. The issue is beyond conscience. The issue is bigger than conscience. Rather, conscience does not apply to the issue as touted by Alan Keyes and by the Constitution Party. Of course, one should do everything according to one's conscience. Conscience is applied within a sphere of wisdom. The Constitution Party is outside of proper wisdom. The sphere of wisdom is not just voting. No, the scope for proper wisdom is in a smaller sphere. Basically one must understand, and realize, and accept. Understand that the political system leaves a third party with only the power of testimony which, granted, potentially can be positive. Realize that the fragmentation and detraction from the main party is only negative, because of the structure of the political system. Accept that when one loses the proper course is to reform the fight, not form a new party -- certainly not when, thankfully, most of the Republican platform is proper.

Good intentions are not good enough, even for Christians. The Constitution Party is unwise, and to persist in it is folly headed for stupidity. They are wise in their positions. They are stupid in their place in politics... and in their testimony. I believe strongly that the testimony is poor, and actually does more harm to Christianity, as it does to Republicanism, than it does to help. It probably does help the remembrance of Conservatism. But, hey, one out of three is bad.

Third parties are a distraction at best. They fragment the vote at the least. The political system was set up to support two parties. The Electoral College does this. From the founding of the country, this wisdom has been used. Since the second election of George Bush, Hillary Clinton and some Democrats have wanted to remove the Electoral College. Though not obvious, it's as basic as basic gets to the structure of our great nation. The EC sustains the states's influence and reflects the "republic" part of our government being a Democratic-Republic, not a pure democracy. We allow all parties, sure. But the best two succeed. This encourages dynamics that sustain several good things in our structure and accountability of government.

If you don't see the best candidate for you, or even the better candidate of two, then you need to go back to earlier in the process. (I'm speaking to Constitution Party members especially.) Not all the way back to starting a new party. Back to reclaiming candidates in the primaries and caucuses. Since most of the Republican platform stands for conservative values. The Constitution Party seems to be made of sincere, wholesome, moral, upright, conservative, nationalist, christian people. But the way the party comes off is as apathetic, spiteful, mocking, fanciful, arrogant, unrealistic, insincere, with a chip on their shoulder. Standing for the extreme proper values I admire, yet not in their alternate reality. As tough Christians, they probably don't care how they are viewed. There's something to that, but, no, basically they should. Because they are simply being factious. There is no constructive outcome to the political process. They have a mock reality, playing mock politics. They don't care about the outcome, necessarily? Then they care about their testimony to stand for proper positions. But the testimony, at best, is futiley wasted. Because the reality is that politics is about the better, not the best.

In fact, the only way I can see The Constitution Party being logically consistent is if they believe in Post-Millennialism. That is the only way their intentions would make sense. The reality is that the End-times is Pre-Millennial, not Post-Millennial. But if they really believe that Jesus will come back after the Millennium, and that they will take over the world in God's timing to usher his return, then, they are wrong, but they at least are wise within that falsehood, and they are logically consistent as to how they should affect politics; because they only need to stand, God will make them reign. In general wisdom, that saying is true. The problem is the false cross-over, stemming from the false belief of Post-Millennialism, as I mentioned. This world is fallen. Jesus clearly starts his second Coming before the Millennium. God works through Christians, but Jesus is still before us. We are not the source that causes or moves him. In HIM we live and move.

American Idol in Review

2006-05-30T01:18:00.000-05:00

I enjoyed this season 5 of American Idol. I didn't care much for season 4. Bo Bice and Carrie Underwood were decent but no one impressed me really at all. Whereas Bo Bice had everyone gah-gah over him, this season I thoroughly enjoyed Chris Daughtry. Carrie is great now, but at the time not so much for me. I should say also, I only watched a very little of last season. Kelly from the first season remains the best over-all. She has never missed a note. This season 5 I thought was superb in set-up: ecclectic and talented and likable. Most of the contestants seem very geniunely personable.

My favorite from the start was Mandisa. It was made obvious she had a weight issue. And even though it is suppose to be a vocal contest, I wondered from the start how her reception would play-out. Because "Show Business" requires in tremendous pressure for players to be thin (anorexic). And how it happened, I believe she left the contest sooner than her real appeal carries. I know this is difficult to argue since it's determined by votes, although people vote repeatedly and there are increasingly new viewers as the season progresses. Not the sole one that night, she had one sub-standard permormance night and boom: gone pre-maturely.

My PROSPECTIVE RANKING early-on was as follows.
01 Mandisa
02 Katherine
03 Ace
04 Taylor
05 Sway
06 Chris
07 Elliot
08 Lisa
09 Patrick
10 Paris

Katherine was great from the start. Ace I liked throughout. He got so sappy it turned me off, but I think he could be tweaked and make some great tracks. Chris I liked from the start, but I let him grow on me before I "adored" him in the way most people did before I did. Lisa was impressive at first but proved to be smaller than most songs. I know she'll be great some day. And Paris will be even greater. Just personal preference: I always thought just as Paris could do nothing good enough for a vote from me, Taylor could do no wrong. Taylor proved narrow in his song options and actually I was kind of somewhat annoyed by the non-narrow song choices around the end of the contest. With the right songs I would love his tracks -- ditto for Paris's. Sway was cool. I wish he would have been given a better chance. The judges severely affected his outcome, as I believe they did for Patrick also. Elliot is such a poor performer, I can't get past it. Of course his tracks might turn out to be stunning.

My RETROSPECTIVE RANKING is as follows.
01 Mandisa
02 Chris
03 Katherine
04 Taylor
05 Sway
06 Paris
07 Patrick
08 Ace
09 Elliot
10 Kellie

It's too bad Chris left instead of winning the whole thing. I guess the people need to remind themselves more often to vote accurately and not with sympathy.
I suppose I rank mainly on vocals, but also on desire-to-purchase, also on performance, and least on potential.
The judges. Randy is great. The more depth he expresses the more right-on he is. Paula is nauseating -- every single time! Simon is "the man". Too bad he's full of himself: "That's 'Show Business'". Simon so often speaks to what matters and is really the one who "keeps it real". Like someone mentioned to me, often Simon is so astute. When he's off it is quite odd, similar to the way Randy and Paula commonly react to him. I think when he's off he is looking at the wrong thing but applying it to the "right thing" per se. The best example is when Kat admonished him saying that it's okay not to like Country music.
What do you think? What are your comments? What are your rankings? Write as much as you want.