Pocket Full of Mumbles

My New Deadly Robot Blog!

2011-11-29T14:18:00.001-06:00

This is to let all the world know that I, even I, Roboticus Severeus Animaticus will destroy the human race, one greasy spot beneath my steel-clad shoe at a time. Everything man holds dear, down to his smallest dog will, quite literally, feel the weight of my power before vomiting their nasty eyes from their crushed skulls. I, Roboticus Severeus Animaticus, have spoken.

Who am I kidding!?

2007-09-17T23:28:00.000-05:00

I've had trouble enough keeping up with the one blog let alone the six blog monster I proposed in a previous, and now deleted post. Six is way too much for me to handle, as busy as I am, therefore, I'm paring it down to three. the main page will be "Pearls & Lodestones" and the remaining two will be tabbed links.

It's better this way.

To Shine That Much Brighter

2007-09-11T00:02:00.001-05:00

It is said the Egyptians built with eternity in mind-- perhaps inspired by the Sphinx itself which is older than Egyptian civilization. It’s said also, that Caesar found Rome brick and clay, and left it marble. The Pyramids still stand, the Coliseum still stands, the Acropolis still stands, but the Twin Towers do not. We build to satisfy our egos, but we don’t build for posterity. In three thousand years, will there be anything left in America to exemplify the culture of our time? Will we leave a mark, or will others leave marks upon us?

It’s been said of one era or another, "these are evil times…" but times are neither good nor evil. Rather, it’s the hearts and minds of Men that shape the times which create pain and suffering enough for others to name these times evil. World War II saw evil times; Hitler’s Final Solution, America's own use of atomic weapons. There were evil times in Korea, and Vietnam, and the killing fields of Cambodia, but the times themselves were not evil. Again, it was the hearts and minds of Men. The times are not evil, Men are. Change the heart of a man and you can change the world.

But can any one man or woman change the world? Can any one Nation make a difference? While it’s true the United States has had a hand in inspiring and helping to shape today’s world, it’s also true there are those who have resisted this change, seeing in the U.S. a great evil; rather to be destroyed than emulated. They cry out that the west meddles in things that don’t concern it, that it forces its own ideals and belief system upon nations incapable of defending themselves against its unwelcome intrusion. The Taliban government of Afghanistan recently arrested several westerners for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity; an offense punishable by death. Not too long ago the Chinese used tanks against their own people in Tienanmen Square, simply because they wanted to be more like the West. U.S. companies push such products as cheeseburgers, Coca Cola, and ‘decadent’ television programming upon starving third world countries. They turn a blind eye to those who see these companies as intruders, not as business adventurers; but as subversive attacks upon the core values of nations which didn’t want or even care about Kentucky Fried Chicken, before Colonel Sanders stepped off the plane. "We’re just making money!" the West cries, but others see this as an attempt to weaken their culture and their sense of national pride. When the Pharaohs built the great pyramids it’s certain they never envisioned Burger King moving in next door. China is only now beginning to open its borders to the West. They need the money; they want the money, but how much does that Big Mac really cost? How much will it cost the West?

‘But the West is decadent! It has lost its moral center!’ Many who hate her call America a Christian nation, and in this they demonstrate their ignorance. Certainly the United States was founded on Christian principles, but those principles have eroded over the last three centuries. America today is but a dim shadow of what it once was. ‘Christian’ is a word bandied about by everyone; the Right, the Left; the Agnostic and Atheist alike, but less than ten percent of avowed Christians even put their faith into practice. The mind of this nation has changed, and Morality is now viewed subjectively at best; where once the people held to a belief in God, and right and wrong were seen as black and white issues, is it any wonder Christianity has fallen from grace? Every nation we thrust our interfering hands into can see the truth in this, so why can’t we? Could it be the Emperor has no clothes after all?

Times have changed, however. It no longer takes months on horseback to reach the Pacific Ocean from the Big Apple. It doesn’t take years for ships to circumnavigate the globe. Weapon of war have also changed. Where once armies faced one another with swords and knives and spears, they now face each other not at all; they simply make a call and push a button. Where once they rained arrows down upon enemy ranks, they now rain devastation from the skies, leveling whole cities. War has become too clean, and so we balk when the children of the Third World use our methods against us, albeit with less finesse and less concern for innocents (though that point could be debated). But destroying ten thousand innocent lives is not acceptable, no matter who pulls the trigger, pushes the button, makes the call, or hijacks the plane. And justice should be required of everyone responsible, no matter where the blame falls.

Mercy, however, should not be forgotten. Any thought of revenge should be put aside. America should not concern herself with revenge; it is not a pure enough motive for what must be done. For what must be done is terrible in and of itself. A life for a life will not return said life. Death cannot be undone. And since it does not lie in our power to give life, we should be careful in our deliberations to take life. Hunt down those responsible, yes. Make them pay the ultimate price for their crimes, yes. But let us not take pleasure in what must be done.

Changing the hearts and minds of all men is impossible. It is human nature to set ones own needs above the needs of others, but its man’s capacity for self-sacrifice that sets him above nature. A dog can only be a dog, it cannot choose to rebel against millions of years of evolution; but man most certainly can. He can say to himself, "I could die in this collapsing building, but I will work anyway to save the life of someone who might yet be alive."

Today in Manhattan civilian volunteers are finding ways to make a difference; digging through the rubble, assisting in the hospitals, donating blood, giving money, praying or simply holding a stranger in their arms as they weep. This is man at his best. This is what he aspires to, but never seems to find until times like these. The times aren’t Evil, men are. But despite the times, it is comforting to know there is still good in the world, that Evil no matter its magnitude only serves to make Goodness shine that much brighter.

The Egyptians built things to last, as did the Greeks and Romans, but then they never saw anything so big as a jumbo jet falling from the sky. It’s not likely even the pyramids could have survived such an attack unscathed; neither could men. But we will survive. That is what we do. Judgment must come, but so must rebuilding. Terrorists thought to destroy a national symbol; they think even now to force us into the bunkers for fear of other such attacks, but we must not give in to this. Find those responsible, punish them swiftly, with mercy, and then rebuild. The Towers are dead, but the ideal is not. Build a memorial to the lives lost, by all means, but rebuild. Show the enemy the measure of our strength, our courage, and our resolve. Rebuild and show the world that these places are sacred; the Spirit of America does not reside in buildings, but in the hearts of her sons and daughters.

Who will ever forget September 11, 2001? Who will ever forget the loss of so many lives, or the tears shed? Who will ever forget that at 8:50am ignorance took a stab at killing something that could not be killed? They have taken untold lives, but they have not destroyed America. Let us rebuild. Let us learn to build for posterity, and hopefully leave in our wake something that will endure.

ELAshley
September 11, 2001

America Is Winning in Iraq, and Treasonous Democrats Are Losing

2007-09-10T21:00:00.001-05:00

More outrage over the party of hypocrites and liars...

Burns me up, too... bunch of hypocrites

2007-09-10T20:55:00.000-05:00

Norman Hsu. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge scandal. It reaches into the depths of the Democrat establishment. It touches very deeply their presidential front-runner to the core, and the broadcast media have done everything possible to downplay it or ignore it. The same media that focused on what shoes Fred Thompson was wearing in Iowa -- hey, they were Guccis. I wear 'em, too. Way to go, Fred. Screw you, elitists. What the hell are you drinking and eating behind closed doors, and what the hell kinds of diamonds and jewelry and shoes are you wearing? Phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roller rear-end orifices. I've had it. I have literally had it with these people. They're hunting down every Fred Thompson client, every Rudy Giuliani client ever represented in hopes of finding an embarrassing association. They've gotta look no further than down the end of their own noses to find Norman Hsu, and there is ample evidence that this is standard practice. This is the way business is conducted with the Clintons, going all the way back to Clinton's days as governor in Arkansas. And yet, where, my friends, are the investigative reporters? Where is our old buddy, Brian Ross, who couldn't wait to unload the details on Mark Foley? Where is Brian Ross?

Why don't we know where Norman Hsu's money came from? The guy was bankrupt just a few weeks ago. Where is his money coming from, and the people he's bundling money for, these poor Paw people, Paw family out there in California, lots of pets, no money. The mail carrier, donating 244 grand over three years to the Democrat party. How in the hell is this possible? Where is this money coming from? I thought that the media, the Drive-By Media, and the Democrats, were all concerned about campaign finance reform. Here we have a consistent pattern of Clinton and the Democrats taking money funneled from Asia to help fund their campaigns, people who have fled the country before they could be questioned. Hsu himself was a convicted crook. He jumped bail, he reestablished himself in New York, became a huge Democrat donor, he was on the lam for 15 years on charges in California while raising money for Democrats. He's caught. He jumps bail again. Now he's hospitalized under still-uncertain circumstances, quote, unquote. And what do the media want to talk about? Anything but Norman Hsu. Oh, no, no, can't embarrass the Clintons, can't do anything to derail that candidacy. Clinton campaign gets a couple questions thrown at them about it, no media frenzy, no persistent follow-up. (Clinton impression) "Why, I'm as surprised as I could be. Why, you coulda knocked me over with a feather when I found out that guy was on the lam." Mrs. Clinton is just as surprised with everything. She doesn't know diddly-squat about anything. And Clinton isn't alone, folks.

Remember that small, left-wing weekly out there in the Bay Area, broke a story a few months ago about how Dianne Feinstein, chairman of an important subcommittee overseeing military contracts, made millions through her husband's investment in certain companies during the war? The article describes extraordinary efforts by Feinstein using her official position to inquire into certain contracts, suggest certain directions the Pentagon should go with their contracts, and so forth. Where's the follow-up to this? You better believe, if this were Cheney and Halliburton, every reporter in the Beltway would be on this story, but it's died. It's gone away, no investigations, no hearings, no nothing, no ethics committee looking into it. This is very serious stuff. It really is. For all the talk about congressional oversight, the Democrats protect their own. There hasn't been a single hearing on Hsu by Leahy, Conyers, or Waxman. In the meantime, Republicans are eager to throw everybody on their own side overboard and under the bus. There hasn't been a single hearing on Feinstein and her husband by Pat Leahy, John Conyers, or Henry Waxman. There won't be, either, folks. There won't be any editorials demanding these hearings, either. They want to protect these liberals. They want to help them with their mantra about the Republicans' culture of corruption. And it burns me up.

--Rush Limbaugh
September 10, 2007

Six Years On-- Intaglio'd Nation

2007-09-10T01:37:00.000-05:00

"Howard cringed browardly afrimentors who all but glimmered their mimic storied beds. Whimsy whiffs of beluga pasternings wove one tapestry wriggled in blue cummerbunds, dressed to kill on horrors unstittering in grim limniaries.

"But we, dear Tempestuous, we light and matted neutrinos thriftingly simeous, heady brews and whoring what jabberous tea moulds befell. We pampled and riffed our ways uncharted to singing like gassy spherics of marzipaning minges. How sweet it wereously swooned!

"Oh! We were browardly presidential; Howard not least among afrimentoring and gibbon! We fellows of briar-teethed hirsuted affectations! How sweet we wereously swooned!"

--EL Athrhymicly Hue
091007.014832.1

Dollars to Doughnuts, He Votes 'Democrat'

2007-09-07T19:49:00.000-05:00

The evidence?

He's a resident of Broward Co. Florida.
He works-- or rather blogs --for a Liberal rag.
He doesn't believe in God.
And has a poor grasp of Satire.

But why 'Democrat'? Surely there are atheist's (Oops! Sorry... Agnostics!) who vote Republican... Though I will venture out on a limb and say that number is very small. And surely there are Agnostics who write at Republican rags, and they could all, also, have poor grasps of Satire.

Some here would want evidence... numbers... but it's been my observation that these people only want numbers when they don't like the tone/tenor of the message. Democrats demand cold hard numbers, but even when they get them, they discount them as flawed because the 'numbers' haven't been 'gamed' by the Liberal *Ministry of Truth.

Republicans on the other hand tend to be more accepting of numbers, except when they come from the aforementioned Ministry of Truth. Anyone can game numbers, anyone can claim truth is on their side, but truth-- as I once stated on this blog --is on no ones side. And truth, like Lady Justice is color blind... seeing only Black and White; no shades of gray, nor even whiter shades of pale.

But Democrats can't see this. For Dems, Truth is mutable.... but allow me to move back toward the center of my purpose here by saying that this is THE key issue surrounding my complete and utter contempt for Liberalism, and most Democrats by extension. Because their philosophy of intellectual and ideological openness extends only to those things in which they approve or themselves support. In this they expose the depths of their own 'hypocrisy'-- that word gets bandied about a lot 'round here.

To then castigate ones' ideological foes as narrow-minded bigots while himself a 'narrow-minded' bigot is, I believe, a classic illustration of hypocrisy. So when a bona fide hypocrite-- by virtue of the fact that D. James Kennedy has a place in hell, despite Bob's abject disbelief in that 'Realm of Perdition's' very existence --then when called on the virtual carpet for his 'insensitivity' resorts to a position of cowardice by claiming his 'Essay' was poorly constructed satire-- in lieu of an apology. Even going so far as to claim to 'come' from Christians... even having Christian friends.

Sounds like bigotry to me, the same kind that makes excuses for itself by claiming to have 'black friends' or 'gay friends' while trying to build oneself up as a paragon of tolerance. And this is the nature of Liberals, specifically, and Democrats in general; their tongues are fertile fields of Truth, their hearts: gardens of Justice. Yet the fields lie fallow, and the gardens provide naught but stone for bread...

"If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."

--the Tempter

Well, if Bob can cowardly retreat to the skirts of his poorly constructed satire, I can stand firm and unyielding before my brilliantly constructed sarcasm. And unyielding disdain. Listen closely, Bob, and you'll hear me mutter, not at all under my breath, with a contemptuous spit at your feet...

"Filthy Democrat! You're what's wrong with this nation! You're responsible for America's moral ambiguity, for it's outright hostility of Godly values. How dare you level charges against James Kennedy while so obviously ignorant of Spiritual matters? And your apology is anything BUT! An 'apology' masquerading as thinly veiled insult."

It takes a pretty sick, disgusting ideologue to cowardly attack a man at his wake. Did he ever bother to publicly attack the man of God while he yet lived? While he tirelessly and joyfully performed his Lord's will?

I find it highly amusing that those who claim to not believe in Hell repeatedly invoke it's fiery wrath upon men of God they particularly despise-- are there any they don't? --like Jerry Falwell, and now, D. James Kennedy.

Bravo, Bob! Well done! Thanks for that stunning display of gracious liberal aplomb, and Democratic moral superiority.

Don't look for any satire here, Bob. You'll find the furniture matte and unvarnished.

----
*Dude! If you haven't read George Orwell's 1984, you're a cultural moron.

Lizard Spit, High-Water, and Indecent Proposals

2007-08-29T19:23:00.000-05:00

..::Updated::.. Saturday, September 1

This past Saturday I was out at Westgate, a local all-purpose community park. What was I doing? Walking of course. I had gotten off from the flower shop early and decided to go for a walk. I do this 4 days a week... even if it rains.

Well, I ended up at my favorite music store first. I bought a bottle of Lizard Spit, half a dozen picks, and a guitar stand. And the owner wanted to talk. A lot. But he's a nice guy so I didn't mind.

Thirty minutes later I'm at the park and I'm disappointed in the fact that it's raining. I reminded myself that it was my own fault for chatting at the music store, but I had my umbrella with me, and decided come drizzle or high-water I was going to get the exercise I came for.

I hit the trails. I figured with the canopy overhead there'd be less rain, but the truth is, within ten minutes I was soaked-- even under the umbrella! Some of the trails are hardened clay... except when it rains. So, after about a half mile of slip sliding away I decide to get back out on the tarmac.

Less than ten minutes later, a sleek red Pontiac pulls up beside me and my umbrella, and the window eases down.

Driver: "Hey! You ever been to Imaginations?"

Me: "Nope. It's not my thing." [as far as I know Imaginations is a nightclub, and as I said: 'Not my thing!']

Driver: "You ever been there? You look like the type."

Me: [I'm thinking: 'Type! What the hell 's that mean!? A bald, frumpy, 40-something looks like 'the type'?'] "No. I don't go to places like that. You need directions?"

Driver: "No. I know where it is, I was just wondering if you liked going there."

Me: "Sorry. Never been."

Driver: [pauses half a sec then asks:] "You want to get in? It's raining you know."

Me: "No thanks. I'm here to exercise come drizzle or high-water" [with that I begin to walk on]

Driver: [Calling out] "Hey!"

Me: [I stop]

Driver: "You ever let someone blow you off?"

Me: [......Huh?] "Wha?"

Driver: "You like getting blown?"

Me: ".....uh... Sorry. Not my thing" [I begin to move off... again!]

Driver: "Hey! How 'bout letting me blow you off!"

Me: "Sorry. Nope. Not my thing. Now scram!" [At this point I pull my trusty knife out and lock the blade open... I've decided to name my knife 'Stig']

Driver: [undeterred] "Come on! How do you know if it's not your thing unless you try it. Come on, get in the car."

Me: [I ignore the driver and begin walking across a grassy area, my knife still open and clearly visible... and yes, it's still raining]

Driver: [Finally drives offs]

To my own shame, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Now why couldn't a woman have asked me that!?"

Come to find out 'Imaginations' is a 'Gay' bar, and like I told the driver... not my thing. No bar is, in fact.

Now perhaps this man (young, black, good-looking-- hitting on a white guy, no less!) was a cop looking to bust him 'a pre-vert, but I have to ask: what kind of pervert asks that kind of a question in the first place? Who cares if he's a cop! To ask that kind of a question! What kind of sick mind thinks talking that way-- even to entrap --to another man?

And it happened in poe-dunk Alabama! And if it's happening here, imagine the degree to which it happens in the rest of the country! Hell! The WORLD!

For the record. I finished my walk completely freaked. And when I approached a police officer at the park, I was told that because I didn't have the presence of mind to get his license plate number (didn't have a pen anyway), there was nothing he could do.... snickering while he said it.

And for the record, Idaho Senator Larry Craig must resign immediately.

Update: It's unusual that I have a Saturday morning off... very unusual... pert near never... anyway...

Out at Westgate Park again, this time without the rain, but all kinds of gray overhead, and a nice cool-- as in Fall-ish --breeze. Right at the end of my walk I end up next to where a security guard is parked, so I ease over and ask him about last Saturday; did anyone else report being propositioned.

Security Guard: "Black guy? Six-two? Driving a red Monte Carlo?"

Me: "I thought it was a Pontiac... but yeah."

Security Guard: "We had several complaints about that person."

Me: "Was he an undercover officer trying to grab some perverts?"

Security Guard: "No. Not this guy. The police got called a bunch of times last week, and it wasn't until someone with a camera on their cell phone took a picture of the Queer, and a picture of his tag. The police rounded him up. If it ever happens again, make sure you get the tag number so we can do something about this kind of thing..."

And yes, the Security guard really said 'Queer'. Score one for the good guys.

Points, Pillars, Pearls and Lodestones

2007-08-28T20:12:00.000-05:00

"...I want the ability to change to be a part of my personality. Can any of you Christian Conservatives say the same?..."

--BenT, previous post

In the context BenT himself presents, 'change' implies trading one previously held 'truth' for a newer, shinier, BETTER 'truth'. In terms of Christianity, what kind of fool trades a pearl for a piece of lodestone?

We can argue points-- which, ultimately, mean little in the grander scheme --but not pillars. Dan and ER in particular, and BenT to no small degree, all too often question the pillars. They're not interested in honest discussion with honest 'give and take', they want only to change MY mind... make ME capitulate. Dan especially seems to delight it the practice, while hiding behind the skirts of mutual disapprobation-- a clever ploy, which usually comes off, in my ears, as smug enlightened superiority... I get the same from BenT more often than not.

Is there any wonder why I'm bored to tears with all this?

As a Christian-- who is by no means perfect, nor claims to be --anyone who chooses to call me brother MUST accept the pillars. We can agree to disagree on the rest.

Not everyone (or organization) who calls himself 'Christian' is in fact Christian. There are certain things one MUST believe to be Christian. We've had this discussion here before and I won't engage in it again now. But BenT wants to know if I (and any other Conservative Christians out here in Blogland) am as mature and enlightened as he to ALSO "want the ability to change to be a part of my personality." Sounds like smug superiority to me, but I'll answer it.

If the ability to change means to compromise what I know, beyond any shadow of doubt, to be true, then I say, "No. Absolutely not.". But if that 'ability' means allowing the pillars to stand leaving all else subject to the aforementioned ability to 'change ones mind', then I say, "Sure, why not?"

But Dan, ER, and BenT don't want me stand for something as immutable as the pillars I am trying very hard to defend.

I've tried to stay out of this and other discussions here for reasons I've already stated. The previous post most certainly began an an elegy for what America no longer 'Is'. But I am not the one who injected politics-- I merely commented on it. But what, pray tell... what ideology/philosophy... is responsible for the sad state of modern America?

BenT, in a private discussion last week, seemed to think the United States constitution is a 'Guiding' document, but not to be taken literally today because it is outdated in that it's crafter's did not envision a world filled with modern technology and global-relativeness, which did not infect their primitive minds or social mores.

But you can't have it both ways. The Constitution is either written in stone on ALL issues, or it's a worthless scrap of 210+ year old parchment.... There is too much hypocrisy in this discussion as it currently stands... primarily on the Left, but Everyone's hands are dirty. Everyone.

My focus in turning to God is to find something better for myself, personally. Of course! But it doesn't end there-- and no one here seems to have caught on. Part and parcel with what I desire for myself is a need to tell anyone who will listen that it doesn't all go black when we die... there is something beyond this life, and no other 'deity' known to man has revealed Himself to the extent that God has. Because of that everyone has a choice to make, and it's the most important decision ANYONE will ever make.

As for what I stand for... to be my brother, you must accept these pillars:

1. Jesus is God in human flesh
2. He was born of a Virgin
3. He died a substitutionary death for all Mankind
4. He rose from the dead
5. He ascended into Heaven
6. He sits now at the right hand of God the Father
7. He is returning (Physically/Bodily/In the flesh) to establish His EARTHLY kingdom, which will last 1000 years.

The rest is negotiable. But don't ask me to trade these pearls for a pocket full of lodestones.

As to politics, for 'Leftists' who blindly, and hypocritically point their fingers at 'Rightists' I have only one thing to say....

....but then I've said it all before, haven't I? And not a bit of it has ever sunk in.

Learn to do well... or else

2007-08-17T14:58:00.000-05:00

[originally posted in comments at Marshall Art's]

We SHOULD be protecting our borders, our ports, our nuclear facilities. We should take a more isolationist stance in the world. Our borders ARE too wide open, not just in terms of defense, but in terms of culture and decadence. America, once a proud virtuous woman on a church pew, is now little better than a $20 whore on a street corner. Oh, how the virtuous have fallen!

WHEN (not "If") we are attacked again, we WILL have ourselves to blame. Because America has become fat, lazy, hedonistic, perverted, and dare I say it? Dangerous. Not simply to the world, but to herself!

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"
Hosea 8:7

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Galatians 6:7

Go ahead, Hypocrites! Point your fingers and wag your heads at those who try to live virtuously and fall. Did you extend a hand and offer to help them up? Is there no stink of impropriety on you? Do you not also reek of lust, hatred, murder, avarice?

America is getting, and will continue to get, everything she deserves.

"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

Isaiah 1:16-20

...Or don't. Continue to live in filth if you wish. Do you enjoy the whoredoms the world offers? Do you take delight in such things? If emptiness is your promised land... Behold! You are already there.

But if you want something better...

Please reconsider God's plea in Isaiah 1:16-18

Peace Declaration, August 6, 2007

2007-08-08T12:30:00.000-05:00

That fateful summer, 8:15. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast ― silence ― hell on Earth.

The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails. Their hair stood on end. Their clothes were ripped to shreds. People trapped in houses toppled by the blast were burned alive. Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies―Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead.

Within the year, 140,000 had died. Many who escaped death initially are still suffering from leukemia, thyroid cancer, and a vast array of other afflictions.

But there was more. Sneered at for their keloid scars, discriminated against in employment and marriage, unable to find understanding for profound emotional wounds, survivors suffered and struggled day after day, questioning the meaning of life.

And yet, the message born of that agony is a beam of light now shining the way for the human family. To ensure that "no one else ever suffers as we did," the hibakusha have continuously spoken of experiences they would rather forget, and we must never forget their accomplishments in preventing a third use of nuclear weapons.

Despite their best efforts, vast arsenals of nuclear weapons remain in high states of readiness―deployed or easily available. Proliferation is gaining momentum, and the human family still faces the peril of extinction. This is because a handful of old-fashioned leaders, clinging to an early 20th century worldview in thrall to the rule of brute strength, are rejecting global democracy, turning their backs on the reality of the atomic bombings and the message of the hibakusha.

However, here in the 21st century the time has come when these problems can actually be solved through the power of the people. Former colonies have become independent. Democratic governments have taken root. Learning the lessons of history, people have created international rules prohibiting attacks on non-combatants and the use of inhumane weapons. They have worked hard to make the United Nations an instrument for the resolution of international disputes. And now city governments, entities that have always walked with and shared in the tragedy and pain of their citizens, are rising up. In the light of human wisdom, they are leveraging the voices of their citizens to lift international politics.

Because "Cities suffer most from war," Mayors for Peace, with 1,698 city members around the world, is actively campaigning to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2020.

In Hiroshima, we are continuing our effort to communicate the A-bomb experience by holding A-bomb exhibitions in 101 cities in the US and facilitating establishment of Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Study Courses in universities around the world. American mayors have taken the lead in our Cities Are Not Targets project. Mayors in the Czech Republic are opposing the deployment of a missile defense system. The mayor of Guernica-Lumo is calling for a resurgence of morality in international politics. The mayor of Ypres is providing an international secretariat for Mayors for Peace, while other Belgian mayors are contributing funds, and many more mayors around the world are working with their citizens on pioneering initiatives. In October this year, at the World Congress of United Cities and Local Governments, which represents the majority of our planet’s population, cities will express the will of humanity as we call for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The government of Japan, the world’s only A-bombed nation, is duty-bound to humbly learn the philosophy of the hibakusha along with the facts of the atomic bombings and to spread this knowledge through the world. At the same time, to abide by international law and fulfill its good-faith obligation to press for nuclear weapons abolition, the Japanese government should take pride in and protect, as is, the Peace Constitution, while clearly saying "No," to obsolete and mistaken US policies. We further demand, on behalf of the hibakusha whose average age now exceeds 74, improved and appropriate assistance, to be extended also to those living overseas or exposed in "black rain areas."

Sixty-two years after the atomic bombing, we offer today our heartfelt prayers for the peaceful repose of all its victims and of Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki shot down on his way toward nuclear weapons abolition. Let us pledge here and now to take all actions required to bequeath to future generations a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Tadatoshi Akiba
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima

Previous Declarations can be read here...

August 6, 1945 -- 8:15 a.m.

2007-08-08T12:25:00.000-05:00

"Let all the souls here rest in peace as we will never repeat this mistake."

--Apology etched into the granite cenotaph in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

PERSONAL NOTE: I ask you... What need have the Japanese people to apologize for Hiroshima? Or Nagasaki? Why is it Americans today rarely demonstrate this level of humility?

"On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombing, we seek to comfort the souls of all its victims by declaring that we humbly reaffirm our responsibility never to 'repeat the evil.'

" 'Please rest peacefully; for we will not repeat the evil.' "

Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor
The City of Hiroshima
August 6, 2005

"...more than 300 thousand souls of A-bomb victims..."

We still do not have an accurate count of human casualties inflicted by the atomic bomb, but it is estimated that approximately 350,000 soldiers and civilians were in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. After the bombing, radioactive substances fell to earth and remained on the ground for some time. Thousands of people who came into Hiroshima to help with relief activities or look for family members were exposed to this residual radiation. Like those who were directly exposed, many fell ill and some even died. By the time the acute effects were dying down at the end of December 1945, approximately 140,000 people (±10,000) are estimated to have died as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima.

The phrase "more than 300 thousand souls of A-bomb victims" refers to all survivors of the Hiroshima bombing known to have died thus far. To clarify the human damage done by the A-bombing of Hiroshima, a Survey of the A-Bomb Survivor Movement has been conducted regularly since 1979. In 1998, this survey confirmed that 273,212 had died by that year. A total of 30,017 names were added to the register of A-bomb victims between 1999 and 2004. Thus, the total number of A-bomb victims is now estimated to have exceeded 300,000.

To This Date....

2007-08-08T12:23:00.000-05:00

The U.S. has yet to issue an official apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that doesn't mean the U.S., as a nation, shouldn't issue an apology. While the U.S., seemingly, cannot issue an official apology, there is nothing to keep a sitting U.S. president from offering an unofficial personal apology. There is nothing at all keeping individual Americans from doing the same.

Before anyone decides to accuse me of wanting blood and death on the one hand-- in the here and now --while decrying blood and death on the other, sixty-one years ago, let me point you to the preamble at the beginning of the next post, In Memoriam -- Part I

As much as I recognize the necessity of war, I find it nonetheless to be among the worst of human proclivities...

Atomic weapons. Seriously, what good has come of them? Deterrence? Okay... but don't you think the world is less safe with this genie now irrevocably out of the bottle? What of Iran and her quest for the A-bomb?

The U.S. has the utterly unique and infamous distinction of being the only nation to ever have used atomic weapons on another nation. Japan has been the only nation in history to have ever tasted of the suffering borne upon-- to quote myself --atomic winds. It wasn't enough for the U.S. to drop one bomb. One would undoubtedly have ended the war with Japan... the simple threat of a second would have, IMHO, done the trick. But the U.S. wasn't content with dropping just one. It's as though the powers that be looked at the film footage, and said, "Good God! Would you look at that!!! ...Let's do it again!"

Yes, the war needed to end. Yes, Japan started it all by attacking Pearl Harbor; a day interestingly referred to as 'a date which will live in infamy.' Nevermind the fact that Pearl Harbor suffered 2,300 to 2,900 casualties, depending on which source you use, while the Hiroshima bomb alone, in the initial blast, killed approximately 80,000 men, women, and children.

Every death is regrettable. Every shot fired, a failure for humanity. We cheapen ourselves by the use of weapons against our neighbors, and we are lessened by the loss of each life we take.

No I don't like war at all. But neither do I like the idea of men, burdened by an oppressive and insane ideology, killing 241 marines... and getting away with it. Neither do I like the idea that this same ideology mutilates and murderers women for sexual impurity, whether they're guilty or not (guilt being a non-issue as far as I'm concerned...genital mutilation and stoning are barbaric). I hate the idea that these people, warped by evil, find the idea of co-existence with other cultures is anathema to them... that they would rather fly jet liners filled with passengers into skyscrapers filled with workers... not soldiers... and if a certain faction within this country had its way, this murderous ideology would get away with that too.

This war did not end with Afghanistan-- Islam knows no physical border... has no tangible homeland. this war will not end with Iraq. This war, in fact, has only just begun, and few seem to realize it. While we fight like a pack of dogs over a few bones of contention, what's to stop these marauders from sneaking past and hitting us again? We're not paying attention. We haven't learned anything from the past. Not from Chamberlain, not from Hitler, not from Pearl Harbor, not from Hiroshima OR Nagasaki, not from Korea, not Vietnam, not Beirut, not Mogadishu. Israel, it would seem, has learned lessons we have not... Specifically, that War is indeed hell.

So... If I choose to stand with Hiroshima and decry the use and proliferation of atomic weapons, it's because I've gotten a big eye-full of what's going on in the world... and I'm surprised as hell that you haven't.

What follows, then, are two of my own tokens of apology....

In Memoriam -- Part I ..::Revisited::...

2007-08-08T12:01:00.000-05:00

As much as I recognize the necessity of war, I find it nonetheless to be among the worst of human proclivities. Here then is my apology for dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan in the summer of 1945. Admittedly, I know little of Japanese culture; what is appropriate, what is not, so it's likely I may owe yet another apology....

Please use the 'Here's More' link for the full post.

Deflowering the Crysanthemum

            She was led to a small stage prepared for just that moment; the moment they would demonstrate to the world the limit of their power over a nation, through one woman-- as though the horrors they had already unleashed were not enough. It was not enough to destroy her cities, ruin her people, her friends and family, now they would mock and shame her. Make of her something she would not otherwise have chosen. But this is the way of the victorious; they delight in examples, believing even their own propaganda; that they are righteous, and more deserving of victory... That their actions are somehow necessary.
            But she went willingly. Up three steps of aged and polished wood; probably stolen from a decimated temple. And where had they found the shoji screens? --Their paper windows intact and the purest of whites.
            They had made her paint herself in the traditional paints of a geisha, but they were ignorant and so made her paint her entire body. She did not argue... They did not understand. Her hair and pubic mound made a stark contrast to the gleaming white of the paints and she thought... How beautiful. They robed her in a kimono, crimson with yellow dragonflies, and briefly she smiled. They laughed and barked like dogs to one another; their tongues shaped about rough words... Their meaning a mystery.
            Chosen from among the victorious were three men, stripped to the waist of their pine-hued shirts, and ringed about the spot where she was to kneel before a gathering of strange pale faces and stranger eyes. She looked out and over their heads to the ghost of a city, its once proud buildings, the temples, the gardens, all gone; blown to ash in the blink of an eye, and scattered upon atomic winds.
            How many dead? Thousands? She began to cry-- tears drawing lines down the planes of her face --and then steeled herself... The victorious needed this display; garish and brutal as it was. What did it matter if they performed their little Noh play upon the charred bones of an entire city... An entire nation; once proud, now fallen to earth like cherry blossoms in spring...
            But this is summer. The end of summer. She looked to her left and saw an ensemble of taiko drums, drummers all but naked. None would look upon her; they understood her shame, and shared it. A Shakuhachi player stood with flute in hand, his head bent and eyes cast down. His breathing was rhythmic, his kimono dirty. But the flute... Ahh, it was magnificent! She turned to her countrymen and bowed slightly, then turned back to her audience.
            They were a strange people; prideful, uncouth, and so utterly ignorant. They shaped the world to their purpose rather than shaping their lives to the world about them. Their cities were ugly, and nothing about their culture held any sense of tradition. They were upstarts... Children. But children with powerful toys. And they’re eyes... So foreign.
            A man in uniform-- a general perhaps? --rose from his seat up front and turned to face the gathered. He raised his voice and spoke in his rough tongue. He used his hands expressively, but the tone of his voice was dogmatic and said he held her and her nation in contempt.
            "We are the defeated," she softly spoke, and one among those that ringed her whispered brokenly in her tongue.
            "Forgive us Hiroshima, forgive us Nagasaki."
            Another of the three grunted harshly and the first fell silent.
            "It is easy to ask forgiveness when there is no consequence to face." She replied softly. "I will forgive you when the dead do." And though she couldn’t see it she felt him bow his head to her.
            The general quickly finished and motioned to the drummers. As one they struck their drums, building swiftly a rhythm to which she could sing. Their bodies soon glistened with the sheen of sweat, and the power of their drumming grew, intent on stirring the victorious. The Shakuhachi player raised his flute and began a mournful dirge in counter to the beat of the drummers, yet his own rhythm matched them. Together they played perfectly, beautifully... But the assembled did not appreciate this, it was clear on their faces; it was alien to them.
            She knew the words she was to sing. The song had been written for her, by aliens, and memorized in the long hours between dawn and this very moment, but she would not sing it. They knew little of Japanese, and would not know what she sang.
            The man directly behind her undid her deep black hair, removing the long bamboo pins that held it, and she felt its weight as it fell long to her waist. She felt the first tug of the shears at the nape of her neck-- My hair! They are cutting my hair! It had taken years to grow... --and she began to cry once more. And through her tears she saw the child in the first row, a very young girl... What kind of people brings its children to such a spectacle? Barbarians!
            The little girls eyes were the lightest shade of blue, and her hair-- in contrast to her own --was a lighter shade of yellow than the chrysanthemum in her tiny hand. She wore a dark blue dress, and her shoes shone bright and new. She stood close to her mother who held her hand.
            There was a final tug, then release, and she looked about to see her beautiful black hair lying around her. The men to either side of her barber took hold of the crimson kimono’s collar and drew it open, exposing her breasts. Their hands tugged at the sash and they stripped the fabric entirely from her, letting it drop to the platform to cover her hair. She sat kneeling, hands folded in her lap. She shone like polished bone, entirely covered in the white paint.
            Some in the crowd turned their heads, embarrassed to look upon her nakedness, others seemed to gloat, but all held an air of ambivalence. None but the child looked saddened. Then she felt the hands on her, wet with water as they began to make a show of washing her clean. There was symbolism in this of course, the drummers could see it, the Shakuhachi player could see it... And she began to sing.
            It was a song to stir souls, had the victorious possessed such... It was a beautiful melody. The song trembled deep in her throat and crashed out over the audience. It was clear none understood her, but they understood the melody... Understood its pain and suffering, and understood in its cry a longing for a way of life now gone. Whether they realized it as such or not, they also understood that with two swift, cowardly blows, they had managed to decimate not just two cities and countless lives, but an ancient culture as well. But again, that is what victors do. They tear down the temples and the shrines and the theaters and the houses and reshape the land to their own liking. What changes will these men bring? What new ideas to supplant the old?
            Her song rose and fell as hands washed her. She felt them move over her breasts, her stomach, to her thighs and the dark place between. She could feel their fingers move over her skin, but she could not sense a desire in them, they did not grope or fondle, only wash. Her face her neck, her shoulders, her back. They lifted her arms and she held them out like the very image of their crucified god on its hideous totem. They delight in torture; yet revere the god they killed! It’s not unusual to feel great respect for a vanquished foe, but worship? Never!
            If she were in the bathhouse she might have felt desire for these men whose hands touched what no other had, but not here. This was her shame... To be stripped of her mystery; a Noh play devoid of tradition, performed for barbarians. The hands cupped and lifted her breasts, moved under her arms, down her back to her buttocks, and lower. The drummers drummed, the Shakuhachi player played, and she sang as the men shamed her.
            When at last their hands left her, she finished her song and looked about her. The stage was washed in white, the pretty kimono ruined, and her hair... The men stood and left the stage, leaving her where she sat, their hands and arms now white. The general rose again to speak many words, none of which she understood. The drummers were led away. The Shakuhachi player followed. And when the general finished, the men who had led her to this place, mounted the stage to help her rise, and led her down the same steps of aged and polished wood, leaving white prints upon their dark surfaces like the footprint of ghosts.
            Movement dark and swift caught her eye and she looked to see the child running to her. The girl stopped shyly and looking up into her face, smiled and held out the chrysanthemum. She bowed deeply to the child and took the offered gift.
            The girl said something in her beautiful voice; her eyes held sympathy and embarrassment, a genuine sorrow for the painted woman.
            "Thank you, little one." She said, bowing deeper. 'I will remember your kindness."
            A soldier led the girl back to her mother, who fussed over and scolded her, admonishing her for her bravery. Would the child remember? Will she understand what she has done in years to come?
            They did not clothe her, but led her naked back to where they had held her, where they had prepared her for this spectacle. Her escort did not touch her, but directed her with their grunting, and pointing, back and forth in their savage tongue. Soldiers gawked at her, countrymen bowed to her, averting their eyes. She would, of course, commit suicide; her shame was too great. No more parties on the palace lawn, no more plays, no more poetry, no more cherry blossoms in spring. The victors had stolen it all. But she would compose a poem for her death-- though none would ever hear it.
            They came at last to the tents that were her prison. They would take her inside and allow her to wash and clothe herself before escorting her back to the palace, but she could not go back now. She could not bear the look of shame in her father’s eyes, or bear to hear her mother weeping. She would be a reminder to them, of their own shame... Better to die, with honor. So she would run! She would find a place untouched by their hideous weapon and perhaps find a shard of glass to cut her wrists, and compose her death poem.
            And as if thought were motion she leapt away from her captors and ran, ignoring their shouts. She heard them begin to chase and she ran harder. The sound of their boots fell farther and farther behind. Pain shot up from her feet as rocks and glass cut her soles, but she ignored it. There was only running... The pound of blood in her ears, and the beat of her heart. There was only running, breathing... And the sound of thunder crashing through the sky, thunder so powerful it ripped the breath from her, and threw her hard upon the torn earth.
            There was little sound now; only a loud hum over the shouting of men, the feel of their boots shaking through the ground as they neared her... Her own breath, heavy and labored... The beat of her heart, and the hot, wet feel of blood draining from the hole in her chest... They had shot her... Not thunder at all...
            Lifting her head she looked over the ground to the ruined city, to ghostly survivors picking through the rubble, and there lay the Chrysanthemum. The world about it seemed colorless, but the flower was a bright dusty yellow, the color of pollen. It layed in her dimming sight a stark contrast to the desolation that framed it, and reaching for it, she pulled the flower to her breasts. Her lips moved with her last breath and shaped the words of a poem.
            "What was it she said?" Asked one soldier.
            The gunman knelt at her side, brushed a spill of hair from her eyes, and recited,

            "...Chrysanthemum pure
            Amid fields of wide ruin
            Its lovely hair shorn."

ELAshley
Written in one sitting
September 1, 2001
10 days before 9/11

I posted this last year [and the year before as well], and the version you've just read is slightly different-- Some additions, some subtractions, and a lot of changes in punctuation. It would seem Stephen King is right: 'Set your work aside for at least 6 weeks... give it a rest... then come back to it with fresh eyes and edit your work.' This version is better. And since I am the author, and this has never seen publication anywhere but here, I guess I'm free to edit as many times as I wish-- though I suspect a time will come when it will need to be left alone, lest it lose whatever charm it had at its birth.

In Memoriam -- Part II ..::Revisited::..

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

"Forgive us Hiroshima, Forgive us Nagasaki..."

--Deflowering the Chrysanthemum

In Memoriam

What is coming?
I asked of the sky
No thought that blue
Could ever reply
But countless birds
Away did fly
        "Something comes"

What is coming?
I asked again
And felt the brush
Of Insistent wind
Pursuing a path
Only Avians wing
        "Something Comes"

What is coming?
I asked of the sun
The air grown hot
To blister my tongue
Flesh to ash
And in a flash, done
        Something has come

Yet I remain
My ghost, my bone
Remembered this day
In memorial stone
Etched in apology
I've no right to own
        Something has come
                ...and gone

May it not be forgotten

ELAshley
080605.102501.6
Revised:
080606.013316.1

Of course, factually, birds were incinerated in flight, and no wind rushed save those winds atomic, and those that held Enola above the fray.

Interludes in the Control Room

2007-07-25T09:21:00.000-05:00

Yesterday afternoon in the control room, I had two short conversation with a few coworkers...

Coworker #1: "Did you watch the debate last night?"

EL: "No. I had better things to do. How can you debate 8 or 9 different guys and have time enough to give substantive answers to lame questions?

Coworker #1: "Not all the questions were lame, you know they were posted online by some 3000 people.."

EL: "yeah, I heard. Weren't those thing available on YouTube all afternoon? couldn't the various campaigns have scanned them over a bit to get a picture of what the 'askers' wanted, and prep their answers ahead of time?"

Coworker #1: "Don't know about that... but you can check out the questions they asked on CNN.com"

EL: "I'll pass. I'm just not interested at this point. All these debates so far from even the first Primary... It just looks like a big infomercial for the Democratic Party. The only two who're really standing out are Obama and Clinton, with Edwards running a close third."

Coworker #1: You know, if Clinton wins..."

EL: "I've heard tell there's an 80% chance of that."

Coworker #1: yeah, looks like, but if she wins she'll likely get reelected which means we'll have lived through 32 years of only two families ruling the country?"

EL: "Ruling? [chuckles] Yeah, scary ain't it? Clinton messed up his eight. Didn't retaliate after the first attack on the World Trade Center. Did nothing substantive after the USS Cole... nothing after our Embassy's in Africa were bombed. And we tucked tail and ran after Mogadishu? Isn't that what the democrats are trying to do now?"

Coworker #1: "Right. Do we really want another eight years with two Clintons in the White House again?"

...::FADE TO INTERLUDE #2::...

Coworker #2: "What will they call Bill if his wife becomes president?"

Coworker #3: "Probably the "First Man"

EL: "Naw, Adam's the First Man. Let's please not compare him to Adam, however apropos... or not."

Coworker #2: "I think we should call him the 'First Lady'." [Chuckles all around]

EL: "What about the "First Ladies Man'?" [Guffaws all around]

Now, I thought "First Ladies man" was cute. Thought maybe I coined a term. But google, as of this morning, has the listing for "First Ladies Man" + "Clinton" at 408. Anyway, Clinton's two terms were near disasters, Bush's hasn't been much better; albeit he actually acted like a president when we were attacked... he rarely defends himself from unjust criticism... Now we have 8 more years of Clinton to look forward to? What a complete and utter disaster for this country!!

What? Are we going to 'ping-pong' the presidency back and forth between two families for the foreseeable future? Will Jeb Bush run after Hillary's stint? This is ridiculous. Anyone but Hillary, please. Even John Edwards.

Though I'd much prefer a Newt Gingrich, or a Fred Thompson... someone with back bone.

Back to the debate: The only candidate on the stage with both courage and intellectual honesty (and, according to Rush, 'The only adult on stage') was Joe Biden.

YouTube Questioner: "Dear Presidential Candidates. See those three flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandmother, my father, and my oldest son. Someday mine will join them. I do not want to see my youngest sons join them. I have two questions. By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all US troops be out of Iraq, and how many family members do you have serving in uniform?"

Sen Biden's Response: "There's not a single military man in this audience who will tell this senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today. Let's start telling the truth. Number one: you take all the troops out, you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the green zone where I've been seven times and shot at, you better make sure you have protection for them or let them die. Number two. So you can't leave them there, and it's going to take a minimum of 5,000 troops to 10,000 just to protect our civilians! So while you're taking them out, governor, take everybody out. That may be necessary. Number three, the idea that we all voted, except for me, for that appropriation, that man's son is dead. For all I know, it was an IED. Seventy percent of all the deaths occurred have been those roadside bombs. We had money in that bill to begin to build and send immediately mine resistant vehicles and increase by 80% the likelihood none of your cadets will die, general -- and they all voted against it. How, in good conscience, can you vote not to send those vehicles over there as long as there's one single, solitary troop there?"

Good answer Senator Biden!

Senators Clinton? Obama? Care to respond?

My Narrow-Minded Faith

2007-07-22T14:27:00.000-05:00

Thank you Ms. Green. Eloquent as always.

----

There is no God but God Almighty: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, The Angel of the LORD, the Son of the Living God, Jesus Christ the Savior of the World, currently sitting at the right hand of the Father.

All Praise, All Glory, All Worship to God in the Highest. And to Jesus His Son, soon to be crowned King of kings and Lord of lords, who will sit upon the throne of his father David, in Jerusalem, and will rule the world in peace with an iron rod. We will beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. What a day that will be!

Hallelujah!

Amen!!

----

Today is the day of salvation! Seek Him while He may yet be found!

Worth remembering-- for it's beauty, if nothing else

2007-07-22T00:23:00.000-05:00

The Garden

How vainly men themselves amaze
To win the palm, the oak, or bays,
And their uncessant labors see
Crowned from some single herb or tree,
Whose short and narrow-vergèd shade
Does prudently their toils upbraid;
While all the flowers and trees do close
To weave the garlands of repose.

Fair Quiet, have I found thee here,
And Innocence, thy sister dear!
Mistaken long, I sought you then
In busy companies of men:
Your sacred plants, if here below,
Only among the plants will grow;
Society is all but rude,
To this delicious solitude.

No white nor red was ever seen
So amorous as this lovely green;
Fond lovers, cruel as their flame,
Cut in these trees their mistress' name.
Little, alas, they know or heed,
How far these beauties hers exceed!
Fair trees! wheresoe'er your barks I wound
No name shall but your own be found.

When we have run our passion's heat,
Love hither makes his best retreat:
The gods who mortal beauty chase,
Still in a tree did end their race.
Apollo hunted Daphne so,
Only that she might laurel grow,
And Pan did after Syrinx speed,
Not as a nymph, but for a reed.

What wondrous life is this I lead!
Ripe apples drop about my head;
The luscious clusters of the vine
Upon my mouth do crush their wine;
The nectarine and curious peach
Into my hands themselves do reach;
Stumbling on melons as I pass,
Insnared with flowers, I fall on grass.

Meanwhile the mind, from pleasure less,
Withdraws into its happiness:
The mind, that ocean where each kind
Does straight its own resemblance find;
Yet it creates, transcending these,
Far other worlds, and other seas;
Annihilating all that's made
To a green thought in a green shade.

Here at the fountain's sliding foot,
Or at some fruit-tree's mossy root,
Casting the body's vest aside,
My soul into the boughs does glide:
There like a bird it sits and sings,
Then whets and combs its silver wings;
And, till prepared for longer flight,
Waves in its plumes the various light.

Such was that happy garden-state,
While man there walked without a mate:
After a place so pure and sweet,
What other help could yet be meet!
But 'twas beyond a mortal's share
To wander solitary there:
Two paradises 'twere in one
To live in Paradise alone.

How well the skillful gardener drew
Of flowers and herbs this dial new;
Where from above the milder sun
Does through a fragrant zodiac run;
And, as it works, the industrious bee
Computes its time as well as we.
How could such sweet and wholesome hours
Be reckoned but with herbs and flowers!

--Andrew Marvell (1621-1678)
First publication, circa 1681

2007-07-21T21:16:00.000-05:00

Tammy Faye Messner

1942-2007

"May the good Lord bless and keep you. May he make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May he lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace."

ISAIAH 5:20, 24

2007-07-21T16:19:00.000-05:00

Bauer: Evil of Islamo-fascism evident in U.S., Israel
Jim Brown OneNewsNow.com July 17, 2007

A prominent pro-Israel activist says "elites" in America are afraid to confront what he calls "the gathering storm of Islamo-fascism." And the evil behind Islamo-fascism, says Gary Bauer, is nearly incomprehensible.

American Values president Gary Bauer has told the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in Washington, DC, that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are under attack from a "sick" and "evil" philosophy that is behind the terror campaign currently being waged against Israel.

Bauer, who was greeted with a 20-second standing ovation after being introduced, said a certain group in America wants to make excuses for Islamo-fascism.

"If a bunch of Iraqi children are blown up because they're accepting candy from a U.S. soldier, these elites blame George Bush," Bauer shared. "If rockets are pouring into northern Israel from Hezbollah, these elites blame Israel. They come up with a thousand excuses -- 'well, it's social injustice; it's poverty' -- all sorts of things to explain away what's happening."

The former presidential candidate characterized the fight against Islamic terrorism as "a great battle between good and evil." In addition, he said, the fruits of the Islamo-fascist ideology are evident in the terror campaign being unleashed against Israel.

"[W]e've all seen the photos and the pictures of mothers in Gaza leaping with joy at the news that their son [or daughter] has blown himself up, as long as they're assured that he killed Jews in the process," Bauer pointed out. "Every mother, I believe, has been imbued by God with the impulse to protect their young. But this philosophy is so evil it can even make a mother shed that normal motherly emotion."

CUFI's Second Annual Israel/Washington DC Summit continues through Thursday, July 19.

----

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ...as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."

Personal Note: This nation IS sick, and it's not simply a Democrat vs. Republican, or Liberal vs. Conservative issue. It's a Light vs. Darkness issue. It's a Children of God vs. the Children of Satan issue. The war is ratcheting up, but FEAR is not at issue here... not for the righteous, for what have we to fear knowing Light has already won? All we must do is hold the ground given to our care and defense. And warn as many as will listen that the time for choosing Light is now. Better now than tomorrow, for no one is promised tomorrow.

Need Any More Proof that Democrats are Idiots?

2007-07-20T14:28:00.000-05:00

Republicans are trying to insert language into a Homeland Security bill that will protect, from civil liability, Americans who report suspicious behavior to the authorities... ala the Flying Imam's who are currently suing the passengers who reported THEIR suspicious behavior. All the evidence appears to paint a picture of deliberate suspicious behavior. And guess what? Yeah, that's right. Democrats are trying to kill the language that would protect citizens who turn in the bad guys. That means the clerk who reported to the authorities the Fort Dix plot could get sued. Why don't we take it a step further and make it illegal for anyone to report crime anonymously via community "CrimeStoppers" program. That'll teach the dirty snitches.

Have the democrats learned nothing from 9/11? Do they not believe the heated testimony of those who want to kill Americans? Pull out of Iraq? Punish the citizens who report suspicious behavior?

Democrats are too dangerous to hold office.

That's Right! No BLOODBATH after Vietnam Pullout

2007-07-19T20:17:00.000-05:00

John Kerry never disappoints. Always an entertaining liar.

The Limbaugh Compromise

2007-07-19T19:53:00.000-05:00

What follows is brilliant. And it'll never happen. Democrat in Congress don't have a single complete spine between them... Nope, I take it back. Joseph Lieberman DOES have a complete spine.

"I want to present a hypothetical here. I know this would not happen, but I'll offer a compromise, the Limbaugh Compromise to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House. The Limbaugh compromise:

"I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat, and here are my conditions to agree with you on a pullout.

"When Al-Qaeda celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat, every TV image of Al-Qaeda celebrating must be a split screen. On one side, Al-Qaeda celebrating; on the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves.

"When Al-Qaeda slaughters Iraqis after we pull out and we see the pictures of this on TV, every TV image must show a split screen. On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes; on the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin congratulating each other with big laughs.

"When Al-Qaeda takes over another village, ransacks another village, another town, another city, after we pull out, on one side of the screen, I want desperate villagers running for their lives. On the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin, shaking hands and embracing and congratulating themselves.

"When the American flag burners in the Middle East start burning [our] flag and the president and vice president in effigy, I want one side of the split screen to show every image of that happening. I want the flag burners. I want the characters of Bush and Cheney being burned in effigy, and on the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of a smiling Harry Reid, a smiling Chuck Schumer, a smiling Carl Levin embracing, shaking hands, laughing and congratulating themselves.

"I think that's a reasonable compromise, and I've offered it here in all sincerity. If the Left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pullout from Iraq."

Christians Crucified In Iraq, Dutch MP Says

2007-07-19T15:08:00.000-05:00

The tolerant religion of peace...

Comments on this article at BosNewsLife are not very 'Christian'. Here are all the comments-- in order --from a poster calling himself "Mohammed"

"We we conquer Europe...starting with the Netherlands, Belgium ,England ,Germany and Sweden. Your children will be of Arabic blood. We will own your women. your children and your property. The demographics are on our side and you have spit upon your christian heritage. With time...not war or violence...we muslims shall overtake you, conquer you and your children will be as servants in thier own land."

"In Europe...christians are a minority and getting even smaller. It is furtile ground for Islam This once staunchly ancient christian continent will be overcome by Mohammed. The new E.U. doesn't even mention God or mention its christian heretage. Athiesm and Masonic Relativism rule supreme in Europe. It is ready to fall to the forces of Islam...give us a mere 50 years and Europe will be Muslim."

"We will overtake Europe and America shall be the next to fall. Within 100 years Islam will be the predominate religion. The fastest growing religion in America is Islam. Your wives and children are weak "Relativist". They shall take up the righteous name of Mohammed. They shall be fathered by Arabic blood .Give us but 100 years and America is Islamaic.You lost...we won!"

"No...you so-called christians permit abortion, gay marriage and interbreeding between human and animal. You do nothing...nothing. Your so enthralled with your own perverse world. You will be converted to Islam...your women shall lay with real men of God. You perverted christians will reap what you have sown...death of the spirit and sons of satan."

"Yes...you are weak. Allah shall stand on your pitiful hand wrigging. We have all the oil...you are slaves to oil. Your country will soon colapse because you need Arab oil. Your children shall cry from hunger and your young men shall fight for scrapes. Your women shall give themselves willingly to our Islamic way of life to feed thier starving children. Victory is ours!...watch the next 10 years and see how you will beg Allah and Muhammeds mercy!"

"You make me laugh...your oil fields can't even pruduce 1/2 of what you need daily. When your economy collapses...Islam will be there to convert the remnant that survives after you kill each other over a loaf of bread. Have you seen you dollar lately...its worth nothing! Time is short for you christians."

And Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq. Just remember, America deserves every terrorist action upon her soil because she has forgotten God. And Washington D.C. is 'Infidel' Prime.

Another commenter, Jacques, has this to say...

"Muhammad is right but partially only: We Christians have discarded our Christian heritage, allowing monstrous things in our societies such as abortion, cloning, same-sex, pornography: God's chastisement is upon us and we will suffer a lot under the Islamic yoke and perish under its sword unless we repent and we come back to our Christian roots. But Muhammad is wrong bcs the Christian martyr's blood will call revenge of God upon Islam. Islam will be destroyed and all Muslims will convert to the true faith or will perish: There are a lot of prophecies saying that. Islam was on the way to disappear one century ago: It is our money (the money of OIL) that revived it along the 20th century. That's the mistake of the Islamists: They believe that's their strong faith that make Islam to expand, while that's only their financial power."

Amen. Islam is doomed to a future of blood and fire. Islam will never know peace apart from God. Not Allah, but the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the Angel of the Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God. No muslim will enter Heaven.

Yeah. You can comment.

2007-07-18T15:06:00.000-05:00

Sorry, no commenting except for team members. Wanna be one? Send a request. For now I'm simply tired of it all. Have something to say? Send it via email... maybe it'll find its way into comments. I'm not long for this blog anyway.

One more time for the hard of hearing...

2007-07-16T20:48:00.000-05:00

Can Bob Novak Change Media’s View of Valerie Plame Wilson Affair?

No.

Because the media are filled with lying, hypocritical, mental and moral defectives.

In Conversation with a Nurse

2007-07-14T22:21:00.000-05:00

It would seem doctors in this area do not treat causes-- a stunning admission from a nurse who seemed equally stunned to be admitting it. Yes, it's true! Doctors treat symptoms, not causes! According to this nurse, whose husband weighs more than 300 lbs, and is diabetic on the verge of losing a foot, she's the shocking victim of modern American medicine. I say shocking, because she was shocked that she hadn't realized it herself until it came out of her own mouth.

For all her training, all her knowledge, it never occured to her to apply what she knew about nutrition, and the chemicals that comprise our food, to treat the cause of her husbands problems, seeking instead to rely on the standard treatment of symptoms.

It was amazing to hear this nurse of 15 years admit that the reason some diseases-- diabetes in particular --are considered incurable, is because they ARE incurable when treated as a collection of symptoms, rather than digging for and treating the underlying causes. Got a cough? prescribe something to stop it! Got pneumonia? Prescribe a strong antibiotic! Nothing wrong with that, right? Often times such treatments are necessary. But what is completely UN-necessary is leaving the treatment at that... not looking for why one has a cough or why one has pneumonia. Treating the symptoms alone and ignoring the cause.

This woman was on the verge of getting her husband to undergo a lapband procedure to help him lose weight, despite knowing all the risks both during and after the procedure. What was it Hypocrates, the father of medicine, said?

"Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food"

She also admitted that the doctors she knows all think people who prefer more holistic aproaches to medicine are kooks.

The conversation ended with her determined to use her knowledge and skills to attack the cause, and to seek a more holistic lifestyle to include changing her and her husbands diet.

Bravo!

Weigh that with what Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had to say about revamping America's healthcare system.... Start at the beginning! In the education of doctors!

Mike Adams has a not too funny cartoon on the difference between how China's deals with corrupt FDA officials and how the U.S. deals with corrupt FDA officials. The difference is stark. He has a compelling commentary there as well.

The body can heal itself if you give it what it needs in terms of raw material... and if you're religiously diligent. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. These bodies were meant to live forever, and yet the average life expectancy is somewhere in the neighborhood of 70?

Figure it out for yourself-- I know one nurse who has! The only way you'll believe is to figure it out for yourself.

Pithy Review: 1408

2007-07-14T22:14:00.000-05:00

They stopped making movies like this decades ago.

The last fifteen seconds serves up a heart-wrenching twist; the kind that grabs the eyeballs and squeezes out its due in tears. It's an ending that is both unambiguous, and the alien step-sister to what passes for horror these days.

It was worth every penny of its matinee price and then some.

Adieu...

2007-07-12T19:42:00.000-05:00

I was given an orchard
To tend and to manage
Many long years ago
That has since grown savage
I cared nothing for pruning
Neither harvest nor toil
I cared nothing for weeding
Or tending the soil
Yet as day lay setting
I survey what was mine
And there'll be no breads
Or late summer wines
For the grain fields have perished
The arbors are thin
No figs on the bough
'neath these gables of sin
I'll reap what I have sown
Which is little of worth
For Him who so gifted me
With rich fertile earth
I must seem ungrateful
With so small a yield
Of the promise of bounty
From orchard and field
Pitiful in comparison
To His mercy and grace
I am filled with shame
To be given a place
As a welcomed honored son
Oh, what mercy is mine
To be so utterly loved
By One so graciously kind

ELAshley
071207.075430.6

It's Official...

2007-07-11T00:32:00.000-05:00

If you're not Catholic you're not a proper Christian.

Or so says a 16-page report issued by the Vatican and endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI.

From the TimesOnline...

The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as "not proper Churches" in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.

Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlining the "defects" of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.

Now personally, I don't give two figs for Ecumenism, because it seeks to draw all faiths together in a kind of shared... spirituality... which is contrary to the doctrines of faith contained within the Bible. There is only one God. And very few "Religions" worship Him.

But as for Defects within NON-Catholic churches, let's turn the lens on Catholicism for a moment...

The Eucharist, according to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ Himself. Communion for Catholics is like going to a great big boar-roast-- a glorified Hawaiian luau. Every time good faithful Catholics line up to the altar the priests carve a little off His pierced side to plop into the starving mouths of the faithful. This Eucharist is what makes the believer clean... what sanctifies him, not the shed blood of Jesus, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Mary, the perpetual Virgin, is co-redemptrix for believers. People pray to Mary so she can pray to her son who is angry with Mankind for rejecting and killing Him.

Mary was born without sin... immaculately conceived! Which means she could have died for the sins of mankind had she been able to live a sinless life. What need she then of bearing the Son of God if she herself could have went to that old rugged cross?

Did you know Mary is called the Queen of Heaven? In Akkad she [the Queen of Heaven] was called Ishtar. In Sumer she was called Inanna. In Egypt, Isis. All these women were goddesses; each referred to as 'The Queen of Heaven.'

But in truth...

The Eucharist is just a cracker. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." Talk about putting God in a box! These people keep him on the carving table!

Jesus said, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Sorry, no mention of Mary in there.

And why the insistence in turning Mary into a goddess? Doesn't Catholicism recognize that by doing so they break the Commandment that admonishes against having "other" gods before Him? This is Idolatry

As Mary being born of a Virgin herself.... Sorry, there's no mention in scripture to support this. None whatsoever.

I'm truly sorry Pope Benedict, but when it comes to pointing out defects, I'm afraid you don't have much room to talk.

What About Fairness Doctrine for Education?

2007-07-09T12:06:00.000-05:00

Here is a reasoned, coherent argument FOR including intelligent design in Public Education's curriculum.

Artificial Life by Intelligent Design
by Babu Ranganathan

Measured in Inevitability

2007-07-08T14:53:00.000-05:00

There are seven Continents. One has no government to speak of, and no divisions-- at least not the kind that foment conflict. It is united in its isolation and its inhospitable climate... no one, aside from the scientist and the strange, really want to live there year round. And even the scientist doesn't want to stay there and make a life for himself.

Another is a nation unto itself. It has a single government, and is unified in national pride and spirit.

Then there is North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia.

Asia is rife with divisions which has resulted in bloodshed throughout human history. Especially in this last century.

Africa is a veritable basket case of divisions, feuds, petty tyrants and quasi-kings. With the exception of South Africa, life is cheap among the nations of Africa. Africa has seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, rape, AIDS, starvation, depots, famine, neglect, ignorance... and so much more.

Yet for all the divisions between ethnic groups, religious groups, and national borders, Africa is entertaining the idea of a continental union-- perhaps inspired by Europe and the success of the Euro --encompassing the entire continent. There are many hurdles to overcome before such a vision is even remotely possible. For now, call it a Continental Pipe-dream.

There has also been talk among some South American leaders of creating a European Style union there, encompassing the whole of the Continent... Chavez among them, though I suspect he envisions himself as king over such a fiefdom.

Then there is Europe, whose union is nothing short of remarkable. That they have advanced to the point where they share a single currency! Ratification of a Constitution is not far off. Already the Euro is a greater monetary powerhouse than the US dollar, and has been for the last couple of years.

Europe is seeking to take the lead in Peace Talks between Israel and the greater Middle East. They desire to extend their membership to Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Libya... all the lands once ruled by the Roman Empire, though in its present incarnation I don't see Libya, Egypt, OR Syria joining the EU-- Ghadaffi has expressed great interest in creating an African Union. But Israel... Israel greatly desires membership.

A poll from February of this year showed 75% of Israelis 'would like Israel to be part of the European Union'. Only 11% said they would leave Israel if granted EU citizenship-- though the article did not say 'to where.'

Lastly there's North America: the United States, Canada and Mexico. Talk of a North American Union with open borders and a common currency is already making people both nervous and angry. There are also many who scoff at the idea, saying no such plan is in the works. And yet many of America's policy meetings between her member countries seem aimed at loosening the borders that separate the three, rather than strengthening them.

Adjusting tack, the European Union, even after it finally adopts a Constitution will still not be that prophetic 'Revived Roman Empire' described in the Bible. But the EU must be in place for that Empire to arise. Europe, whether anyone reading this cares to believe, will supersede the United States in terms of economic and military power. And it will be in our lifetime.

The world is changing. It's never stopped, in fact. I asked in Unpopular whether anyone truly believed America would be free 20 or 30 years from now. Many of the responces pick up the ball and run with the belief America will shine even greater in years to come-- and that may be true --declaring we will be MORE Free. Mark even told me to "chin-up," that things aren't really as bad as they seem. But I'm reminded of a quote from "The Matrix"...

"Do you hear that Mister Anderson? That is the sound of Inevitability."

For some of you, the idea of "prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime" is probably a ridiculous notion, never mind the fact that Israel became a nation again, after 2500 years of dispersement. Never mind the fact that Israel now controls Jerusalem, whose history extends as far back as the book of Genesis.

The Euro is gaining in strength-- it is already worth more than the dollar. Europe will soon ratify a Constitution. She will increase in stature while America decreases. Petty squabbling among America's elite will result in a decrease of personal liberty... it's already happening. It happened under FDR's watch, Kennedy's watch, Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's, Clinton's, Bush's... The changes have been incremental and so small as to not draw much attention, but the changes are apparent to anyone looking. Change is a simple fact of life. In point of fact, Change is the one UN-changing force in the lives of men.

Do we have freedoms today we didn't yesterday? Of course. But at what price? What was the trade off? I can tell you what the trade off WILL be... in due course.

National Sovereignty.

"Do you hear that Mister Anderson? That is the sound of Inevitability."

Just as over geological Ages the Continents drifted, deepening the gulfs between, so too have they begun now to drift back, metaphorically speaking, in an ebb and flow measured in Millenia. The world is getting smaller. Language is no longer a barrier.

The work at Babel was abandoned circa 5000 years ago. But 'Babel' is beginning to rise again. Both figuratively AND literally. Babylon is rising... from ignominity to new world wonder. And the spiritual work that was abandoned in her some 5000 years ago will also rise with her.

Say what you will. The evidence is all around you. I can't make you open you eyes. I can't make you believe.

But I made you read, didn't I?

Now praying gets 7 Christians arrested

2007-07-07T17:00:00.000-05:00

Holding Bibles while lying prostrate = 'Disturbing Peace'

Unpopular

2007-07-05T21:05:00.000-05:00

Not to be the voice of pessimism, but does anyone really believe America will be "Free" 20 years from now?

30 years from now?

Have we not pushed the envelope of "Freedom" too far? That by lying idly by, allowing "Progressive" change to occur, it may be too late to take it all back? A tea party is pretty much out of the question-- the government would only send in troops and shoot us all. Does anyone recall Kent State?

Are we really "Free"? Is this still "America"?

Let's talk about the Bill of Rights. Why do you suppose the Framers chose to protect speech? And what is it about speech that needs protecting? What KIND of speech, exactly, needs protecting? I'll tell you... Unpopular speech.

To protect the voice of dissidents, is the highest charge of a just and fair government, and our Founders knew this well. How do I know this? It was the very first thing they addressed in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What's very interesting to note about the First Amendment, is it's subject matter. First, there is the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, comprising this nations right to Freedom of Religion. And here's the interesting part: Immediately after is Freedom of Speech. Now, why do you suppose they included Freedom of Religion in the same Amendment as Freedom of Speech (to say nothing of the Press, Assembling, and Redress)? Were they not then deemed to be of equal importance?

Let's extend this line of thought a little further...

If we've allowed this nation to devolve to such a point that many feel the squashing of Christian liberty is not only Constitutional, but chic in many instances, why should it surprise us that they now want to squash speech? Again, what kind of speech is protected by the First Amendment? Unpopular speech.

Many in this nation already believe they can toss out the Ten Commandments, Portraits of Jesus, and any mention of Jesus in Student sponsored prayer from the public square. And they've largely gotten away with it because Liberalism has been largely responsible for the state of our Public Education System. Too many students graduate from Public Education without an adequate, factual, understanding of our Founding, our Constitution, or our History. By design? Who can say, but it's not relevant to my point, which is: Because of the poor state of education in this country, many citizens see no problem whatsoever with regulating speech. The Fairness Doctrine is a prime example.

What kind of speech does the First Amendment protect? Unpopular speech. Why does the Left and their uneducated myrmidons see no problem in squashing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and so many more? Because they see nothing wrong with kicking God out of the classroom. Because they see no problem with stipping the Ten commandments from the Courtroom wall. Because they've felt no compunction in inventing doctrines like "Separation of Church and State" and the "Fairness Doctrine". Both of which go against the grain of real Americans, and blatantly violate, the First Amendment.

If they care nothing for the First Amendment, why should we expect them to respect the others?

So again, I ask you...

Do you really believe America will be free 20... 30... years from now? How much more "Progressive" -ness can this nation absorb and still REMAIN America?

2007-07-04T11:42:00.000-05:00

George Washington had this to say in his farewell address, 1796....

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

And from where does enlightenment come? From secular knowledge alone? Or is it that, as Washington stated, Enlightenment is founded upon religion and morality. Do intellectual pursuits and honesty suffer because of the public acknowledgement of Religion and Morality? Of God? Or is it that such intellectual pursuits and honesty are dependent upon Religion and Morality?

So what has happened in the last 211 years that has so changed the philosophy of our founding principles? Have we become more enlightened? To the point that we realized Religion and Morality are hinderances? Or have we adopted strange gods? Marxism. Multi-culturalism. Among others.

How has modern enlightenment managed to convince itself that it does not need religion or morality... or God? How have we gotten to the place where the ACLU can claim a painting of Jesus in a St. Tammany parish Courthouse is unConstitutional? How is such a painting unConstitutional now, when Men like George Washington and our founding fathers clearly believed otherwise?

How long will America continue to be free if Americans don't even know the history of their nations founding, and the principles upon which it was built? How have we allowed the ACLU and Liberalism to so distort the Constitution to the point that America may well not survive?

We have the freedoms we enjoy today BECAUSE of Religion and Morality. Because the men and women who fought for this nation held strongly to those two pillars. But sappers have been at the foundation for almost a century, and their work is nearly complete.

George Washington would not recognize America today. He would likely weep for the dehumanization of the unborn, and a lack of religious knowledge and morality in this once great nation. What good is education in America if it neglects Religion and Morality?

Enjoy your fourth of July. And pray for this nation.

Regarding the Libby Commutation -- Corrected

2007-07-03T00:01:00.001-05:00

Liberals in the Media and elsewhere are shocked... simply SHOCKED... and outraged that President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's two-and-a-half-year prison term.

As with so many other things, these Liberals are hypocrites and worse... deceitful to boot.

1. Some have accused conservatives of holding a double standard in that they castigated Clinton for lying to a Federal Grand Jury, yet pushed for a Libby pardon.

What's hypocritical about the Left's accusation here is President Clinton didn't spend a single day in prison-- wasn't even sentenced to prison. So the double standard lies in the Left's desire to see a Republican staffer punished more harshly than a Democratic president for, essentially, the very same crime.

2. This past march when Libby was convicted, Liberal Media mouthpieces all over the airwaves (including FOX) touted this as "The highest-ranking White House official" ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

But this is patently false. Does anyone remember Henry Cisneros? Bill Clinton Cabinet Member? Henry Cisneros Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? The same Henry Cisneros who was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. The same Cisneros who managed a plea agreement of 'guilty' to lying to the FBI, who also managed to avoid jail alrogether. And the Left are screaming about Libby getting his sentence commuted? Besides which, Cisneros' conviction was AFTER Iran-Contra. Which makes Cisneros the highest White House official who would have been ordered to prison for a very long time.... had he not gotten off the hook big-time. The Clinton White House stone-walled the Barrett investigation at every turn-- the net result being that Cisneros was let off the hook. Last time I checked, EVERY member of the President's Cabinet outranks the Vice President's chief of staff.

3. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew who leaked the Plame name BEFORE he began to focus on the office of the Vice President. Before. And that 'who' was Richard Armitage-- there's your man. And yet Fitzgerald continued his investigation, and Libby for some inexplicable reason chose to lie about something that ultimately had no bearing on the outing of a NON-covert CIA operative. Even on the day Fitzgerald handed down his indictment, he clearly stated that Ms. Plame was NOT outed, and that NO charge for such was included in the indictment.

So Henry Cisneros, a bigger political fish than Libby; he pleads guilty to a lesser charge and ultimately spends NO time in jail, eventually getting a pardon from his boss, while Libby gets 30 months for the very same "crime" to which Cisneros pled guilty? So Libby, a Republican, get's a harsher sentence than Cisneros, a Democrat?

Talk about injustice! Clinton tells a bold-faced lie to a Federal Grand Jury, is justly impeached for it, get's to keep his office, and his freedom, but Libby get's two and a half years? Cisneros get's NO time, and the Liberal pus-gobs on TV get all indignant over Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence?

And many of these "Wonders of Intellectual Acuity" think talk-radio needs to be reined in? It's the other way around. Liberal Media needs to be reined in. They have a lot of nerve accusing talk-radio of propagating distortions of fact.

How about these pardons? Signed by President Clinton on his last day in office, for people who did far worse, by degrees, than Libby.

Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.

Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.

Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted on the bank fraud charged and was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a half way house. He had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions.

Roger Clinton, the president's half-brother, on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade before. He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.

President Clinton waited 'til all these (with the exception of Roger who finished his sentence a decade BEFORE president Clinton took office) served their sentences, THEN pardoned them. A lot of good that did MISTER McDougal, who died in prison.

James McDougal died of a heart attack in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. The circumstances of his death remain questionable: he was apparently denied access to his heart medication, and he was placed in solitary confinement without the medication.

So, Scooter libby gets a commutation-- but not a pardon! And the Media wonders about double standards?

But back to Cisneros in closing: Who here remembers David Barrett, the Independent Counsel assigned the job of investigating Cisneros? From Wiki:

The office of the independent counsel issued a press release along with the final report stating:

An accurate title for the Report could be, "WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING." After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded.

Here's the disconnect in Liberal minds [at least in my neck of the woods]. Former Governor Don Siegleman and Health South CEO Richard Scrushy have been sentenced to decent jail terms, seven and a half and six years respectively. Yet on a local talk radio on Liberal Night [yes, they only get one night], these men bemoan Libby's commutation, while insisting Siegleman and Schrushy should be let out of jail. There is a HUGE double standard here.

_________
Apologies for the error. All I can only point to are the late hour and heavy eyelids for confusing Henry Cisneros with Michael Milken. My overall point remains however: the glaring double-standard of Liberals and Media, their hypocrisy, and their deceitfulness in relating the facts...

Opening Monologue: Thursday, June 28, 2007

2007-06-30T23:36:00.000-05:00

[Rush Limbaugh had plenty to say the day the Amnesty Bill died a well deserved death. Nothing inflammatory... just good ole common sense and astute observation. Yes, I listen to Limbaugh. No, I am not ashamed of it.]

RUSH: 46 to 53, and it is over. We have some audio sound bites from the debate that happened on the floor of the Senate this morning. It's truly astounding, and I want to you hear these sound bites. Here's what's going to happen next. Just a little prediction here, and I told you, we went out on a limb yesterday and predicted to you this thing would go down in flames.

There were 18, as I counted, 18 switch votes, and, by the way, I want to tell you one thing, everybody is going to try to portray this as a loss for the president, which it is. And everybody is going to try to portray this as talk radio running amuck, "We gotta do something about it." In fact, I know for a fact that Democrats were telling Republicans in the Senate yesterday, "Well, just go ahead and vote for this thing, by the time you're up for reelection, we'll have dealt with talk radio." There were Democrats telling Republicans that they shouldn't worry about it because we're going to deal with talk radio. Now they're really going to deal with talk radio. This Fairness Doctrine stuff is going to really heat up. What's going to make it different this time, I think, at least on the side in the Senate is that Republicans are going to join Democrats in all this. But don't worry, folks, we are geared up for this and ready for it. In addition to all that, I think what's going to happen is there will be propaganda now from the open borders Republicans like Lindsey Grahamnesty. I say this because some of the things that he said on the floor of the Senate today, not just Grahamnesty, but a bunch of others are going to say that you and I are now going to be responsible for Hispanics voting for Democrats because we opposed this bill.

You're going to be tarred and feathered as a vocal and loud minority, and racists, and all that, but they can't say you don't count. When the rubber hit the road, that's why one of the reasons I was fairly confident about this and not panicking yesterday, one of the reasons, when the rubber hit the road, they listened to you. They listened to the polling on this. You shut down Washington's whole phone system today. Passport offices, everything was shut down. In the Senate I think they shut down the phone system, Jeff Sessions said something like that, just to avoid having the whole thing get shut down. They had to limit access to it because you were being heard. American people in this country, on balance-- not in every instance --but they get what they want. In this case, this bill is dead for two years now because Dingy Harry says he can't bring this up next year, it's the presidential election. Well, fine and dandy. This debate needs to be part of the presidential race, folks. Make it a national debate and have it out in the open, not behind closed doors with amendments that nobody reads, amendments that did not have a chance.

By the way, all this talk about the Fairness Doctrine and there's too much one-sided opinion on talk radio, how about the Fairness Doctrine applied to the Senate. Dingy Harry literally shut down debate on this at a point yesterday. I have some comments from senators on that in the audio sound bite roster as well. We are in our current situation with this whole immigration imbroglio because people like senator Lindsey Grahamnesty and others who have served in Congress for many years and who have sworn to uphold the law have failed to uphold the law. Let's be clear about this. Grahamnesty and his fellow amnesty supporters have used rhetoric and arguments that have undoubtedly inflamed various ethnic groups, not us. We have to go on the offense about this, rather than being defensive, because you and I, all of us that ganged up on Washington, we are going to be accused here of all kinds of racism and hate and bigotry. And we have been. It's going to continue. It will probably expand and increase. If there are riots, if the illegals come out of the shadow and riot, and there's talk that they might -- oh, well, it would be funny if they did. We can't find them, but they'll come to us. But there's talk, you know, people trying to stir the excrement out there, if you will. They're going to say, if that happens, talk radio did it. "This is what happens when you have lack of balance in the media," so forth and so on.

You will all be included in this rhetoric, but the rhetoric that has been used by the open borders crowd has inflamed a lot of ethnic groups. By the way, do you realize the Democrats run the Senate and Harry Reid couldn't get this bill through? Now, you can sit there and blame talk radio all you want and you can sit there and blame the American people and racism and hatred and bigotry and all that. Democrats could not get this done, and he couldn't get enough of his own senators to vote for this. The primary group of senators he couldn't corral were the freshman Democrat senators who were very, very much concerned about this. He lost Mary Landrieu. Why do you think Landrieu was opposed to this? She's up for reelection, and she's also concerned about what the unchecked invasion of illegal immigrants might do to Louisiana, might do to New Orleans and so forth and the culture that she was born and raised in. This whole thing that this is a racist idea and issue is absurd in the first place.

Border security is what this was all about. Border securing and complying with the law is what this was all about. That shouldn't be a pro or con Hispanic issue. Yet that's how Lindsey Grahamnesty and a bunch of other proponents on this, these open border supporters, have defined the issue. And, of course, the Drive-By Media happily repeats it. Now, if we lose seats in '08 and if we lose Hispanic votes, I'm not going to take the blame here, folks, and you shouldn't take the blame, either. If we lose seats, these guys are responsible for their elections. They're the ones that go out and get the votes. If people vote against them because of this, they will have their own actions to blame. I've been talking about Lindsey Grahamnesty. Let me explain why. Go to audio sound bites one and two here, just to give you an idea from the Senate floor today. Here is Senator Grahamnesty.

GRAHAM: You're never going to deal with this issue until you embrace the 12 million. No Democrat is going to let you build a fence and do all the things that we want to do without addressing the 12 million. That's never going to happen. I want to address the 12 million. The reason I want to address the 12 million, it bothers me that there's 12 million people here that we don't know who they are and what they're up to. I wish they would go away, but they're not. It is a problem that America has to deal with, and we want someone else to do it, because we're afraid that if we do a plea bargain, it's amnesty.

RUSH: What in the world -- did you hear this? "The reason I want to address the 12 million, it bothers me there's 12 million people here that we don't know who they are and what they're up to." I thought they were doing the jobs the American people won't do! All of a sudden we're getting a new characterization of who these people are. They're a bunch of renegades and ragtags running around. We don't know who they are or what they're doing? But he basically said, "You people that want border security first had better check it at the door because it ain't going to happen. We gonna deal with these 12 million." He said the Democrats aren't going to let this happen. So we find out that he's been kowtowing to the Democrats. He said the Democrats are never going to let you build the fence and do all the things that we want to do without addressing the 12 million, and he said our job's to go there and work with Democrats. No, it's not. [Their job is to] Go there and debate them and defeat them. I'm going to just assert this. We did the job that Lindsey Grahamnesty should have been doing, as an elected Republican, and a number of other Republicans. We, you and I, did the job they should have been doing. Here's the second sound bite from Senator Grahamnesty.

GRAHAM: The 12 million will be dealt with. They're not going to be ignored. They will be dealt with firmly and fairly, eventually. They're not going to be deported, they're not going to jail, they can't be wished away. So we need to come together in a bipartisan manner, have principled compromise, where we deal with 12 million, we deal with broken borders, we get a temporary worker program. To my Republican friends, remember this day if you vote no. You will never, ever have this deal again.

RUSH: That's right. Because we're going to get a better deal next time. We'll never, ever have this deal again. We're gonna get a better deal. We didn't want this deal. This was a bad deal. It was the wrong deal to make. It was the Comprehensive Destruction of the Republican Party Act of 2007. Here's Dingy Harry Reid's response on the floor of the Senate after the cloture vote failed.

REID: The vote has been cast. As I told a number of my Republican friends, even though the vote is really disheartening to me in many, many ways, I think as a result of this legislative work that we've done the last several months on this legislation that there's been friendships developed that weren't there before, trust initiated that didn't exist before. So I say to my friends...

RUSH: Stop the tape! I want to translate this for you. What it means is, we bought off a bunch of Republicans and made 'em see the world our way. And that's called trust. When Republicans cave to their own principles; when Republicans give in and have as their main objective getting along with people like Harry Reid, "Harry, this is great. We've made new alliances. We've come up with new friendships. We've formed new bonds of trust here." And all that means is we suckered a bunch of these Republicans into going along with us. Here's the rest of this bite.

REID: ...Democrats, Republicans, that this is -- this is a legislative issue, that will come back, it's only a question of when. We're only six months into this Congress. We have so much to do. And hopefully this lesson we've all learned will be one where we recognize that we have to work more closely together. And I hope we can do that. So I say to all of you...

RUSH: Stop the tape a minute. You can work as closely together as you want, but when you're wrong, you're going to hear about it. When you do something that's so tone deaf; when you're so out of step with the citizens of this country who have elected you, you're going to hear about it. Whatever the new legislation, I don't care if you're talking about taxes, because what people have learned here, Senator Reid, is that you can be stopped. What people have learned here is that they do have power, that their vote does matter, that what polls say reflecting their opinions does matter. People all over this country for years have thought they shouldn't get involved because their vote, their action, their involvement, was irrelevant. They learned today just the exact opposite. They learned it during the Dubai Ports deal. I still love saying those three words. They also, Senator Reid, have learned something else. They have seen the arrogance and conceit of a bloated, inefficient, big government. That is the thing that ought to cause some Democrats to quake in their boots more than anything. The idea of how big government works, how arrogant and condescending it can be, and even insulting, has been on full display. So those are the opportunities I see. The opportunities Dingy Harry sees to go on and convince more Republicans to cave and give in and join with Democrats and to him, that's a plus thing, but if they're wrong in what they're trying to do, they will hear about it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Interesting story, funny story today in the New York Times. "Immigration Bill Prompts Some Menacing Responses." We've been hearing this now for two or three weeks. Dianne Feinstein, in her 15 years in the Senate, she's never gotten more angry, hate-filled, racist messages in her e-mail, and phone calls and so forth. This story is about much the same thing. I want proof of this. I want to see what some of this hate-filled rhetoric is and I want to see who it's actually coming from. They come out and they say all this stuff, and there's no backup for it. Prove it. Show us. Give us the text of some of these messages. Senator Grahamnesty said, "There’s racism in this debate. Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally."

Now, why is it that the things that Senator Kennedy says during this debate don't do that? Why is it that some of the debate that the senators engage in doesn't cause people to get emotional? Well, we know it does. How come we're not entitled to get emotional when we're lied to, when we're told that we're racists, we're told that we're bigots, and when we're told that we don't know what's in the bill? This $4.4 billion emergency spending procedure, the supplemental spending bill that was going to build the fence, get started border security, Jim DeMint, a Senator from South Carolina said, (paraphrasing) "Guess what? There's a provision in this thing that allows that money to be used for the amnesty purposes of the legislation, and it's so designed." So they didn't even tell us the truth about that. There was a caveat in the $4.4 billion. We spend that much on rubber bands in this government every year. $4.4 billion for fence security and so forth. Yeah, it's only the rhetoric here on talk radio. By the way, the underlying notion here is that you people are continuing to be mind-numbed robots. There's still no respect for the fact that you are informed, engaged, involved citizens who vote. You're just sponges without minds of your own, and you are filled with, what did he say, racism and bigotry, and it pushes you over the edge emotionally.

Let's see. This is not a quote from anybody. This is just the New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny. "At the heart of the opposition rests conservative hosts on talk radio and cable television, which often are a muscular if untamed piece of the Republican message machine." How in the name of Sam Hill do you come to that conclusion? Because all these years what I have heard is that I'm in the back pocket of the GOP. I'm just sitting here getting their faxes. I'm getting their e-mails from the White House, and I get my marching orders from them and then I go out and say what I say, then it ends up on Drudge. It ends up on all other talk shows. It ends up on the Internet, and I'm just my own mind-numbed robot, whatever the White House says, do it. Now all of a sudden I am an untamed piece of the Republican message machine.

After all of this, how I can be called a piece of the Republican message machine... But this is the template, and this is the bias of the Drive-By Media, that there is no independence here like there is in the Drive-By Media. There's no independent thought, there's no individuality whatsoever. We're all just mind-numbed robots on the right, folks. We're kooks because we are conservatives. Untamed piece of the Republican message machine. "Several senators said Wednesday that they did not care to be identified speaking critically of the broadcasters, fearing the same conservative backlash that befell Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, this month when he declared: 'Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.'" So a lot of Republican senators apparently wanted to launch but were afraid of the backlash caused by us untamed pieces of the Republican message machine. Dingy Harry, we have time to squeeze this in. This morning on the Senate floor before the vote.

REID: Talk radio has had a field day. These generators of simplicity -- now, Mr. President, I want everyone to know and I want the record spread, I do not believe that anyone who is a United States senator that votes against this motion to proceed is filled with prejudice, with hatred, with venom as we get in our phone calls and our mail. I don't believe that. But I do believe, Mr. President, that we have an issue before us that we must resolve.

RUSH: Okay, so now a untamed member of the piece of the Republican message machine, but now we are 'generators of simplicity' here on talk radio, and here we're back again to these assertions that those of you who have been calling Dingy Harry and his colleagues are racists, full of hate, and venom. If there's any venom being directed at you, Senator Reid and colleagues, it's simply because you haven't been listening and you haven't been telling us the truth. You've been insulting us.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A New York Times story by Carl Hulse: "New Senators Resist Overhaul of Immigration." This is a story about the problem that Dingy Harry had: "Freshman Democrat Senators Among the Wary." There's a subhead on the story. In fact, that is the subhead on the front page above the fold of the paper. The Internet version of the story does not have that subhead, "Freshman Democrats Among the Wary," but the one thing missing in this story is Reid and Democrats fail in the majority -- and Pelosi is not getting much done over in the House of Representatives, either. Back to the audio sound bites. Nancy Pelosi was on Charlie Rose on PBS last night, and he asked her this question: "Have the proponents of this bill done a good enough job to sell it to the country?"

PELOSI: Uh, there is an element in our, uh... Well, talk radio --

ROSE: Yes.

PELOSI: -- or in some cases, hate radio where they just go on and on and on and are xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and it's interesting because, in -- in my faith I'm a -- I'm a Catholic and, um -- and we always talk where there's hatred, may bring love, where there's despair may we bring hope...

RUSH: I'm throwing up here. I am literally going to throw up.

PELOSI: ...where it's dark, light, and to forgive is to be forgiven -- and all a sudden all these people of faith are just very unforgiving.

RUSH: How can you speak that way, after some of the hate-filled rhetoric that you and the people you empower have offered up against President Bush? After all the things that you have said to demoralize the troops serving this country, risking their lives, all of the investment in defeat that you and Senator Reid have made it plain your party is for, you dare sit there and talk about hate speech and unforgiving speech, hate radio and so forth? I think these people owe us an apology. I think Senator Graham in South Carolina owes all of you in South Carolina an apology for his rhetoric and his comments about you. This whole debate has featured elected officials insulting their constituents one way or another. We either haven't read the bill when we have, or we haven't got minds of our own, or we're racists or bigots -- and now there's hate. I'm going to tell you something. The hate on balance in this country resides on the left side of the aisle. What is going on with Senator Leahy trying to subpoena and harass the Bush administration? This is nothing more than harassment. You might say it's politics, but you can't convince me these people don't viscerally hate George W. Bush, and they have hated George W. Bush since the Florida aftermath.

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi asked the people calling her office, as she's talking about this, if they were people of faith, or is that just more religious profiling? Is she just saying that the people who called her were a bunch of southern hayseed conservative Christian hicks? Remember, the people that work on bias and prejudice in this country are the people on the left. They're the ones that form opinions of people based on where they live, based on their accents, based on their skin color, based on their gender, based on their sexual orientation, and based on whether or not they can fit into a nice little liberal created victim group. Anyway, I told you at the beginning of the show. This is only gonna heat up, and it is going to manifest itself in more calls for "fairness." One element of the media should not be so out of balance as is talk radio. Keep a sharp eye. Want to hear some funny stuff from Ted Kennedy, yelling today during the immigration debate? He said this about those who oppose the immigration bill. This is before the vote.

KENNEDY: We know what they're against! We don't know what they're for! Time and time again, they tell us, "We don't like this provision! We don't like that provision! We don't want that part of it!" Well, they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for! What are they going to do with the 12 and a half million, erra, who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again? Try and find them. Develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows? That's their alternative? That's their alternative!

RUSH: Well, this is laughable. Senator Kennedy, perhaps you don't remember that there was an amendment offered, the touchback amendment, and this is where all of these 12 million (as you say, we think it's closer to 20) but have to go back to their home countries. Now, just how in the world were they going to be found and forced to do this? If we can't find 'em now, if it's going to cost too much money and all this, how in the world...? Oh, oh, oh, I get it! They were going to obey the law on their own. Oh, they knew that. You think that was going to happen? They wouldn't trust that provision for a second, and they know there's no reason to leave, because the odds that they're going to be rounded up are no better than they've ever been, so why? Why go back and touchback when the overriding theory you have is you might not get back in unless you come in illegally. There's so many contradictions in all of this, but we have shouted from the rooftops -- I'm sorry, from the golden EIB microphone, Senator Kennedy -- and we do know what we're for, and that's enforcement of current law. Enforce of existing law! It's not complicated. Here's more of Senator Kennedy.

KENNEDY: And we have a process, er, that said, "Look, okay, you're here and undocumented, and you're going to have to pay a price. We're going to take people that are in the line, that have said that they want to play by the rules. They go and they wait and you wait and you wait and you wait and you wait, and you pay and you pay and you pay. You pay, uh, your fees. You pay your processing fees, your adjustment fees. You pay, uh, not only for yourself; you pay for the other members of the family. You demonstrate that you're going to learn English. You demonstrate that you've worked here. You demonstrate that you're a good citizen. You demonstrate that you haven't had any run on in on crime [sic], and then maybe -- and then maybe -- you get on that pathway with the green card and perhaps in 15, 18 years you'll be able to raise your hand and be a citizen, eh, here in the United States.

RUSH: (Laughing.) Fifteen to 18 years to be a citizen! (Laughing.) You know, this is why it's laughable when they insult us for not knowing what's in the bill. The simple fact of the matter is that there's no need for these people to pursue the path to citizenship because the minute this bill would have been signed, they're legal! You all know all this. We're going blue in the face talking about it. If this bill ever does or did become law, the minute it's signed, they're legal -- after the mythical 24-hour background check. (Laughing.) How are we gonna do the background check if we can't find 'em? But they don't have to pay the fines if they don't pursue citizenship. This really is a disconnect here. I don't know if it's just tone deaf. I think they have, Senator Kennedy and some of these people, such a lofty view of these people that he thinks that they all want to be full-fledged citizens (crying), and that that's what they're dying to do, and that's what they came here for, and we're standing in their way (sobbing), because these bigots and racists and restrictionists and talk radio! All we want them to do is be citizens in 15 to 18 years.

But they don't have to do any of that and that's the only way they get out of paying the fine. We also know that if they did pursue citizenship, it wouldn't be long before the senators would say, "Well, you know, this $5,000 fine? That's a bit high. It's a bit punitive. Why, we're taking food out of the mouths of starving children who are someday going to be American citizens." All of this was poppycock. What it boils down to is, very simply, the American people -- you --didn't believe what your elected officials were telling you, and you didn't believe that they could do what they said the bill would do, and that's why I said this is an opportunity. People got a great illustration here of the inefficiencies and the unworkableness of a bloated, over-the-top-size government, and believe me, folks, that's a premise I'm not going to abandon. It's going to be a reminder I'm going to continue to make, because that's something that people may not even notice themselves until it's pointed out to them, until they're reminded of it, but this was one of the fabulous aspects of all this that happened.

END TRANSCRIPT

Eight Random Facts...

2007-06-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

[I'll play along so long as no one minds my not tagging anyone else....]

...about EL-- within a single sphere of interest...

1. EL is fascinated and enthralled by the sea. She calls to him even now....

2. The best job EL ever had was on a crew-boat off the Louisiana and Texas coasts

3. EL's dream vacation would be two weeks on the island atoll of Hikueru in the South Pacific.

4. EL, while cruising the intercoastal waterway in Louisiana saw a porpoise mother nudging her newborn to the surface. The calf was unresponsive and she was crying.

5. While out in the middle of the gulf on a clear moonless night, EL discovered it is possible to read by starlight.

6. Piloting a 110 foot vessel through 35-40 foot swells is the most afraid EL has been on the open sea.

7. The smell of the sea makes EL feel safe, warm, and welcomed home.

8. EL hasn't been on the water in 15 years... a lifetime ago...

Just call me Ishmael-- it's only a matter time.

HALLELUJAH!

2007-06-28T14:18:00.000-05:00

It's Dead! And the American people still have a voice!

Now begins the Liberal war ON that voice... on Free Speech and the First Amendment.

My! What confidence we have! -- UPDATED!!!

2007-06-21T08:21:00.000-05:00

Only 3% of American's, according to Zogby, believe Congress is doing a good job on Immigration.

Harry Reid's approval is still sitting at 19% (Rassmussen)

Congress' approval rating as of today is 14% (Gallup)

The President's approval rating as of the 14th was 32% (Gallup)

There should be a law against speaking out about the performance of others when one's own performance is judged to be worse.

Questions to Consider...

2007-06-19T10:04:00.000-05:00

[In regard to Palestinians and violent Muslim extremism in general]

Could it be that the tribe accustomed to conflict and war, inured to violence and degradation, cannot peacefully live within borders governed by democratic civility?

Do we expect too much of people whose existences have been constrained by centuries of tradition both soaked in blood and the bitter dregs of personal hegemony?

How do children born of malice; whose meat has been assassination and honor killing, meekly accept political defeat and the slow progress of democratic statesmanship without resorting to AK's and suicide belts?

Has it been the greatest conceit of the West that she could change a millennia and half again of senseless brutality with a few elections?

Perhaps we expect too much of such unruly children...

And if that be the case, what is to be done about it? We can't allow it on our shore... How then do we contain the animal instinct? By caging ourselves in? Or by culling the herd and fencing in what remains, exercising a system as of yet unfathomed, by which they are kept perpetually in check? At what cost to us? And is it a price worth paying when one considers what is to be lost should the beasts proliferate and propagate their 'statecraft' within our borders?

Now that that's out of my system....

2007-06-15T14:36:00.000-05:00

Can I please have my goat baaaaa-ck!!?

Fair Warning One and All...

2007-06-15T13:45:00.000-05:00

From here on out, NO one gets to use 'the Fact-Based' in their handle when commenting. I will, the moment time permits, delete and re-post any comment whose author chooses to label themselves as such. No one is truly 'fact-based' in this arena... myself included. Facts, like taffy, can be stretched beyond all recognition. So! If anyone thinks I've stretched the truth, speak up! But don't assume I'll let anyone attack from a position of self-superiority, on a pedestal of personal conceit. If I think your facts are screwy you can bet I'll say as much, but I won't do it from the aforementioned position and pedestal.

Having said all that, it's not like unimpeachable facts can't be found here and elsewhere, only that 'facts' tend to be 'subjective' dependant upon their wielders.

Old News that Bears Repeating

2007-06-15T08:30:00.000-05:00

...especially in light of Reid and Pelosi's latest attempt to lose the war for America.

From the DesMoine Register, May 23, 2007:

A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.

A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?

"We're treading water. We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq.

"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).

"Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.

"The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.

"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.

"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.

"How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today - good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.

"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers.

"I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably..."

The media doesn't want you to win, Sir. That would mean they'd have to recognize Bush as something more than a tongue-tied idiot.

What complete and utter losers both Reid and Pelosi, AND the media are.

The Age of Pyramids...

2007-06-13T19:28:00.000-05:00

gives way to...

"The Age of Cynicism"
by Rich Lowry

Three Quotes:

"In five years, we built the Hoover Dam. From 1931 to 1936, the Colorado River was diverted with tunnels blasted into the Black Canyon walls, a town was built to house a small army of workers laboring in the desert, and 3 1/4 million cubic yards of concrete were poured into a dam reaching 726 1/2 feet high -- two years ahead of schedule."

Impressive only-- to my mind at least --because of the time and available technology...

"In the 1930s, the Empire State Building was built in 410 days; more than five years after 9/11, the World Trade Center site still features a gaping hole."

Wow! 102 floors in 1 year, 1 month, and 15 days.... that's 4.02 floors a day! Double wow!!! That's the American "Can-Do" spirit for you.

[ Hmmm. Now where did we lay that "Can-Do" spirit? Well, wherever it is it'll be in the last place we look.]

"The best thing that might have happened to Republicans lately is their loss of Congress, which means that Democrats have gone from attacking a spectacularly unpopular Congress to running a spectacularly unpopular Congress."

Harry Reid's approval rating as of the other day was 19%. NINETEEN PERCENT! That's even lower than President Bush's!

But here's one Lowry left out... and that's the number 2,504. 2,504 days. Six years, three-hundred fourteen days. Care to guess? That's right! Very good! On September 12, 1962 President Kennedy announced, "We choose to go to the moon..." And it only took 6 years, 314 days [including leap days] to get there.

One day in April of next year will mark 6 years, 314 days since Ground Zero was cleared... And yet it remains empty. A sad testament to the lack of Pyramid Builders in America today.

But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Think about it! We could build the Hoover Dam, the Empire State Building, and send a man to the moon..... amazing feats all! But we can't build a measly 700 mile fence along our southern border, let alone stop arguing long enough to do something with that big gaping hole in Lower Manhattan!

Let alone do something with that big gaping ideological hole in Washington D.C.

Yes, it's true. Sixth century religions have a place in the modern world.

2007-06-13T12:33:00.000-05:00

At least the Egyptian government is rightly embarrassed.

From the New York Times:

"First came the breast-feeding fatwa. It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times, to establish family ties. Then came the urine fatwa. It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.

"For the past few weeks, the breast-feeding and urine fatwas have proved a source of national embarrassment in Egypt, not least because they were issued by representatives of the highest religious authorities in the land.

" 'We were very angered when we heard about the Danish cartoons concerning our prophet; however, these two fatwas are harming our Islamic religion and our prophet more than the cartoons...' "

Unbelievable!

Let's face it, the Immigration Bill is a farce...

2007-06-13T12:13:00.000-05:00

...and it puts the cart before the horse!

Didn't a bill get signed into law last year mandating a 700 mile fence be built along the border? Let's enforce THAT law first! If the boat is sinking, by all means begin bailing, but bailing won't save you from having to swim to shore! You got to find the leak and plug it! Same concept here. Table the Amnesty debate. The Illegals aren't going anywhere. And if we're going to grant amnesty to all these people shouldn't we at least see that the leak is plugged?

Build a fence first. THEN talk amnesty.

I don't want to hear any talk of immigration from my representative or senators that do not mandate we enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS first! ESPECIALLY the fence. Do these clowns in Washington expect me to believe they'll enforce the laws detailed in their new farce of an immigration bill when they won't even enforce the bill they gave to Bush last year for signing?

Nuh, uh! I'm not buying. And neither should you.

I'm not against allowing these people some measure of protection and chance of becoming citizens, but they are not and should not be our primary focus. They're here, they're not going anywhere. Let's keep anyone else from coming in illegally first! Only then should be demonstrate the compassion America is still famous for [except in Liberal circles] and talk Amnesty, or a 'Path to Citizenship'.

You want to talk bigotry? Fine. Let's talk about the bigotry on the Left which demands we show preferencial treatment to Illegals who pour across our southern border, while denying, in droves, millions of people who want to enter legally, who have degrees, and skills this nation needs to compete in technology and the sciences.

And Democratic candidates insist tax increases are desperately necessary?

2007-06-13T11:36:00.000-05:00

Huh? Wha!!?

Wait a minute! The federal budget deficit is shrinking... and getting smaller every month! As of the end of May '07 the deficit is down 34.6% from May of '06. The deficit is now sitting in the neighborhood of 149 billion. Didn't we spend more in the first year of the Iraq War than what our current deficit reflects? Wasn't it somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 billion we the taxpayers shelled out for Iraq. So why is the deficit plummeting? The Bush Tax Cuts... IN SPITE OF 9.11 AND THE WAR ON IRAQ!!!

WOW! Imagine that! Tax cuts allow for greater prosperity across the board. Let's see, there are more jobs, less unemployment, booming business, and cash and opportunity to be made. No one is exempt who is willing to work to achieve that goal, that dream, that Mercedes Benz.

But Dems, especially the candidates, want to raise taxes on the evil rich. They want to squash prosperity. Hillary wants to adopt the oft-discredited Marxist Maxism:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

That's right she wants to reshape the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into Stalinland. Yeah, that's hyperbole, but that doesn't mean she isn't pushing a socialist ideal. Said Candidate Hillary:

"It's time for a new beginning. For an end to government of the few by the few and for the few [I agree, it's time the Senate and House stop acting like enthroned rulers. The American people are not your peasants, you work for US!]. Time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. [Can America survive another 'It Takes a Village' attack on America from socialist shill Hill?]"
[bracketed portions added]

Tax cuts work. They help everyone to prosper. America should not be in the business of punishing those who succeed HOWEVER much they have in the bank. What incentive, after all, is there for the poor and middle-class to make it rich if Government is going to punish them for it. And not simply punish... but steal from them.

_______________
Sources:
US budget deficit narrows sharply in first eight months of this fiscal year
WE HAVE TO GET THE TAXES RAISED ... AND FAST!
U.S. Deficit Climbs $67.7 Billion Last Month

"Half" Hearted Endorsement

2007-06-12T15:30:00.000-05:00

ER posted links to an old LP Record called "Flight F-I-N-A-L"

He's called it allegory, but I won't go that far. It's more symbolic than allegorical, and I really hesitate to label it that as it's a pretty straight-forward account-- albeit dramatized and illustrated in terms modern men and women can grasp --of life and our ultimate destination on the other side of Death.

It's worth a download and a hear.

I give this a "Half" hearted endorsement ONLY because I haven't yet had time enough to listen to "Side B"

Here's your links:

Flight F-I-N-A-L:

Side A
Side B

Thanks go out to ER.

The more Dennis Miller opens his mouth...

2007-06-10T22:41:00.000-05:00

...the more I absolutely love him!

Has anyone out there seen Joel Surnow's 'The 1/2 Hour News Hour' yet? This weeks episode ended with Dennis Miller's stinging... I mean absolutely SCATHING critique of wimp-master Harry Reid. TOO funny! Sadly, it's not yet up on the 1/2 Hour News Hour's page, but you can watch President Limbaugh's address to the nation from the southwestern White House in Cabo.

You can watch a number of segments, including this one depicting President Limbaugh and Vice President Coulter on YouTube. And for those of you who don't recognize the name Surnow, he's the guy who produces '24'.

The Avandia Deal: Revisited

2007-06-06T23:16:00.000-05:00

It has been reported this last week that Avandia does indeed raise the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) resulting in death. I've had my own run-in with Avandia in the past-- check out my original post on Avandia here.

What never ceases to amaze me is how anyone can take the FDA seriously... I mean, that they are seriously in the business of saving lives. After all, why create a monstrous federal agency to regulate food and drugs if not for the sole purpose of saving lives? Congress has even stepped into the fray questioning and demanding answers. What kills me is this: while questions from Democrats appear to be motivated by a genuine concern for the health and welfare of diabetes patients taking Avandia, motivation for questions coming from some Republicans seem to stem more from a concern over the drop in stock value of drug companies, and their bottom line. I understand the need to protect business from over-zealous "tax and oppress" Democrats, but come on! Do any of these Republicans know what it's like to have to rely on medication to control diabetes? Do they understand how devasting this news about Avandia is to people who rely on it to control their diabetes? We're talking about life and death here.

What's completely horrid about all this is the naivete of almost every single American in regard to their own health. No one is responsible for your good health except you. Doctors, contrary to popular belief do not necessarily enter the medical profession because they have a desire to mend and heal the sick, or to save lives. A good number of men and women enter the medical profession do so to make money, and lots of it.

Another gross misunderstanding is that your doctor actively desires to cure you of your ailments. This is undoubtedly true of a good many physicians, but there are also oodles and gobs of doctors out there who aren't genuinely interested in seeing you cured... only managed. After all, there's more money in managing disease than there is in curing it.

I am appalled that so many people out there take their doctors word as though it came from the lips of God Himself. Prime example: I've encountered a few people (all women) who are on Avandia and other diabetes medication because... get this... it will help prevent them from GETTING diabetes. That's right! These women are not diabetic, just over-weight. But their doctor's all think that because they are at risk, they need to be on diabetes medication as a preventative measure. My mother was one of those women; though thankfully, she told the doctor "Hell no" and immediately sought out a new physician.

Why would any rational doctor prescribe diabetes medication to someone who isn't diabetic? Would you listen to your doctor if he told you that because your mother or father died of cancer that you should begin taking Chemo? Would you listen to that idiot if he told you that because your sister died of breast cancer that you should have your breasts removed? And yet many women agree to do just that. It's insane.

Create an environment in which disease cannot flourish and you all but eliminate the need for physicians. Look at the people who live to be a hundred, one-ten and higher. Two things separate these people from those who die in their sixties and seventies.

1- They do not eat the modern American diet, and
2- They didn't listen to their doctors, who told them not to drink, cuss, smoke, or take in salt.

Ask yourself this: Why are you taking medical advice from someone whose profession boasts an average life expectancy of 57 years? Their vast stores of medical knowledge didn't do them any good! Why on earth do you think it'll do you any good?

Here's the truth. Plain and simple....

YOU are responsible for your own health. It is incumbent upon YOU to learn what you should put into your body, and how you should treat disease when it does rear its ugly head. Sometimes doctors are necessary. Sometimes surgery is necessary. But given the choice, would you rather pay more for healthy food and a clean lifestyle now? or pay through the nose to a doctor when your body begins to fail?

It's not easy, either. I'll be the first to admit it. My diet has stunk the last several weeks DESPITE all the pearled barley, quinoa, raw vegetables and fresh fruit I've been taking in. Why? Because unless I make the effort to prepare meals ahead of time I will find myself in a drive thru 8-10 times a week... which is 8-10 times too many.

Case in point: Guess what I had for dinner this evening? KFC

And I wonder why I feel like crap most of the time. This is where a poor diet will get you. Don't be stupid like I was. Take better care of yourself, and you may live to see 100 in good enough health to actually enjoy it.

Oh! And stay away from Avandia whatever you do!

____________________
One final note: The book of Revelation has something to say of this... of where it will lead and just what all this means spiritually.

Rev 9:21 "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their SORCERIES, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."

Rev 18:23 "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy SORCERIES were all nations deceived."

In both those verses the word translated as "Sorceries", is, in the original Greek: "Pharmakeia" which means 'Medication', or more literally, 'Pharmacy'

Medications can be good. But I think America goes too far. We are, whether we care to admit it or not, a nation of drug addicts. We've got a pill for just about everything except 'stupid' and 'ugly'.

2007-06-06T22:47:00.001-05:00

That was weird... don't know how that happened...

Immigration/Amnesty Bill Loopholes

2007-06-06T14:49:00.000-05:00

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has released a report detailing 20 loopholes in the Immigration/amnesty Bill. It's an eye-popping read. By all means, let's be compassionate. but let's be intelligent about it. Call your senator and ask that they vote "No" on this piece of legislative madness...

20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill

* Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement:

Amnesty benefits do not wait for the "enforcement trigger." After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full "probationary benefits," complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never “approved,” the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].

* Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger:

The "enforcement trigger," required to be met before the new temporary worker program begins, does not require that the exit portion of U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date – to be in place before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the U.S. VISIT exit portion, the U.S. has no method to ensure that workers (or their visiting families) do not overstay their visas. Our current illegal population contains 4 to 5.5 million visa overstays, therefore, we know that the U.S. VISIT exit component is key to a successful new temporary worker program. [See pp. 1-2].

* Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law:

The "enforcement trigger" does not require the Department of Homeland Security to have detention space sufficient to end “catch and release” at the border and in the interior. Even after the adoption of amendment 1172, the trigger merely requires the addition of 4,000 detention beds, bringing DHS to a 31,500 bed capacity. This is far short of the 43,000 beds required under current law to be in place by the end of 2007, or the additional 20,000 beds required later in the bill. Additionally, the bill establishes a "catch, pay, and release" program. This policy will benefit illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico that are caught at the border, then can post a $5,000 bond, be released and never show up for deportation hearings. Annual failure to appear rates for 2005 and 2006, caused in part by lack of detention space, doubled the 2004 rate (106,000 – 110,000 compared with 54,000). Claims that the bill "expands fencing" are inaccurate. The bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed [See pp. 1-2, & 10-11, and EOIR’s FY2006 Statistical Yearbook, p. H2, and The Secure Fence Act of 2004].

* Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers:

Aliens who broke into the country illegally a mere 5 months ago, are treated better than foreign nationals who legally applied to come to the U.S. more than two years ago. Aliens who can prove they were illegally in the U.S. on January 1, 2007, are immediately eligible to apply from inside the U.S. for amnesty benefits, while foreign nationals that filed applications to come to the U.S. after May 1, 2005 must start the application process over again from their home countries. Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to have been here before January 7, 2004 to qualify for permanent legal status. [See pp. 263, 282, & 306].

* Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status:

Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet "passed all appropriate background checks." (Last year’s bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].

* Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible:

Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]

* Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required:

Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show "good moral character." Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having "good moral character" and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].

* Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible:

Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].

* Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible:

Aliens who have already had their day in court – those subject to final orders of removal, voluntary departure orders, or reinstatement of their final orders of removal – are eligible for amnesty under the bill. The same is true for aliens who have made a false claim to citizenship or engaged in document fraud. More than 636,000 alien fugitives could be covered by this loophole. [See p. 285:19-22 which waives the following inadmissibility grounds: failure to attend a removal proceeding; final orders of removal for alien smuggling; aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations or deportation orders; and aliens previously removed. This appears to conflict with language on p. 283:40-41. When a direct conflict appears in a statute, the statue is interpreted by the courts to the benefit of the alien.].

* Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade:

Illegal aliens are not required to demonstrate any proficiency in English for more than a decade after they are granted amnesty. Learning English is not required for an illegal alien to receive probationary benefits, the first 4-year Z visa, or the second 4-year Z visa. The first Z visa renewal (the second 4-year Z visa) requires only that the alien demonstrate an “attempt” to learn English by being "on a waiting list for English classes." Passing a basic English test is required only for a second Z visa renewal (the third 4-year Z visa), and even then the alien only has to pass the test “prior to the expiration of the second extension of Z status” (12 years down the road). [See pp. 295-296].

* Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years:

Current illegal aliens and new guest workers will be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a refundable tax credit designed to encourage American citizens and legal permanent residents to work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this loophole will cost the U.S. taxpayer up to $20 billion dollars in just the first 10 years after the bill’s enactment. To be consistent with the intent of the 1996 welfare reforms – which limited new immigrants from receiving public benefits until they had been legal permanent residents for five years – the bill should withhold EITC eligibility from amnestied aliens until they become legal permanent residents. Closing this loophole will save the taxpayers billions of dollars. [See p. 293 after S.A. 1190 was adopted, p. 307, p. 315, §606. All that is required for EITC eligibility is a social security number and resident alien status. Nothing in the bill’s tax provisions limit EITC eligibility. The issuance of social security numbers to aliens as soon as they apply for amnesty will ensure they are able to qualify for the EITC.]

* Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence:

Records from day-labor centers, labor unions, and "sworn declarations" from any non-relative (acquaintances, friends, coworkers, etc) are to be accepted as evidence that the illegal alien has satisfied the bill’s amnesty requirements. This low burden of proof will invite fraud and more illegal immigration – even aliens who are not yet in the U.S. will likely meet this burden of proof. DHS will not have the resources to examine whether the claims contained in the "sworn declarations" of the alien’s friends (that the alien was here prior to January 1, 2007 and is currently employed) are actually valid. [See p. 293: 13-16].

* Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration:

Free legal counsel and the fees and expenses of arbitrators will be provided to aliens that have been working illegally in agriculture. The U.S. taxpayer will fund the attorneys that help these individuals fill out their amnesty applications. Additionally, if these individuals have a dispute with their employer over whether they were fired for "just cause," DHS will "pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator." [See p. 339:37-41, & p. 332: 37-38.]

* Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans:

In-state tuition and other higher education benefits, such as Stafford Loans, will be made available to current illegal aliens that are granted initial "probationary" status, even if the same in-state tuition rates are not offered to all U.S. citizens. This would normally violate current law (8 U.S.C. §1623) which mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary education benefits they offer to illegal aliens. [See p. 321: 8-31].

* Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System:

The "merit system," designed to shift the U.S. green card distribution system to attract higher skilled workers that benefit the national interest, is only a shell of what it should have been. Though the merit system begins immediately, it will not increase the percentage of high skilled immigrants coming to the United States until 2016, 8 years after enactment. Of the 247,000 green cards dedicated to the merit based system each year for the first 5 years, 100,000 green cards will be reserved for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). From 2013 to 2015, the number of merit based green cards drops to 140,000, and of that number, 100,000 green cards are still reserved each year for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). Even after 2015, when the merit system really begins (in 2016) by having 380,000 green cards annually, 10,00 green cards will be reserved specifically for low skilled workers, and points will be given for many characteristics that are not considered "high-skilled." For example, 16 points will be given for aliens in "high demand occupations" which includes janitors, maids, food preparation workers, and groundskeepers. [See p.260: 25 – p. 261: 20, p. 262, & The Department of Labor’s list of “occupations with the largest job growth” available at www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm].

* Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay:

The new "parent" visa contained in the bill which allows parents of citizens, and the spouses and children of new temporary workers, to visit a worker in the United States is not only a misnomer, but also an invitation for high rates of visa overstays. This new visa specifically allows the spouse and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence in a foreign country, to qualify to come to the U.S. to "visit." The visa requires only a $1,000 bond, which will be forfeited when, not if, family members of new temporary workers decide to overstay their 30 day visit. Workers should travel to their home countries to visit their families, not the other way around. [See p. 277:1 – 33, and p. 276: 38-43].

* Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tippled Before Being Eliminated:

Though the bill will eventually eliminate chain migration (relatives other than spouses and children of citizens and legal permanent residents), it will not have full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will actually triple, from approximately 138,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 14% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis) to approximately 440,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 45% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis). [See pp. 260:13, p. 270: 29 – pp. 271: 17]

* Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required:

Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to prove they had paid three of their last five years of taxes to get amnesty. This year, payment of back taxes is not required for amnesty. The bill requires taxes to be paid at the time of application for a green card, but at that time, only proof of payment of Federal taxes (not state and local) is required for the years the alien worked on a Z visa, not the years the alien has already worked illegally in the United States. Though Senator McCain’s S.A. 1190, adopted by voice vote, claimed to "require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes," the amendment actually only required proof of payment of taxes for "any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i)." Since the bill does not contain a subparagraph (D)(i), nor require any past years of employment as a prerequisite for amnesty, the amendment essentially only requires proof of payment of taxes for future work in the U.S., not payment of "back taxes." [See p. 307, and p. 293 as altered by S.A. 1190, amendment p. 2: 19-20.]

* Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories:

Aliens who came to the U.S. on legal visas, but overstayed their visas and have been working in the U.S. for years, as well as illegal aliens who apply for Z visa status but do not qualify, will be able to collect social security credits for the years they worked illegally. Under the bill, if an alien was ever issued a social security account number – all work-authorized aliens who originally came on legal visas receive these – the alien will receive Social Security credits for any "quarters of coverage" the alien worked after receiving their social security account number. Because the bill requires social security account numbers to be issued "promptly" to illegal aliens as soon as they are granted "any probationary benefits based upon application [for Z status]" (these benefits are granted 24 hours after the application is filed), an illegal alien who is denied Z visa status but continues to work illegally in the U.S. will accumulate Social Security credits. [See pp. 316:8 – 16, and pp. 315: 32-39]

* Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct:

The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s "criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct." Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official? [See p. 287: 34, p. 317: 9, p. 315:6-8, & remarks made by Secretary Gutierrez on Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4:00 May 31, 2007]

The Address to the Nation no president today could give....

2007-06-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day without rest - until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a countenance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, June 6, 1944
The Invasion of Normandy

Have has the courage of America fled?

"Disgraceful" x 3

2007-06-04T14:34:00.000-05:00

What a bizarre couple a' days! Democrats hold their second, even more banal of a debate. What a bunch of socialists! Baby communists! There was absolutely nothing of substance in that debate. The Hill showed her true colors on immigration... English as the "Official" language would disenfranchise millions of potential voters. Right, choosing to allow citizenship without requiring immigrants acquire a working knowledge of English will keep them away from the polls. All these socialists care about is increasing their voter base. Is this all the Hill and other Dems care about? That these amnesty recipients be allowed to vote? and vote Democrat?

This morning William J. Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is finally indicted. The Bush White House, after several huge missteps finally gets something right. Pelosi, claiming she'd fix the culture of corruption in Congress once elected Speaker, has since refused to do anything about Jefferson. Dems, is seems, are all for rooting out corruption so long as it's not from among their own ranks. Jefferson should resign immediately. He should be MADE to resign. But Dems needn't fear that they'd lost a seat in Congress, Democratic Governor of Louisiana, Ms. Kathleen Blanco, will surely appoint an interim Democrat until a special election can be called.

And finally...John Murtha blames the JFK terrorist plot on... drumroll please..... U.S. Troops! From NewsBusters....

ABCNews.com: "Murtha Ties Foiled JFK Plot to U.S. in Iraq"
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 3, 2007 - 13:21.

On Saturday, a NewsBusters headline asked the following question: “JFK Terror Plot: How Soon Before Media Blame Bush For Timing of Arrests?”

Well, Sunday morning, ABCNews.com actually went one better by using a statement made by John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) on "This Week" as the headline for the video of George Stephanopoulos’ interview with the Congressman: "Murtha Ties Foiled JFK Plot to U.S. in Iraq."

In reality, Murtha was brought on to counter the “things are getting better” in Iraq after the surge viewpoint expressed by the previous guest, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Yet, about one minute into Stephanopoulos’ interview with Murtha, the Congressman said:

You heard earlier where he said this incident in the United States is being driven by al Qaeda, is being inspired by al Qaeda. This is the kind of thing that is happening because of our troops in Iraq.

Amazing. So, the planned attack on New York’s JFK airport is all because America is in Iraq. And, that’s how ABCNews.com chose to advertise this ten-minute video at its website, even though the bulk of the segment was a discussion specifically about what’s going on in Iraq, and what the Democrat plans are to get troops out.

How disgraceful.

There's more here

Will the citizens of Pennsylvania please put this old fart in an old folks home!? Personally, I don't know what's worse, a democratic crook indicted on bribery charges or a democrat 'hero' who blames everything the terrorists try to do to us on the troops. What a disgrace. Put that man on a boat and allow no mention or news of the United States to ever reach his ears or eyes!

Diagnosis: Cultural Marxism

2007-05-30T10:37:00.000-05:00

"There is something seriously wrong with America. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has his head in the sand."

I'm choosing to get that out in the open at the outset. This is not only a reasonable argument, it is evidentially true. It also, by necessity and personal design, conveys the tone my comments in defense of what follows will ultimately take. I'm stating at the outset that if you disagree with the above statement, then my response is that you are either a liar to say otherwise or dangerously deluded. And to my mind, I can't decide which is worse. So here goes...

I don't have time to post as often as I'd like, and quite frankly I'd like less than half of what I did if I did. Point is, I could churn out tripe all day long... but not beef wellington. Like most people I derive much of what I post about from the lips and minds of others; the ultimate gestalt-meme-- everything is built upon successive layers of idea and concept. Most of the time it's something I hear someone else say that sets my mind to wandering [where it will go-o-oh], but other times it's what I find in the writings of others.

Same thing here. So last week I'm browsing the net and end up at WorldNetDaily, which I know, to some of you at least, is the equivalent of the back of a cereal box for all the "accuracy" any story posted there will have. I, of course disagree. Mostly because I feel the same way about The New York Times and the Washington Post. But there it is, and, to make a long story short, I came across several articles that attracted my attention. And upon finishing the last, I was struck by how they all pointed to one conclusion: This nations values have been the object of intense, yet clandestine assault since shortly after the turn of last century, and the main party carrying that torch today is Liberal Theology-- which is synonymous with Liberal Policy and Politics. Namely, today's Democratic Party, the halls of Academia, and News and Entertainment media.

For a brief history lesson on the last century, in terms of the root cause of the ideological and cultural 'bait and switch' the enemies of America have managed, I direct you to "Who Stole Our Culture?" It's not an overly long read but it is essential to my point. That being, Cultural Marxism is responsible for much of this nations current political climate and its new emerging theology. This nation is becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity, pointing to the 1st Amendment for justification, while supplanting it with another religion devoid of most of the outwardly visible hallmarks of typical religion. Where the typical seeks to define and know God, this new religion seeks to define Politics AS god, and its only true form of worship.

America's not in any real danger, though... right? Socialism could never take root in the land of the free and home of the brave, right? Well, I've said it time and again in several posts: "The only way to kill an idea is to replace it with another." And America is the biggest idea, in terms of its political structure and the vision outlined in her Constitution, the world has ever seen. Many millions of people want to BE American, but many also want to destroy her. Not just from without, but from within as well.

From the article:

America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

So how would they go about that? One of the main components of "Cultural Terrorism" is the institution of Sex Education in the schools to break down traditional sexual morality within society. This has been achieved. And through this, the tearing down of our traditional Christian faith here in America. The faith that made this nation what it was... and is no more.

Another component is the use of Psychology:

...the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.

Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

This too has been achieved, and the technique is still being used. Just look at the whole Global Warming debate! Look at Media's successful campaign against our War on Radical Islam. Look at their war on our President! Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it as truth.

Other techniques: Critical Theory; Manipulation of Predjudice; Domination & Victimization; Media and Entertainment; Political Correctness and Multi-Culturalism... All tools adopted by Liberals today.

The goal of course has been to destroy America and rebuild from the ashes of her burning a socialist state. Many still look back at the McCarthy era and see a deranged man so afraid of Communists he saw one behind every bush and in every doorknob. But McCarthy was right. His tactics may have been harsh and unfair, but Communism in America was very real. IS very real. And the biggest peddler of Communism/Socialism today is the Public School System and Liberal universities.

In "What the Army could teach our teachers", we learn that truth has been the greatest casualty in America's schools and universities. The goal has been to teach as little as possible of what needed to be taught, in favor of social engineering dogma and liberal/socialist propaganda. The biggest losers with LEGAL immigration are the Silcon Valley type industries that can't find enough qualified American professionals to fill all the available positions, while at the same time can't import enough qualified Indian or Asian (or Europeans for that matter) professionals because of our insanely restrictive immigration policies. The poor huddled hungry uneducated masses are being welcomed with open arms, but just try to get in legally with a P.H.d!

Our schools and universities do not self-correct... they perpetuate error and a deepening Cultural Rot.

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd, Ann Coulter has this to say about the ridiculous Bush/Kennedy "Amnesty" plan:

Since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year. Only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why on earth would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants?

The Democrat party fought tooth and nail against freeing the slaves, and a less than "Civil" War ensued. The Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan, initially a southern Democratic construct, grew out of a desire to keep the Negro in his place after being set free and after being given the right to vote. Democrats fought against Civil Rights until it was clear it would pass no matter what they did, at which point they co-opted its success as their own. THEY were suddenly the champions of Civil Rights. Coulter adds:

We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery.

What do they care if their servants are made citizens eligible to vote and collect government benefits? Aren't the fabulously rich happy in Venezuela? Oops, wrong example. Brazil? No, no, let me try again. Mexico! ... Well, no matter. What could go wrong?

But all this talk of Immigration is likely to be moot in 15 to 20 years. Europe is gaining in power and will soon exert more influence in the world than the U.S.. A very interesting conversation between Jimmy DeYoung of the Prophecy Today Radio Network and Rob Congdon can be heard hear-- Christianity is under attack in Europe as well. Before long the U.S. will likely adopt much of what the U.N. and E.U. already have. We are certainly on our way.

To compete with a European Union that has come into its own (having adopted a Constitution at last, and established a standing army), the U.S. will see joining with Canada and Mexico in a European style union as a necessary step to compete globally. Signs of this are already within the "absolute threshold" of perception. In "Continental currency all the rage" by Jerome Corsi, there is already a call for a single North American currency, dubbed the 'Amero'. For now these calls are coming only from Canada and Mexico. For now. But there is still much work ahead for the proponents of Cultural Marxism.

El Universal reported Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the separatist party Bloc Québécois commented at the October 2006 Calderon-Harper meeting in Ottawa that a unified North American currency might be necessary to compete in a global economy.

And indeed it may. But while a common currency is certainly years if not decades away, the push toward unification is already begun in this country.

A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political, economic and security bloc.

[...]

...the controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration with remarkable similarities to the CSIS plan [.pdf].

I know, I know! What does all this have to do with Cultural Marxism? It is the evidence of CM's success in this nation thus far. More evidentiary proof is found in the following article, "ABC News accused of treasonous report"

These days, news agencies reporting the details of government operations against our enemies in time of war is not particularly surprising. The New York Times has repeatedly leaked sensitive information to the world. And they did it knowing full well there would be no repercussions for telling the enemy our every move against them. This President's Justice Department is perhaps the weakest in a generation.

What is new, relatively speaking, is this growing public response to treason by whistleblowers and news outlets... support and applause.

"I for one appreciate ABC's courage in letting Americans know what the government is up to. It's the present insane U.S. government, not the Iranian, that's a threat to U.S. citizens." (Janet)

"Thank you, ABC News for keeping the public informed on the idiotic plans the Bush administration has in place to further escalate the conflict in the Middle East. Cheney is trying is hardest to start a war with Iran. The people of the U.S. need to WAKE UP and put an end to this madness. We need more accountability in Washington to prevent another Iraq from destroying the region." (Eric)

"Hurrah to ABC! Anybody with half a brain is going to know that this info was deliberately leaked by the 'Bushies.' More posturing. More cowboy diplomacy! Thanks ABC for doing the job the press is supposed to be doing and should have been doing in 2001." (Rob Meyer)

ABC's treason is regarded as "Courageous", and a service to the nation because the evil 'Bushies' have sought to pull the wool over everyone's eyes... "Those evil crooked Bushies! Rove! GRRRR!!! Cheney! [making the sign of the 'evil eye'] and that ignorant "Cowboy"!!! God help us all!!!But wait! We forgot [LOL]! We don't believe in God! [sigh...] Silly us."

But this is the end result of Cultural Marxism: An ignorant and thoroughly brainwashed populace. This is what they've been taught by Government education; that the world desires to live in peace, but because of the Evil United States (yet conveniently, these dupes see their Democratic leaders, every bit as much a part of the Evil United States Governmental Machine, as somehow untainted by the corruption that has lowered America's 'Nice-Guy' capital in the eyes and minds of the saintly world) we have drawn the attention of a group of people-- adherents of THE religion of peace --as well as other socialist governments the Marxists in this country greatly desire to emulate. Treason then becomes an acceptable practice if it 'exposes' national secrets that will lower approval ratings and bring about a great revolution of change in this nation.

We watched with great wonder the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, never thinking just one day prior that such a sight was even possible, and now we want to be like our Cold War opponents? It makes no sense.

What was the Marxist Motto?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

--Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Program

How different is this motto from modern Liberal Ideology? Tuesday, Hillary Clinton in as much said, 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.' It doesn't take individual effort to achieve individual prosperity, no. It takes a village.

There is nothing wrong with a society that seeks to work together for the common good, but there is something seriously wrong with a society that additionally seeks to penalize those who succeed in life, to reward those who have not... especially those who haven't even tried.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a co-worker a couple years back. According to him, it was fine to extract more taxes from the rich because they could afford it. The concept of "Fairness in Taxation" had no place in this guy's world view. The 'Evil Rich' should pay more in taxes to pay for social programs that would benefit the saintly poor. Even those poor who make a living sucking on the national Welfare Teat, with no desire whatsoever to better themselves. A modern day "Robbing Hoodlum" who sees virtue in theft... virtue in underachievement.

The poor and downtrodden of America are not the same as the poor and downtrodden of 90% of the rest of the World's poor. Much of the poor in this country have at least one television. Many have gaming systems, and stereos. Cell Phones. Many have some form of personal transportation. Most even have jobs, albeit ones that aren't particularly conducive to personal advancement.

But the poor in this country are not held back to the extent that the poor in other countries are. There are opportunities in this country that have no rival anywhere else in the world. Ask yourself why so many immigrants who arrive on these shores penniless, that in short order achieve a measure of success that propels them above the national poverty rate? Are they simply lucky? Or is there something different in the way they think; about themselves, their abilities, their sense of personal pride and self-esteem? How willing were they to sacrifice to not only GET to this nation, but succeed as well? Could it be their work-ethic played a greater than average role in their successes? And what is it about our native poor that set's them apart from the immigrant class? Bad luck alone? Or, to a large degree, poor work ethic and a lack of self-esteem; a poor sense of personal self-worth perpetuated by public education?

Democratic presidential candidates are talking about universal health care, taxing the rich, and subsidizing the slothful and indigent alike, all the while doing nothing to correct the problems that pose more immediate threats to this nation. Democratic policies have contributed greatly to the problems of health care and the growing need for more and more welfare. Democratic policies have largely turned us from being a nation of self-reliant self-starters into a nation of indignant beggars with hands out in righteous expectation.

Record breaking Tax Revenues have been reported in the last several months. Not because the Rich are being more heavily taxed-- because of higher taxes all around, but because of tax DECREASES! Those evil Bush tax cuts!

But again, this is the result of education in America, which in turn is the result of Cultural Marxism. We have raised generations of Americans to be ignorant of common sense and the ability to string more than a single fact together to arrive at complex truths.

Example:

"Separation of Church and State" appears NO WHERE in the Constitution, yet the ignorant, rich and poor alike, treat the concept as the inviolate will of the founders. Nothing could be further from the truth

Higher Taxes bring in greater revenues that Lower Taxes, when history has shown the exact opposite is true

Record profits by Big Oil means the Consumer is being fleeced, when in fact complete ignorance of the principles of Economics most Americans display prevents them from grasping the difference between 'profit' and 'profit-margin' or just how much of the price of a gallon of gas is actually profit!

Muslims radicals would leave us alone if we'd simply leave them alone, when in fact history has shown this to be simply. not. true.

To name just a few.

What then was the ultimate goal of Cultural Marxism? To destroy traditional values in America? Destroy Christianity's influence on American society? What was it the communist's of old said about religion? The opiate of the masses? And how do you kill a idea?

By replacing it with another 'Opiate of the Masses'

Well, we're there. And if we're not committed enough to the ideals that made America great; to stand up and fight what the Left is doing to this nation, we will lose this nation within another generation.

The solution? From "Who Stole Our Culture?":

...secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."

Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?

Amen. And amen.

"Legitimate Demands"

2007-05-29T20:10:00.001-05:00

[Now that Memorial Day is over, here then is the American Traitor Adam Gadahn's latest video. Radical Islam is still the greatest threat this nation faces, though only slightly less than Bush's ridiculous Amnesty Bill]

"No great Nation can fall from without untill it has fallen from within."

--The Fall of the Roman Empire

With the state this nation is currently in? We do not DARE lose this fight.

Memorial Day 2007

2007-05-28T23:59:00.000-05:00

[This post will remain up top till midnight on Monday. Until then, please scroll down for new posts]

Hat Tip to BenT...

2007-05-26T08:13:00.000-05:00

...for finding this online.

If you've ever bothered to read the spam-filter busting text in some of the emails you've received... well... here's a guy who chose to put the nonsense to good use.

It's very very funny... very 'Jabberwockey-ish' with an epic dramatic feel-- a sense that some undefined danger is lurking nearby.

Enjoy.

Earth Day!? What Happened to Worship?

2007-05-25T12:14:00.000-05:00

First off, I rarely go do Dan's place. I just can't handle the 'rhetoric' over there-- I'm being polite, and that's all I'll say about that. But as it happens I ventured over there last night and saw two posts that didn't surprise me at all, though with the first I was a tad shocked.

Apparently, Dan's Church (Jeff St.) celebrated its annual 'Earth Day' service. According to Dan, "it was a beautiful day." And that's fine. But here's where it spirals down into.... I have no word to describe it, so I'll just quote Dan's post.

"We had two storytellers do an excellent job of telling the Easter Island story. The first story was Easter Island's story as it appeared to have happened (they collapsed under their own over consumption). The second story was a more hopeful What Might Have Been vision."

(The only 'somewhat rational' commenter on this post was a gentleman who goes by the moniker of Eleutheros-- He at least got the facts right...)

Now, all this took place on a Sunday, the day set aside to worship God. As this was an annual service, I must assume that Earth Day was the focus of the message.

I guess what had me mildly shocked was that the focus (judging strictly from the tone and content of Dan's post) was not God, His Son, or the need to win the lost to Christ. On a personal note, I don't believe I would feel comfortable at Jeff St. Not because I don't believe I would be welcomed there, but because I know I would always leave service hungry, rather than filled... Thirsty rather than quenched.

Again, his other post on 'The Bible and Economics' is not surprising to me; it's even a valid topic for biblical discussion, but I have a good idea of just where Dan would have gone with this one, had commenters allowed him-- as it is, there is only one commenter at this post.

Having said all that, here's a great article-- part one of perhaps several --by Christian musician Steve Camp called Worship Wars: seven perceptions of what biblical worship is not.

So then what is biblical worship? In response to Paul's words, Worship is ascribing worth to the One-Triune God, according to how God has ascribed worth to Himself, in response to the standard and veracity of His Word, out of an obedient life. In short, the worship driven life is living daily in the presence of His glory! As my pastor said this past week, "worship is not simply going to a place of worship; but worshipping in the place where God has called us to live everyday." Contrary to what our culture mandates and what sadly has defined the emphasis of worship in many local churches:

1. The Basis of Faith is the Scriptures - not experience;
2. The Object of Faith is the Lord Jesus Christ - not self,
and 3. The Goal of Faith is Holiness - not happiness

I don't understand what a celebration of Earth Day, in place of Sunday Worship, accomplishes in terms of proper worship. Perhaps Dan will offer a suitable defense for celebrating Earth, rather than God...

The Unquenchable Fire

2007-05-24T00:39:00.000-05:00

[A little something I wrote when I was more optimistic. Before 9/11.... It's a very long read.]

"He lay on his bed and the wind blew through the window over his ears and over his half-opened mouth so it whispered to him in his dream. It was like the wind of time hollowing the Delphic cave to say what must be said of yesterday, today, tomorrow. Sometimes one voice gave a shout far off away, sometimes two, a dozen, an entire race of men cried out through his mouth, but their words were always the same:

" 'Look. Look, we've done it!' "

--Ray Bradbury
Icarus Montgolfier Wright

From the stars he was born, to the stars he’ll return, whether through conscious effort, or in the collapse of a dying sun, remains to be seen. His journey is not yet complete. In fact, it has only just begun. From the moment his progenitors rose from the primordial ooze and saw their gods in the sky above, they longed to be among them. Birds flew over their heads to kiss the very hem of heaven's garment, and from that moment man has envied them their grace and power. His understanding of the world, however, was limited to the ache in his belly and his body's thirst-- the means of his survival. It would take tens of thousands of years for him to take his first tottering step toward the all-important question; "who am I, and where am I going?"

But the question of returning to the stars has always been a philosophical one. There's little doubt about the science involved in such an endeavor: escape velocities, calculus and physics, and many more questions man hasn’t begun to ask. But what of the question of environment, can man live in a vacuum? For that is what space is. How will this new environment affect his physiology? Simply put-- How will man hope to survive beyond the cradle of his birth? These are not easy questions to answer. They are the descendants of questions asked and answered throughout man's entire history—one answered question building upon another, until finally he’s endowed with understanding enough to ask again; "Who am I, and where am I going?" Robert Goddard, inventor of the liquid fuel rocket, in 1932 said, "Aiming at the stars... is a problem to occupy generations, so that no matter how much progress one makes, there is always the thrill of just beginning." And that is where man is now. He is just beginning. Who am I? Where am I going? It’s taken him a long time to get to the asking of these questions. Everything he has accomplished; every discovery, and new understanding, has been fueled by his insatiable thirst for knowledge, and the achievement of his greatest desire: to walk like giants among the stars.

When man first rose above the all-consuming struggle for existence and began to question the mechanics of the world in which he lived, he constructed a pantheon of gods, imbued with power greater than himself, and ascribed to them the occurrence of natural phenomena, in an attempt to rationalize the world in which he lived. Why couldn't man fly like the birds that swam the ether, wheeling and floating upon the fickle winds? There must be a price to flying, for only two men ever managed the feat and one died for it-- the sun himself destroyed Icarus for his presumption. It wasn’t enough for Icarus to simply fly; he had to see the earth far, far below, and see the shape of his world. Science, as it is understood today, had yet to even enter the mind of man, for was it not Zeus who hurled lightning to Earth? And was it not Persephone's burden that altered the seasons?

Immanuel Velikovsky, noted scientist, and author of the infamous book Worlds in Collision, said of man,

"Is man's knowledge now nearly complete? Are only a few more steps necessary to conquer the universe: to extract the energy of the atom... to cure cancer, to control genetics, to communicate with other planets and learn if they have living creatures, too?

"Here begins Homo ignoramus..."

The world was what the gods or God made of it. Should a man raise his staff over the Red Sea, it was God who parted the waters that his chosen people might pass through unharmed. If Joshua, forty years later, should shout at the sun and the moon, commanding them to stand still in the sky until the Israelites avenged themselves on their enemies, it was God who stopped them in their course, and not natural phenomena. Man’s view of the world was once a geocentric one, in which the planets, sun, moon and stars all revolved around the earth. And with no way to prove otherwise the earth was, of a necessity, flat. Some believed the earth rested upon Atlas's shoulders, or that it was a great plate sitting on the back of a monstrous tortoise.

But man has since come to know the Earth as round. Had Joshua known this, perhaps he may have been more considerate of those on the other side of the globe, who suffered great fear when the sun did not rise at its appointed hour. But there was no such understanding in Joshua’s day. Velikovsky asked a question more than fifty years ago and went in search of its answer: If the sun and moon did indeed stand still in the sky for the space of a day, then somewhere in the world night lasted far longer than it was wont. In the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan, also known as Codex Chimalpopoca, a tale is told of a time, when in the remote past, there occurred a cosmic catastrophe, during which, "the world was deprived of light and the sun did not appear for a fourfold night". It was not God who stopped the sun, Velikovsky contends, but rather some other event, which caused the earth to shift on its axis for a relatively short period of time. But man was incapable of understanding this.

It took time, but man eventually realized that certain phenomena occurred regardless of the whims of petty gods, and that these phenomena were very predictable. He began to ask questions. Questions that would eventually lead to theory that centuries later, would lead other minds to greater discoveries. The Greeks are famous for their mythology, and have often been noted for their contributions in philosophy, but few people recognize the significance of their contributions toward man’s Ultimate Goal. Greek and Roman philosophers were the early progenitors of modern science. Their philosophies formed the first known foray into explaining the nature of the world and the universe. It was Aristarchus who first proposed the idea of a world that rotated around its sun, but the idea was too much, too soon. The whole idea seemed impossible. Eratosthenes calculated the earth’s circumference at 24,675 miles, an estimate within 200 miles of the actual figure. But still the idea of a heliocentric view of the universe was too much for man to accept. Instead, he gravitated toward the ideas of Ptolemy and Aristotle, who espoused the belief that the universe was earth-centered, or geocentric. How else could it be? Surely man was the center of all things, and the universe existed and moved for his benefit. And it was Ptolemy’s geocentric view that dominated the minds of men for centuries to come; sponsored and vigorously defended in its final day by one of the world’s great religions.

The universe, however, was far from defined-- its mysteries yet unbreached --and it was not until millennia later that man at last began to see beyond his mistake-- his conceit --and begin to ask the questions that would take him beyond the breach of earth. In the sixteenth century, one Nicolaus Copernicus, endowed with a new understanding, the roots of which lay in the Italian renaissance, and a revived interest in the works of ancient Greek texts, began at last to describe a recognizably sound universe. Copernicus believed in a sun that stood still, and an earth, along with its brothers and sisters, that revolved around it. But there were mathematical problems. Circular orbits around the sun could not account for certain problems, and it took Johannes Kepler and his theory of elliptical orbits to resolve the anomalies.

But it was more than just determining what revolved around what. It was a new way of thinking, a new age of enlightenment, where the likes of Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon could be free to change the way man thought. Out of this new age, Descartes gave to the world the premise of deductive logic; and Bacon, the scientific method of inductive logic, both of which became essential to the ultimate goal of leaving the bonds of earth in flight.

Then there was Galileo Galilei. Until the 1500’s the Roman Catholic Church held a strangle hold on the worldview and Earth’s position in the universe, under God. If the earth and all his brethren revolved around the sun, and the furthest sphere of the heavens was not the habitation of God, His angels, and all the saints, then where was the proof of their doctrine? How then could they control the minds and hearts of the people if they could not point to the habitation of God and say, "This is where He dwells?" The Church was therefore forced to suppress these new ideas with the threat of excommunication. Twice Galileo was put to the question, and twice was forced to recant his theories, under threat of expulsion from heaven. But despite Galileo’s fear of the Church, and its very real authority at the time, his views endured. An Englishman by the name of Isaac Newton would eventually bring everything together. Called the Newtonian Synthesis, his findings brought all previous theories together and made sense of them. The Law of gravity, his most important contribution, remained inviolate until Einstein gave the world his General and Special theory of relativity. Yet one law yet remains inviolate: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Though it was never written in stone that man should come to learn to fly, or eventually sail among the stars, it was written in his spirit. Throughout time, and in every generation of belief, men have been born with a desire to reach for a goal they had no name for, and their endeavors laid the groundwork for future generations of explorers. And the questions given him, by fate or providence, fueled his spirit-- that unquenchable fire --driving him to challenge the popular conventions of his day, explore and learn more of his world, and risk his own well being by stepping out on the limb. No one knows for sure what drove the Polynesian peoples out onto the Pacific, but they were the earliest ocean-faring people. They spread across the ocean with the most primitive of vessels, and the most stalwart of hearts, traveling extensively and establishing their island kingdoms throughout the Pacific. Christopher Columbus is credited with the discovery of the America’s, but the Vikings beat him by almost 500 years.

With the evidence of his discovery standing before Isabella of Castile, Queen of Spain, Columbus emboldened other explorers to set out and discover what they could. Ferdinand Magellan rounded Cape Horn and threaded a course through what is now called the Straits of Magellan. For many years this route was considered a state secret, for it established Spain as a commercial powerhouse in their exploitation of the Orient. Of the five ships and 227 men who started out from Seville in 1519, only one ship returned. Magellan died in the Philippines two years into the journey, but the last ship, the one that managed the feat of circumnavigating the globe proved, at the very least, if one traveled far enough in one direction, he would eventually end where he started.

But none of this would have been possible at the time were it not for the Nation of Islam preserving much of what the Christian Church destroyed. For nearly ten centuries the Roman Catholic Church controlled Europe. In its endeavor to save the world for Christ, it suppressed everything that ran contrary to its perception of the truth, the world, and indeed, the universe. In its zealousness the church erased, destroyed, or re-wrote much of what man had achieved through the early Greeks, and Romans. Were it not for Muslims saving the works of such thinkers as Aristotle and Archimedes, much of what is taken for granted today would be lost. It was the Muslims who gave the sextant and the astrolabe to European explorers. Without these navigational instruments, for the plotting of latitude and distance on a featureless sea, Columbus and Magellan might not have had courage enough to match earlier explorers.

Having circumnavigated the globe, discovering new lands, and advancing society as he went, man was still no closer-- the stars were still beyond his grasp-- new questions needed new answers. Enter the Montgolfier brothers, two men who saw something unique in debris and embers lifted into the air by the smoke of a fire. From this they devised a plan to experiment with the lifting power of smoke. They buttoned together pieces of linen into a sphere thirty-nine feet high, and lined it with paper to prevent hot air from seeping out. On June 5, 1783, they invited the public to witness the launching of their new invention, the hot air balloon. It was an unmanned flight--a sheep, a duck, and a rooster notwithstanding --that rose to 6,000 feet, and flew for approximately one to one and a half miles. This event spurred others on toward the realization of the unspoken dream. But man’s understanding of the force that lifted the Montgolfier balloon was couched in ignorance. For many years afterward, the lifting power of smoke was referred to as "Montgolfier’s Gas", though it is taken for granted today that hot air rises.

But man was closer than he had ever been before. Now he could rise into the air! But despite this discovery, it soon became clear that to rise in uncontrolled flight was simply not enough. Bird’s manipulated eddies and currents of air to float or turn, swoop or rise; yet always in control, and man would not be satisfied with less. Otto Lilienthal built a forty-pound glider with twenty-three foot wings made of muslin soaked in wax and stretched over a wooden frame of split willow. It was his hope to demonstrate a sustained and semi-controlled flight, and despite the looks he undoubtedly got from his contemporaries, his first glide gave proof to the possibility of sustained flight. Though he only flew sixteen feet on his first attempt, he continued on, eventually flying as far as one hundred and fourteen feet. His experiments ultimately led to his death, but his successes inspired the next generation of explorers who, on December 17, 1903, provided the final piece of the puzzle. At the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Orville and Wilbur Wright forever changed man’s perception of the impossible. For if man could fly, what other seemingly impossible thing might he do? Could he fly across oceans? Perhaps go into space? Could he go to the moon?

In 1961, responding to the Soviet Union’s 1959 landing of an unmanned craft on the moon, President John F. Kennedy, though motivated by politics, set in motion the events that would lead to the first man setting foot upon another world. On May 25, 1961 he announced that the United States would make every effort to "land a man on the moon and bring him safely back to earth before the end of the decade", and in so doing, spoke the dream into existence. Kennedy managed to galvanize an entire nation into action and dared men everywhere to dream, asking, "Can we really do it?" Kennedy stated further, on September 12, 1962, in an address to the assembly at Rice University in Houston Texas, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." And it was a hard thing to accomplish, but that alone made it worth doing. The race was finally on. The Russians had beat the Americans at putting a craft into space, putting a man in space, orbiting the Earth, and sending a craft to the moon, and Kennedy was determined that the man to first set foot on the moon would be an American. Though he did not live to see the dream realized, America did not lose sight of the prize, and 240,000 miles away, on Christmas eve, 1968, Apollo 8 made the first manned flight to the moon and back. Barely seven months later, in July of ’69, Apollo 11 put two men on its surface. It was perhaps the bravest feat in man’s entire history. But while it’s one thing to traverse the Pacific in an outrigger canoe, with only the wind and stars to guide him, it was quite another to leave the cradle of Earth and enter the cold vacuum of space to visit another world. Before Apollo 8, no human had ever seen the earth as a globe. Now, suddenly, the human vision of the earth had changed "and our mother planet became like all the others, a very small lonely object in space".

The dream, however, is not over. Despite his accomplishments, man has yet to realize his dream of walking among the stars. A new environment requires a new understanding, and the solution to new problems. Cost is still the greatest prohibitive. There is a paradox of sorts in achieving orbit. The heavier the payload, the greater the amount of fuel required gaining orbit. But the more fuel you carry, the heavier the payload. And so achieving space is not cheap, and won’t be for some time to come. But some progress is being made toward lightening the payload itself. Miniaturization is the key: the catch phrase being, "the smaller the better." Thirty years ago, an onboard computer would weigh as much as a ton and take up ten times the amount of space. Today’s computers weigh far less and require only a fraction of the space the old behemoths once utilized.

But there is also a human cost. Humans are not bred for space. Man cannot survive there without gravity. It is something taken for granted by everyone, but without gravity, man has no hope of surviving his long walk among the stars. Russian cosmonauts and scientists have performed the most extensive research into the area of zero gravity environments, and some interesting facts stand out. Prolonged exposure to 'zero-gee' weakens the physical body in two major ways: One, the body loses bone density. Often the amount of bone lost in only a three-week trip into space is the equivalent of a lifetime of bone loss on earth; and two, The muscles in the body atrophy through disuse, which is the primary cause of bone loss. Another interesting factor about prolonged exposure to zero-gee is a body’s propensity for elongating; disks expand and the spine lengthens over time in a zero-gee environment, making an astronaut as much as two inches taller in space than on Earth. The only thing an astronaut can do to avoid muscle atrophy and bone loss in space is to exercise constantly. Escaping the benefits of gravity is an impossibility living on Earth. Man takes for granted the exertion expended each minute of the day, both waking and sleeping, in simply walking, lifting, or rolling over in bed. But it’s not a luxury afforded to those who would live in space. It takes hours of exercise each day to simply maintain one’s physical condition. The question of gravity also raises questions for those who would colonize another world, say, Mars. A person born and raised on Mars could not visit Earth without risk of life-threatening injury. A body accustomed to one-third of Earth’s gravity would find it difficult to stand, sit, lie down or even breath on Earth. The possibility of broken bones would be a very real hazard.

Knowing this, it’s surprising that governments do not invest more in the future of exploration. Research moves far too slowly, and new discoveries are dealt with far too conservatively. Man is afraid of moving too far, too fast, despite his accomplishments. He knows where he wants to go, he dreams of it nightly, but now he has new questions to ask-- new answers to go in search of. Man might personally venture to Mars by 2030, but it will be at least a century before any colonist goes there to live and work. There is no better investment for a society than research, but governments hinder exploration. They weigh cost against potentiality, despite the fact that it’s individuals who make the great discoveries, not governments. Governments do not see what neighboring planets have to offer, nor do they care to know if they can truly visit the stars. They do not ponder the same questions that dreamers do. Governments do not ask, "how shall we live?" or "What will we take with us?" Philosophically speaking, Government’s primary concern is the perpetuation of itself.

But here is a question Governments would do well to ask themselves: "What have we to lose by not going?" The answer? Everything! From the stars he was born, to the stars he will and must return.

As George Harrison once sang, "...all things must pass away." So too will man, whether through conscious effort-- killing himself through war or simple stupidity --or in the collapse of a dying sun, remains to be seen. But in time, when his sun begins to swell, consuming Mercury, Venus, and his own Earth, before collapsing in death, man will lose much more than the cradle of his birth, he will lose the pyramids of Egypt and the Coliseum in Rome. He will lose Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. He will lose Gandhi and Mandela, Di Vinci, Van Gogh, and Pablo Picasso. He will lose Marilyn Monroe, and all remembrance of a being called Man, unless he leaves the cradle for the stars.

The Polynesians were perhaps the most courageous of explorers. With little more than the stars to guide them and a fickle wind to fill their sails, they moved and proliferated across the world’s greatest ocean. Similarly, the astronauts of Apollo, with little more than the hopes and prayers of an entire world, proved that man could venture beyond his own doorstep. This is the kind of courage that will take man far beyond his own sun. No one alive today will likely see it, but the possibility remains. In the meantime, modern man does have one option available, should he wish to go out into the universe. For a very reasonable fee, the Encounter 2001 Project will place a sample of each explorer’s DNA upon a deep space probe launching in 2003. For thirteen years the explorer’s DNA will see the planets stream past until, reaching the Ort Cloud at the very outer edge of the solar system, will enter into the vast unknown. Anyone brave enough-- and with a spare $49 in pocket change --can send a piece of himself into space with a short message to whomever might find it. At www.encounter2001.com, the call is being made for intrepid explorers to join the likes of Arthur C. Clarke, author of "2001: A Space Odyssey," on the long voyage into the cosmos. Clarke himself is sending a short note with his DNA that says, "Hello, my clone!"

Man has longed for this. Throughout all of history he has yearned for flight, and realizing there was something beyond his world, to sail among the stars. It used to be his Holy Grail, but now it’s become his Manifest Destiny. It’s the fire burning in his heart that will impel him headlong into space-- if he doesn’t kill himself first. But asking questions and seeking answers has gotten him this far, perhaps it will take him farther.

"...A single day will see the burial of all mankind. All that the long forbearance of fortune has produced, all that has been reared to eminence, all that is famous and that is beautiful, great thrones, great nations – all will descend into an abyss..."

--Seneca
Naturales Questiones III, xxx

"As surely as the sun has risen this morning, and as surely as it will set this evening, the human race is going to the stars"

-- Neil Armstrong

"And if no one was there or if someone was there behind him, he could not tell. And whether it was one voice or many, young or old, near or very far away, rising or falling, whispering or shouting to him all three of his brave new names, he could not tell, either. He did not turn to see.

"For the wind was slowly rising and he let it take hold and blow him all the rest of the way across the desert to the rocket which stood there waiting."

--Ray Bradbury
Icarus Mongolfier Wright

The Conflagration of Madness

2007-05-22T23:12:00.000-05:00

A strong wind has been blowing for much of the day carrying upon its ephemeral back the evidential smoke of wildfires more than fifty miles away; wood ash and creosote... more of the former, less of the latter. The moon, half awake and sinking fast toward the west is smeared by a sickly yellow pal; were it a full moon, you might call it baleful. But as it is, it is half-lidded and so high above it all it need not worry about breathing the slight sting of the winds poisonous soup carried out of conflagration and elemental transformation... Wildfire, we call it.

And yet that's true of everything: the moon is immune to all we do, to the ills of this world-- for now --while exerting over us an influence, beneficial and unrelenting, in a rhythmic tug of war we cannot win. We labor here, laugh here, build and destroy here, love and die here, make war [but not peace] here, and yet the moon itself is unaffected by our works, loves, wars, and deaths.

I used to view the world as something beautiful. I still do, but I should qualify this simple statement. I look at the sky, the earth, the trees, clear springs, and especially the pounding surfs of oceans and I see nothing that deserves destruction. Likewise I look at the animal kingdom and see the big red kangaroos doing what roos do. I see eagles, salmon, cicadas, lions upon the savannas of Africa, Elephants in the jungles of Thailand and I see nothing deserving of destruction.

But then I look at man. And what do I see? I see murder... from the very first. I see hatred, selfishness, apathy, and insipidness... I see ignorance and arrogance... and I see very little NOT worthy of destruction.

And I am being Generous.

Wildfires are burning close enough to my home that winds carry news of them, postcards from the front. Letters from soldiers who will never see another spring or another inch of growth, because conflagration has consumed them. And yet this could be a metaphor for America, as well as the world.

Ignorance will be the death of America. Ignorance and apathy will be the death of the world. Ignorance of God, and indifference toward learning His ways. Vasko Kohlmayer is correct in saying that those who war against God suffer madness. For it is madness to argue that partial-birth abortion [or ANY abortion for that matter] should be a constitutional right, especially while just across the street the very same are picketing prisons and decrying the death penalty. It is madness to look at a man and woman, see how they are uniquely made for each other, and conclude that homosexuality is a natural outflowing of God's perfect will in the lives of those who practice what is biologically inconvenient. It is madness to advance a law that criminalizes thought. It is madness to believe raising taxes will increase revenue especially in light of record breaking tax revenues spawned by tax decreases!

It is madness when female school teachers guilty of raping students get comparably lighter sentences than male teachers guilty of the same. It is madness that the medical profession is propagated upon the deceit and corruption of drug companies and government agencies. It is madness when doctors have to pay upwards of 150k a year just for malpractice insurance.

The Right is susceptible to madness, but the Left even more so. Just fifty years ago everyone was rightfully suspicious of Communists, and those with communist leanings and contacts. But today, actor Danny Glover thinks nothing of going to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chavez to talk about a film deal. Jimmy Carter has cozied up to the man as well, as has Cindy Sheehan. Today, Socialism is a badge of honor among the liberal elite, despite the fact that Socialism and Communism have failed everywhere and every time it's been tried.

Hatred, Intolerance, Murder, Envy... all of it is madness, and all of it resides in the human heart, irrespective of race, nationality, creed or religion. Everyone born of woman is subject to all these and more. And yet no one wants to look at it. No one wants to look at the fires of war raging across the world.

Beheadings, kidnappings, mass murders-- even children are not immune.

We like to point our fingers at Hitler. But we, America, have the blood of 45 million babies on our hands. We like to castigate America for 400,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq, most of which were committed by Muslims, and yet the Soviet Union destroyed tens if not hundreds of millions of lives. And not just in Russia, but also China, Ukraine, Germany, Finland, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia... to name just a few. And the American Left mysteriously finds it chic to push a socialistic agenda upon this nation?

Why should God bless America? We kill the unborn, sanction unholy unions between same-sex couples, we've stripped our schools of the Bible and prayer... What is there in America today that deserves blessing and not destruction?

It's true. America is not what she once was. She has become something altogether different. Where once she sat reverently on the pew singing hymns and thanking God for His great providence, she now sluts herself on every street corner with no sense of decency and no moral compass to speak of.

But the winds are blowing, metaphorically speaking, and they carry with them the acrid stinging scent of conflagration. Out of fire new growth will emerge; that is the honest hope of all men, and the promise of God. Yet this nation is on the fringe of a great purge. We can see the smoke and scull the eddies and winds of wood ash and creosote, but we cannot yet see the flames. Yet somehow, because the fire is still hid from our eyes, we discount and ignore the evidence of smoke, and the stink of elemental transformation. We feel the heat but do not yet see the flames, believing therefore that we are yet safe. There is no fire... We can continue to whore ourselves out to everyone and everything contrary to God.

Of Flatulent Cows and Liberal Madness

2007-05-22T14:39:00.000-05:00

Worth a read. Hat tip to Ms Green.

Everyone knows my views on Democrats & Liberalism, so I'll forego any personal commentary for now.

"I Won't Waste My Time"

2007-05-19T19:33:00.000-05:00

I replied to Sturnumdrill in a previous post that I wouldn't bother going into why some of his objections to the Bible's inerrancy were easily explained. I've tried to do this before with others, and it has been my experience that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is hunkered down in their own ideological/spiritual bunker, and short of lobbing grenades into those individual foxholes NO one is coming out. Sturnumdrill, after lobbing grenades of his own, hunkered down with the following...

"Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing."
[emphasis mine]

"...but they are unconvincing." Proof positive that I waste my time trying to convince anyone to abandon the bunker they have dug for themselves. Unless the Holy Spirit speaks to anyone's heart when confronted with truth, they'll never see a need to leave the comfort of familiar surroundings for better digs.

I waste my time if I allow the discussion its head, to lead where IT will rather than where truth would lead. I try to remain patient and loving, but I do not always succeed. In point of fact, I rarely succeed in remaining both patient AND loving.

Here then is a series of comments at 'the other blog' I tried to get started. I say 'tried' because no matter how hard I try not to, I always end up injecting faith into the discussion. I thought to keep my political views separate from my spiritual views by keeping them on separate blogs... but it hasn't worked out that way. Proof of this lies in the fact that the other blog is languishing. And why should I keep my spiritual and political views separate? One must necessarily direct the other, or ideological anarchy would ensue.

As with bunkers, everyone has their own preferred methods of combating competing 'truths' as well. BenT likes to throw out spike strips to impede the delivery of building supplies. ER prefers to 'Piffle' his way through the arguments, criticizing the manner in which I and others use the materials that do arrive, claiming 'God is still speaking' (which to my mind means: God is still giving mankind 'revelations', which is NOT true) and therefore the material is being used incorrectly. Dan is less subtle in that he just tries to tear down every tabernacle I and other build that do not align with his own personal revelations from God, and he does it with such finesse as to make one wonder if perhaps we might have misunderstood him all along, that he really only seeks to save us from our own flawed understanding of God's word.

I'm not attempting to criticize BenT, ER or Dan, here... Only illustrate what I see coming from them... Emanating from them. And why I see trying to argue with them is pointless.

So when I say, "I won't bother", I'm really saying, "I'm tired of rehashing the same ol' ground over and over again." To my mind, all this is nothing but a tool of the enemy to wear down my resolve... my desire to keep the shield raised and the sword sharp and at-ready. It's like Jesus in the Garden asking his disciple to watch with him and pray. Twice he caught them napping, chastising them once. But the second time he saw the truth of the matter... the Truth of the Flesh... The spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak. I am weak. I have to constantly be lifted up, dusted off, and sent back into the fray.

And it is a fray. It is an invisible war we are engaged in. The war was decided at Calvary, but battle still rages. My side has won, but I can still be killed on the battlefield, because the enemy has no desire to see me enjoy my Lord's victory. The enemy wants me to get bogged down in religion, habitual sin, pride, wealth, worldly possessions, sex... all these and more rather than see me live a victorious life. The enemy wants me to argue pointlessly, rehashing, and retracing ground that is already covered and won. He wants me to believe I have to fight for the land upon which I stand with heels dug in. But I don't. All I have to do is stand. The ground is already mine by virtue of the fact that I am a joint heir in Christ; what is His is mine. All I have to do is stand. I have to do is plant seed. God gives the increase.

If I go to a Baptist church, it's because I hear the truth there, I feel the Holy Spirit there, and my heart is spoken-to there. But you see, I don't want to be a Baptist, I don't want to be a Methodist, or a Unitarian. I don't want to be an Episcopal, a Catholic, Jesusian, or a What-have-you... That's the Enemy's game. Dividing the Bride of Christ and getting her to lose focus by engaging in pointless struggles amongst her own number. I don't want to be identified by a religion...

Me? I just want to be a Christian.

Here then is a perfect illustration of why I see no point in engaging in endless, profitless debate about points of scripture.

Fair Warning: It's a lengthy read. The post can be found here, Answering BenT - The Unbeliever... sans comments. There is a link at the beginning that will give you lead you to the questions BenT initially raised at this blog. Following the convoluted path this post takes will be, I believe, worth the effort. I probably should have left all the comments there, but frustration got the better of me.

_____________________

BenT :

Many of your replies contain something along the lines of "well that was written for the audience of the time..." or "when people in those days observed..."

and that is exactly my point. The bible is a book written to be understood by someone in the 1st and 2nd century. Today we know mustard seeds are not small, we understand about microorganisms and astronomy. If you had tried to explain amoebic dysentery to the 12 disciples they would have had their congregations stone you for preaching about spirits and devils.

Fanatic Christians however keep trying to take the modern world and make it twist and fit itself so that it will never grow to contradict this outdated manuscript. I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray.

March 13, 2007 3:52:00 AM
________________

BenT:

These were in fact the verses I was thinking of when I said Jesus himself reportedly tells some of the disciples they will be alive to see the end of times.

"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28

"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:20:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

"I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray."

You are of course entitled to believe this. I naturally disagree.

The world was a very different place "in those days". They didn't have the knowledge we do, but that doesn't make their observations incorrect... only limited. Truth is uncomplicated, and many times truth is easier to find in the construction of a log cabin than in a building of glass and steel.

Matthew 16:28 can mean a couple of things: firstly, this passage is talking about the transfiguration. In all 3 of the synoptic gospels, this promise is made immediately prior to the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:27-36). Furthermore the word "Kingdom" can be translated "royal splendor". Therefore, it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration, which "some of the disciples-- Peter, James, and John, would witness only 6 days later. This comes from many commentaries. Secondly, John himself, on the Isle of Patmos while in the spirit "witnessed" all the events that would come in the end time... the rapture, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, the seven vials, world events, and the return of Jesus Christ to establish His kingdom.

Luke 21-23 is better explained by beginning at verse 7, "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

Jesus spoke often enough about the end-times that prompted His disciples to ask when it would be. Jesus, in Matthew 24:36, said of that day, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

The first chapter of Hebrews does a great job of describing the relationship between the Father and Son. It is also written somewhere (I've been unable to find it) that Jesus emptied Himself of much of His glory when He came to earth; this is beautifully illustrated by the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 and Mark 9:2-9. Jesus doesn't say in Matthew 24:36 that HE doesn't know, but it is reasonable to say He may well have not known when He spoke those words. Since God the father and God the Son are one and the same, Location probably makes a tremendous difference as to what the Son knew, specifically, at that moment in time. But telegraphing a specific date in time when His second coming would be would likely have caused many to get lazy and not work... to not be vigilant, hence the command to watch and wait, because we do not know the hour in which the son of man will come.

What Jesus does then is give a laundry list of 'signs' and speaks of the people of that day... that generation. The generation who sees all this coming to pass at once, will not 'pass away till all be fulfilled.'

Many prophesies in the Old Testament had two applications: One firmly rooted in the day the prophesy was uttered/written, and one in the distant future... a sign to those in that faraway time of the surety of God's word. Jesus likewise spoke in this manner.

In Luke 21:20 Jesus said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." He spoke of the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus. But with the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John on the Isle of Patmos, it becomes clear that this is also a reference to the time during the Great Tribulation when Jerusalem will be surrounded by her enemies once again, and overrun for a short time before Jesus Himself reappears and destroys the armies of the wicked.

March 13, 2007 11:05:00 AM
___________________

BenT:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Jesus didn't come to his transfiguration with glory. He went with Peter James and John, who by the way were not rewarded for their works at such an event. And none of the transfiguration stories mentions angles either. They mention Moses and Elijah, but those are clearly men. I find your interpretation logically torturous.

Would it shake your faith to the roots for a document, written originally as stand alone texts, by multiple authors, over the course of centuries, to be internally inconsistent? Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:37:00 PM
___________________

Eric:

What's torturous is your objection, taken out of context and ignoring speech pattern and the natural flow of speech from one related topic to another-- though not necessarily linked.

You quote Matthew 16:27 correctly but you apply it incorrectly. How does verse 27 apply to verse 28? Sure it immediately precedes it but verse 28 is fully self-contained. Jesus finishes one pronouncement then says something new; the two statements ARE relative but not married or joined at the hip. Besides which, in my previous comment I clearly offered a second possible explanation. Here then is a third: What of His ascension into heaven? It was attended and witnessed by many, including angels. The witnesses saw him coming into 'the glory of his Father with his angels...' the fact that the next portion comes after the semi-colon, well, who's to know how long of an interval there is between Christ being received up into glory and his rewarding of the faithful?

There's nothing torturous here except this debate. You're not going to accept anything I have to say on the matter anyway. I wish that weren't so, but... I'll continue if until it runs its course.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:58:00 PM
___________________

Bent:

So let's go over this

Matthew 16:24-27 24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

So here we have Jesus giving his stump speech "You wanna follow me, you gotta commit. It'll be hard, but you'll be rewarded in the end."

Matthew 16:28 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Then after speaking of the far future, Jesus throws out this little line "Oh yeah some of you will see it before you die" Now he could have been speaking of next week, when he transfigured, but is that really the most logical reading of the text. I mean if it was me, I'd feel a little gypped, no angels, no rewards, just a bright light and booming voice.

Luke tells the story differently

Luke 21:5-6 5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Jesus and the disciples are in the temple watching people tithe - rich people donating gold, a widow giving up her children. The disciples got to admiring the gold and jewels adorning the temple walls. Jesus says "you know this isn't as permanent and impressive as it looks. One day this will be an empty run down city lot."

Luke 21:7-26 7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?...

Jesus spends verses 8-26 talking about signs of when the temple will be torn down. Considering the amount of suffering and war he describes, it is certainly understandable how some of the disciples might have thought he was talking of the far future, when in fact the temple was razed just 70 years later.

Luke 21:27-32 27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

And then Jesus tells them "look for me then, I'm coming to take you home." After that there's a short story about how fig trees sprout in summer, but the key verses are 31 and 32. Jesus very definitely promised to return 1) when the fig tree sprouts 2) when the temple is torn down or 3) before all his disciples died. There is very definitely however no suggestion at all that he was talking about the transfiguration. And the words between the two promises are almost word for word exact.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:53:00 PM
___________________

Eric:

I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I'm no bible scholar, but I have studied the book off an on for the last 20 years. I WILL say I have a good grasp of what it says and IS SAYING.

To answer your question/argument I had to resort to books packed away in boxes (yes, I'm still living out of boxes here) and various sites on the Internet. The places I've been to agree with my second opinion on Matthew 16:28, namely, that this was fulfilled in John on the Isle of Patmos.

Here's this explanation from GodandScience.org:

"Atheists claim that there are false prophesies in the Bible, such as the one that predicts that the early saints would be there for Christ's glorious (2nd) coming, and that John would not taste death. This is the specific prophecy that they are referring to:

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

This prophecy was actually fulfilled in its entirety in the late first century. If you read the book of Revelation, you will see that John, the apostle to whom the prophecy was directed, saw Jesus coming in His glory to establish His kingdom. This is what the entire book of revelation describes - the second coming of Jesus Christ. John saw it all in a vision, as it will happen. The prophecy was fulfilled! The prophecy does not say that John would not die before Christ returned. It said that he would not die before seeing the return of Jesus Christ. What is awesome about the vision reported by John is that he did not understand what he was seeing, but reported it as he saw it. As such, he includes descriptions of a giant meteor collision with the earth, battles with mechanized machines that sound like tanks, and huge armies (200,000,000 men), which would not even be possible until at least the 20th century."

Now, I'm not calling you an atheist, I'm just quoting from the site. I've stated previously my belief that you found your arguments online somewhere, and that's fine. Neither of us are scholars for or against God. We do what we can with what we have available to us. Besides which, you never bothered to deny my assertion that you found your argument online; an assertion which, ultimately, is irrelevant. I'm told by the Bible I love so much to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..."

Now, I haven't been meek, but I've been fearful in that I greatly desire to answer your objections, whether you choose to accept the answers or not.

This Blog was not created for contentious debate, it was created to spur other believers to stand up and fight for what God has given us, and to, perhaps, persuade nonbelievers of the truth of God's word, both for fear of where these people will go if they die without Christ, and fear of their blood on my hands if I don't (Ezekiel 3:18-21) But if this means 'defending the faith with contentious debate', so be it. My bible says to go into the highways and hedges and COMPEL them to come in.

That's all I'm trying to do here. So, having said all that let me be absolutely clear on one thing: while I will seek to answer every question put forward, I will not allow this blog to become the "Eric, Ben, and Dan Show" however amusing some might find it.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:08:00 AM
___________________

Bent:

I can accept your new view of Matthew 16:28. It seems a little bit pixyish but it satisfies the logical and verbal requirements of the verse.

However your argument does not address Luke 21:27-32. And when you look at those statements you have to see the similarity to Matthew 16:27-28. The words are almost exactly alike and these events are described just before the transfiguration story. Are both men relating the same episode? If so then the Revelation explanation that satisfies Matthew 16:27-28 will not also satisfy Luke 21:27-32.

I am not seeking to break your faith. I certainly do not want this to descend into acrimoniousness, but I do want to understand your belief in the infallibility of the bible.

I took these examples from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. There are hundreds more. I do not accept all their nitpicks, but if the bible is infallible, then it must be internally 100% consistent. Not only internally consistent either, it must also align with external historical and scientific data.

One day/millennium in the future a religion may be formed around the Dungeons and Dragons novels. If all those different books were bound together, would they be 100% internally consistent?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:45:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

Luke 21:27-32 does speak of His second coming, but I think it's also important to note that, as I stated previously, many such utterances have more than a single application. It's also important to consider whom He was addressing at the time.

If you go back to verse 20, the reference is clearly the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. But if the Bible is to be taken as a whole, it then becomes clear that this also refers to a time far distant and removed from 70 A.D., namely the Tribulation He often spoke of. The new Temple, which is yet to be built, will also be overrun and smashed when the enemies of Israel come a'conquering.
Jesus was not just addressing fellow Jews, but also, Jews who would soon be something completely different; though oddly and indescribably the same-- Jews who would soon be Christians.

Now, in verse 5 they were talking about the Temple and how nice it was, but He immediately says, "the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

[Flavius Josephus covers this in The Jewish War]

He is then asked what the signs will be.

Jesus, always a step ahead of His disciples gives them more than they ask. They asked about the temple-- and He DOES answer in verse 20: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh”, but He sandwiches it in with a picture of what the world will be like much farther down the road. The reason this is obvious to those of us who believe is we DO take the Bible as a whole, and not simply a collection of 66 books written by some forty different authors over 1500(+/-) years. Especially when one considers the 'Law of First Mention' in the realm of prophetic interpretation...

"The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine."

Which is where "The Fig Tree" comes in. The Fig Tree is a picture of the nation of Israel. There are several prophesies that are part and parcel with Luke 21, that describe the days in which the Messiah will come to judge the nations (the Great Tribulation as it is generally called). Israel will become a rich blooming Garden. Where once were dust and desert, fruit, flowers, and green will all but cover the land of Israel. Israel today is the largest producer of fruit and vegetable exports in the Middle East. Also, no other time in history since the Babylonian and Persian Captivities has Israel EVER been an autonomous nation... until now. The Bible also says Israel will be a 'burdensome stone' to the rest of the world, and that Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. And Jerusalem has been under Gentile rule from centuries before Christ was born, to 1967 when Israel captured the city. According to prophecy the 'Time of the Gentiles' is over. We are nearing the end of God's prophetic purpose.

The Bible must be consistent throughout. Each book, chapter, and verse must compliment every other book, chapter, and verse without contradiction. I have seen and read nothing to suggest the Bible is anything but complimentary in all its myriad of parts. I understand skepticism, but I also understand that languages evolve, and meaning must sometimes be diligently sought. [For a look at what I mean, check out this Interlinear Greek text of Luke 21 and decide for yourself how difficult it must have been to translate ancient Greek to modern English (pdf)] Luke 21 speaks primarily of the time when Christ will return-- all those signs will be occurring simultaneously, and they will increase as a pregnant woman's contractions; increasing in frequency and intensity until something new is born out of travail.

Secondarily, Luke 21 does speaks of Jerusalem A.D. 70, but not to the extent that it speaks of Jerusalem at the end of the age.

_____

If for no other reason, I thank you for the opportunity your questions have given me to delve into this subject and gain a little more insight into events I honestly believe are right around the corner.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:37:00 PM
___________________

BenT:

We can argue these two passages back and forth ad-nauseum.

I've never heard of this "Law of First Mention" it seems to me something cobbled together to link disparate passages to find truths where there may be none to be found. I could take the 2nd letter after ever begat in the bible and if I sifted and rearranged them enough I'd have a "new" biblical insight.

Let's move on to a new puzzler:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

In fact short of Matthew 1:23 no one in the New Testament call Jesus, Emmanuel.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:59:00 PM
___________________

Eric:

The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek texts have His name as Iesous. but Jesus was a Jew, was He not? His Hebrew name is "Yahu'shuah", which is equivalent to Yehoshua, which also happened to be Joshua's name before translators got hold of it. Messianic Jews today call Him, "Yeshua"; phonetically, yeh-SHOE-uh

"Yehoshua" in Hebrew means, 'Yahweh (or "God") is Salvation', or "God Saves". It could be broken down further to simply "Salvation". My Bible's commentary has it translated as, "He shall save His people"... Which He has.

Immanuel simply means, "God with us" and this is certainly what Peter and others called Him.

Matthew 16:16
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

John 20:28
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

Jesus Himself said,
"I and my father are one"
John 10:30

And also,
"...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"
John 14:9

Martha the sister of Lazarus said,
"I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
John 11:27

Jesus also claimed to be God in
John 8:56-58
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Immanuel certainly fits-- as does Yehoshua.

Remember also that to a Jew the idea of another God beside Yahweh, was blasphemous at the very least. For these people to accept Him as a Son of God... as God Himself... was like asking to be put to death by the religious leaders of the day. There was a lot of debate going on over Jesus at the time, but one fact was inescapable to these people: No man could do the things Jesus did unless God were with Him and approved of Him. And to the Jew, who knew all to well that God is a jealous God and will brook no other Gods before Him, Jesus performed great miracles DESPITE claiming to BE God, and equal WITH God.

I therefore don't see a problem here.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________

BenT:

If you prophesy that a child is to be called Wilberforce, and someone later names him William, it is not the same.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:16:00 AM
___________________

Dan:

I think the problem lies within the claim of taking the Bible literally.

No one does. No one should.

We ALL (all of us who find any value in the teachings therein) have to evaluate any passage as to it's a literal statement, an allegory, a historical tidbit, a "historical" tidbit (written as if a history, but without necessarily sticking to exact facts - a common story-telling approach in many cultures).

We have to determine what the context is, what relevance (if any) a passage has for today, etc, etc, etc.

The problem comes when some people say "The Bible Must Be Taken Literally," when what they mean is, "You must accept the exact meaning that I have for every passage in the Bible."

So, it's not good enough for some that I try to take Jesus' teaching to "Love your enemy" literally. No. I must also agree with some that, "loving your enemy is okay, but sometimes you've really got to blast 'em to bits. And sometimes, not only your enemies, but their children and any innocent bystanders, as well."

The Bible is a great book of Truths. What many of us consider to be God's Word.

But it too often has been made into a battering ram to try to force people to agree with you on every single point.

Not it's purpose, seems to me.

March 15, 2007 8:27:00 AM
___________________

Brent:

I guess I'll weigh in here a little bit.

What is the purpose of the debate? It sounds like a democrat and republican debating various points that matter little from their own agenda. If the purpose is for truth then so be it. You both come from completely different paradigms so you will never agree or score debate points with the other. I think it is an example of what's wrong with our system.

E your do a superb job at being a scholar but your barking up the wrong tree if you think you can convince Ben of anything. And Ben you're not scoring any debate points with E. So what are you all doing? If the goal is truth you will not find it in your current state of communication. If you're out for a healthy word duel then you've hit the mark and enjoy.

Truth can only come through revelation. Study, meditation, and process are all important but these things were hidden from the "wise" and revealed to "babes." I know that sounds like an out that says I don't have to listen to Ben but so be it. I've had my fill of debates and found them unsatisfying and unproductive. I believe that debates are fine but their end result can't be vanity. We will have differences as long as we depend on our intellect first without seeking the One who wrote it. If Ben is really a seeker of truth then it will lead him to the One who has the answers if he is willing to listen. But the same goes for you and I. Maybe Ben's problem is that too many of Father's children speak for Him without having heard His voice on the matter.

b

Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:16:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

Thanks Brent. You are, of course, right. But I like Bent... work with him in fact... and I'm not willing to give up just yet. But I can limit the discussion to just this post.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:01:00 PM
___________________

Eric:

The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith, for without that book, we HAVE no faith. Without the Bible, what faith would there be?

---

Wilberforce?

Emmanuel and Jehoshua are synonymous.

Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:04:00 PM
___________________

Dan:

"The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith"

Well, as I said, for some of us, it is the Word of God. I wouldn't call it my faith, but it is the primary source where I learn about my faith (or rather, I consider God the primary source of how I learn about my faith and God has revealed God's Self through God's Word).

Friday, March 16, 2007 4:39:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

"...it is the primary source where I learn about my faith"

And as it is the only way you CAN learn about your faith, it is THE faith. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God. When Jude says to 'earnestly contend for the faith' he speaks of the revealed word of God. And that is exactly what the Bible is... the revealed Word of God. Without it we would have no faith.

Friday, March 16, 2007 7:44:00 AM
___________________

Dan:

It's not the only way. God reveals God's Self through the Holy Spirit in our lives. God reveals God's Self to us through God's creation. God reveals God's Self to us through our God-given reasoning and the imprint of God's nature in us.

Wouldn't you agree?

Friday, March 16, 2007 8:56:00 AM
___________________

Dan:

Without it we would have no faith?

You mean, for those who've not been exposed to the Bible, they can't believe in God? If some fascist gov't were able to destroy all the Bibles in the world, you think Christianity would be dead?

Not my faith. God is bigger than the printed Bible. The Bible is not our God, nor our faith; it is God's Word to us. But if it were gone, God would still be there reaching out, just as God was reaching out to Abraham, Noah and all those who came along pre-Bible

Friday, March 16, 2007 8:59:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

Naturally, you've missed my meaning. If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith. It is through the Gospels and Epistles that we have our faith today.

Friday, March 16, 2007 1:02:00 PM
___________________

ER:

1. Bingo: "Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents."

2. Wrong: "If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith."

You limit God to the production of words on paper! THAT is your problem. You DO, in fact, worship the book over God himself.

Friday, March 16, 2007 9:12:00 PM
___________________

Eric:

If that is so, then Jesus too is a bibliolater. For, when confronting the Scribes and Pharisees of His day he held the word of God in very high esteem... perhaps TOO high:

"Have you not read what God said to you?... Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written... What is written in the Law? How do you read it? ...In your own Law it is written... Have you not read in the book of Moses?... It is written in the Prophets... Then what is the meaning of that which is written?... The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him... Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms... Begone, Satan! For it is written... It stands written... As it is written... On the other hand, it is written... Is it not written?"

You claim to love God and the teachings of Jesus yet you claim his Word is not to be taken seriously... not to be held in high esteem. It's most likely been corrupted over the centuries. Who can know what it really said? It can't be trusted.

I don't worship the bible. I worship God. And I hold His word in very high esteem, because all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works... Which is why it's called 'The Good Book'.

If I might make an observation at this point... you and Dan appear to have a form of Godliness, but you routinely deny the power thereof... and the efficacy of His word. How can you worship God without venerating His word? How can you be saved WITHOUT His word?

You can't. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD...

Why do you think it's called the HOLY Bible? Because it's God? Or is it merely a repository for Godly wisdom? And if that be the case, why shouldn't we venerate it? Hold in high esteem?

Your focus is not where it should be, as were the Pharisees'. Jesus told them to "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

You and Dan are missing the forest for the trees... Just like the Scribes and Pharisees.

What does Jude 1:3 mean by "earnestly contend for the faith"? Why, even, are we to contend!? Because certain men are crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

They were "Filthy Dreamers". Seducing spirits perverting the word of God and "lead[ing] captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts".

Obeying and clinging to His word is not idolatry, clinging to ones own understanding is.

Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________

Dan:

"For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD."

Well, you know, in the Bible, Jesus tells us that HE is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is the Logos.

That's what we're saying; we worship Jesus and follow Jesus' teachings. As such, I personally love the Bible and hold it to be God's written Word to us.

But we must rely upon God to reveal God's Word to us. If we just read and pick and choose what we want to believe, then we can stone gays and disrespectful children, dash babies heads against rocks, gouge out our eyes and do all manner of evil.

We must rely upon the God who gave us the Word for direction and teaching and THAT is the God we must worship.

Now, as to this accusation that ER and I "appear to have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof," you'd be doing both of us a favor if you'd let us know exactly how we're denying the power thereof.

I don't believe ER and I know that I am not intentionally denying God's power - quite the opposite. We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love. If you have reason to think otherwise, you'd be helping me out by letting me know.

If you don't have reason to think thusly, then maybe you owe us an apology for mischaracterizing us thusly.

Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:11:00 AM
___________________

Eric:

"We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love"

nuh uh, What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity. And when others tear the same down, you rarely... RARELY defend your "supposed" brothers and sisters in Christ.

Each day that passes, you and your coterie of likeminded scholars, demonstrate to me and the rest of your abused brothers and sisters in Christ, that you lack a genuine knowledge and understanding of the truth.

Our spirits do not agree.

Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:49:00 AM
___________________

Dan:

"What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity."

Again, brother Eric, I'm asking you to show me where I'm doing so. I'm not intending to do so; I'm intending to engage in a brother with whom I have a disagreement. I'm intending to discuss God's Word in our lives.

Where? Where have I or others torn down fellow believers? Disagreeing with your position is not the same as tearing you down. In fact, if I think your position is biblically wrong, aren't I doing a kindness to discuss the matter with you? Isn't this the process of divining the Word of God with the family of God?

Who has tore down others? I, who have disagreed with you, or you, who has repeatedly questioned some of our salvation (I've never done so towards you), who've called us names (most recently, "delusional redneck who worships pond scum"...Geez!) and who've misrepresented my position and then not allowed me to respond?

Where, brother, have I torn down?

Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:58:00 PM
___________________

[And that’s where I left it and deleted, out of frustration, all but what still resides within the original post. In recreating this dialog from email notifications, I took the liberty of correcting spelling and the more serious flaws in grammar (and surely missing some of both). Each original thought remains intact despite my editing.]

My intent in reposting all this is not get into an argument all over again with BenT, Dan, or ER, but only to illustrate my point that this kind of debate is largely pointless.

Thieves! Liars! Cheats!

2007-05-17T20:20:00.000-05:00

DEMOCRATS!!!

"In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable."

National Review Online
May 16, 2007

Whatever happened to taxation without representation? If these thieving, lying, cheats succeed why shouldn't the rest of America take their constitutional right under the fourth amendment for a walk straight to Washington D.C. and take back our government... at gunpoint! Throw every last Democratic Bastard OUT on their ears!

THIS congress-- particularly the Democratic leadership and every sorry bastard that votes in favor of making our voices moot on ANY discussion of taxation --is the most corrupt congress this nation has ever seen.

BAR NONE!!!

And they've held the reins of power just under four months! Imagine what they could do if given a year... or more!!!

Call your congressman, call your senator. Demand they denounce this stratagem. And demand accountability from every single thief who even suggests this is a good idea.

Rev. Jerry Falwell - 1933 - 2007

2007-05-15T13:36:00.000-05:00

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

2 Timothy 4:7-8

New Links in the Sidebar

2007-05-13T14:13:00.000-05:00

I've added a couple of new links in the 'Founded on Rock' category. My motivation for doing this [and I'm surprised at myself for not doing it much much sooner] was last post's discussion in comments about God and Science and evolution.

I don't believe Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive disciplines. To my mind they are mutually complementary. For if God created man and his capacity for reason, He created Science as well.

The first is God and Science

The next is Reasons to Believe

A little science never hurt anyone... Least of all Christianity!

ABC's Christians vs. Atheists Debate

2007-05-10T23:54:00.000-05:00

Is online and available for viewing now... Haven't found a transcript yet, but then I don't expect to. The video is also available on YouTube.

Another Hanso Foundation Riddle

2007-05-10T23:24:00.000-05:00

"You've taken a battle, but that's all it was-- a battle. Humanity needs me. Now more than ever. I have the virus. I have the will. And I will not fail."

Dr. Thomas Werner Mittlewerk
Formerly of The Hanso Foundation

Speaking Truth to Bigotry?

2007-05-10T15:01:00.000-05:00

Al Sharpton get's called out for bigotry!? America's premiere bigot is accused of religious bigotry!? What else is new? He once had some very nice things to say about 'Jew interlopers' and now he's added Mormons to his long list of peoples to hate.

Huh! Imagine that.

Problem is, Sharpton's right. Mormon's don't believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; They don't believe in the God who clothed Himself in flesh and took the name of Yehoshua (Joshua)... you know, the guy the Greeks called Jesus?

In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, pp. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, pp, 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants, 130:22.) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

And the book of Mormon, written by Joseph Smith is an archeological fraud... Mormons in Transition. Where multitudes of evidence exist to support the historicity of the Bible, none exists for the cities and peoples of The Book of Mormon...

The simple truth is Mormonism is NOT a 'brand' of Christianity. It is not Christian.

And according to the doctrine of Mormonism Blacks are 'cursed' with dark skins because of Cain-- the pigment of their skin the 'Mark of Cain'.

"THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. IT IS THE LORD'S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence]." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

"Though he was a rebel and an ASSOCIATE OF LUCIFER IN PRE-EXISTENCE, ...Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.... [H]e came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel.... AS A RESULT OF HIS REBELLION, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK SKIN; HE BECAME THE FATHER OF THE NEGROES, and THOSE SPIRITS WHO ARE NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

And according to Mormon tenets, Blacks weren't allowed to serve in the Mormon priesthood... until 1978. What, allow a cursed descendant of Cain to serve in the Mormon Tabernacle!? Scandalous!

"Negroes IN THIS LIFE are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added. (See also LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:20-27)

As much as I detest Sharpton, he's right about that much. His bigotry remains, however, in that he chooses to speak condescendingly of Mormons. Mormons, in and of themselves, aren't monsters! Donny and Marie turned out okay. Is Mitt Romney really a bad guy simply because he's Mormon? Orrin Hatch, republican senator from Utah isn't a monster. But there are, of course, exceptions. In every race, caste, class and religion, there are exceptions... Monsters aren't cultivated from a single plot of land, they spring up indigenous on every acre of dry land as far as the east is from the west. But Harry Reid springs immediately to mind as an example of a Mormon gone bad.

Still. Sharpton is merely reaping what he's sown, especially in light of the Imus imbroglio. Sharpton IS a bigot, though everyone but himself seems able to see it. He IS a bigot, despite the truth he spoke of Mormon's.

The Reverend Al Sharpton-- a Black man speaking truth to Bigotry.

Giving this a title would be pointless....

2007-05-08T23:02:00.000-05:00

It was once pointed out to me by someone equally tired of poison pills,

"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

II Timothy 2:14

...but I, with the patience of stone, could teach mules stubbornness.

When I found blogging, about 5 years ago, it was all mostly online diaries and nothing about which to get ones kettle whistling. I didn't give God more than a passing thought, or more than casual acknowledgement. Church visits were rare, but not unheard of, and as a Christian I was languishing in too many of my fathers' sins, handed down to me, and me hoping deep within myself to pass them no further down the line. Being single, never married... no offspring... was, as it were, my one 'saving grace'. Another of my fathers' sins was a quiet detachment from attachments to friends, loved ones, and an inability to trust enough or long enough to build friendships.

As a result, I hide in my solitude. And I've been fine with this. Until "Pocket Full of Mumbles"... and one night with an answer to fervent honest prayer and the overwhelming presense of God standing in the midst of an MRI... comforting me in a very very very tight place. Until that day, God was someone you went to when you needed something. Jesus was the name with which you signed-off each request. Nevermind the years and amount of study that served me prior to that night, nevermind the hours I spent absorbing scripture, nevermind the earnest attempts to hear his voice and find, as Paul too sought, succor from a thorn in the flesh. But aside from the initial rush and the accompanying knowledge that I belonged to Him one fall evening in 1976, He remained silent and enigmatic. Until two years ago... the night of that MRI. That is my testimony! That God is real. And He loved me enough to set aside His glory to put on rags and walk in filth for thirty and more years, only to die painfully on an altar hewn by rough and evil men.

For me.

I don't know what He wants with me, but I know He wants me. And He wants me in His will. His will for my life. The purpose he purposed in my shaping before the foundation of the world, and like the shapes of rain pulled inexorably from the heavens to shape stone over seasons, centuries, and ages, what say had I, the stone, in the shaping?

'What is my purpose?' I ask. He is still silent. Perhaps I am not asking the right question. Perhaps I'm not ready to hear. Perhaps I am not yet in His will. Maybe there is still too much of my father in me. Whatever it is, I am at this moment, angry. And shut-off from the intimacy of friendships.

Yet there it is... The answer: I am angry. I can rationalize why that is, and my rationalizations would carry the weight plausible undeniability, for we are, each of us, shaped by the rains of experience; moments, hours, days, years... and decades. I am a product of this sinful world, and I don't want to do good. At least my flesh doesn't!

I am angry. Angry enough to say enough is enough, and resort to taking a stand. Who do I have if not Jesus? WHAT do I have if not Jesus? And in the midst of a spiritual war I cannot see, it's bad enough that I have to learn, at so late a stage, to put on the whole armor of God, and brandish the weapons He's provided me, to fight an enemy I can't even see, but now I have to fight, almost daily it seems, an enemy that claims to be a brother in arms!

"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

Which brings me to my point.

Trying to make a difference. Doing what I can with what He has given me, while the one I should be able to rely upon to watch my back, is instead bent on tearing down each tabernacle I build.

I once sent an email to Dan Trabue, wherein I wrote, "I've hesitated in [the] past to call you brother-- though I have on occasion --but no more. We'll laugh about all this on the other side. That, at least, is my hope."

It was a concession, as much as a call for truce. Yet it seems now I've conceded ground that was not mine to concede, to a man for whom the word truce, it would further seem, was, and remains, utterly meaningless. I say, 'it would seem' because he offers few concessions of his own, choosing instead to be a stumbling block to everything I'm trying to do. Were his actions toward me merely the honest attempts of a brother to keep another brother 'honest', his comments would not be almost solely bred to division and strife, and the tearing down of tabernacles.

I cannot say that Dan is NOT a child of the Most High. Only God knows for certain, but the author of MY salvation gave me a Comforter, Who is the express image of Him every bit as much as Jesus is of His Father. And this Comforter will never lie to me. Jesus said I will know a tree by its fruit, and so the Spirit within me should agree with Dan if we were brothers. But since we agree on so very very little, what else am I to believe? I sense nothing in my spirit to lend me toward the belief that Dan and I are brothers.

I cannot say Dan IS a child of the Most High God. I see no evidence of it. What I do see is contention and strife... evidence of the Enemy... not God, not the love of Christ. Not the loving rebuke. Instead, his love seems reserved only for those whose doctrine marches to drums of deceit and disillusionment, rather than the trump of God.

After his most recent comment at my previous post (comments have since been closed for reasons I may or may not disclose later), I decided to google "Dan Trabue" & "I'm on a mission", and this is what I found (emphasis wholly mine)...

"...

"If pacifism is a "pet issue" of mine, it's only because I see it as part of my mission to confront and challenge the church to biblical orthodoxy and sticking to the message of Jesus - an area in which, in my mind, the church is largely apostate.

"Jesus spent much time talking about peacemaking, economic issues, challenging the powers that be - in short, the Good News as Jesus defined it. The Church has, instead, made the gospel about opposition to abortion, gays, sex, drinking and cussing and a few other areas (with some differences depending upon the flavor of religion). And so, I'm "on a mission from God..." a task I'm sure you wouldn't want me to shirk?

..."

Posted by Dan Trabue
March 29, 2006
@ Stones Cry Out

He began that comment with the words, "I apologize if what I've done is "thread-jacking..." And the irony therein is that this is something Dan is very good at. That, and sowing discord among the brethren... subverting the message... and seeking, as the fowls of the air, to devour what little seed I am able to sow. What's most frightening to me about this comment is Dan's equating of 'talking about peacemaking, economic issues, [and] challenging the powers that be' with the Gospel, for nothing could be further from the truth. The Gospel can be summed up in a single verse, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life". That's it. Nothing about raking leaders over the coals, establishing welfare states, or endless rounds of peace talks.

He has had a virtual free pass here because I was unwilling to give up on him, but I will not continue to allow ANY 'sweet as honey' snake to lay unmolested on the greensward of this blog any longer. Neither will I turn comment moderation on. I don't even ask him to leave. But neither will I continue to debate points of scripture with Dan... or ER. I won't give what I deem 'ignorance' a platform. To that end I will delete any comment that subverts or seeks to destroy the seeds I sow here.

I check my mail often. Any comment I see as trying to tear down what I am trying to build will be deleted.

Yes, I'm angry. But not without cause. Praise God, I don't hate anyone! And as far as I'm concerned Dan hasn't anything to apologize for... he is simply being who he is, and because of this he's merely speaking "...evil of those things which [he] know[s] not: but what [he] know[s] naturally, as brute beasts, in those things [he] corrupt[s] [him]sel[f]." Jude 1:10

But it's not my place to judge Dan. Instead I'm choosing to obey the Lord by marking him and avoiding him, per Romans 16:17-18

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

I'm not perfect. Never said I was. But I am, by the blood of Jesus, made righteous in HIM. And whatever anyone may think to the contrary, I don't have to put up with the kind of crap I've freely allowed to be posted here thus far.

Yes, Dan's on a mission, but not from God; every comment he leaves at every blog he finds fault in, appears to seek confrontation... to confront the Church and drag it kicking and screaming to a new orthodoxy... suffused to its reeking and brittle bones with the commandments and doctrines of men... making proselytes that are two-fold the children of hell... seeking to divert any seeking soul, at this blog and others he finds fault in, from finding faith in the very Lord he claims to love. Well not here. Not anymore. He may not feel it necessary to defend Christ, but I do.

At this point I couldn't care less if I didn't receive a single comment from this day forward. There will certainly be no comments on THIS post! Anyone have anything to say? expletive-filled criticism? glowing praise? anything in between? You can find my email on my profile. Use it. Or don't... as you see fit.

Have a very nice day, and may God richly bless you all! and give every man according as his work shall be.

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

"...Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

Millions Will Hear

2007-05-08T13:10:00.000-05:00

[What follows arrived in email just under an hour ago. I highly doubt they'll mind my posting here in toto]

Just a quick note to let you know that the debate went wonderfully.

When I say "wonderfully," I have to qualify it. It was like an open air with an unreasonable and loud heckler. The "heckler" in this case wasn't just the two atheists we were there to debate, but the fifty atheists in the audience. As per ABC's stipulations, the audience was composed half-and-half -- fifty Christians and fifty atheists. The Christians were very quiet and polite -- the atheists weren't. It was very apparant who was who in the audience. It seemed that no matter what we said, it was completely ignored by Brian and Kelly (the atheists) and then followed up with their anger, mockery, and insults. But as with a good open air, the heckler is simply a platform to speak to the crowd who is listening. In this case there is a crowd of millions who will hear clear, concise evidence for the existance of God. How incredible. So I am delighted, because of what we were able to say.

Below is the press release and the information you need to watch the debate Wednesday. Thanks for your prayers.

God bless,
Ray Comfort

_____________________________

News Release

Atheists' Mockery at ABC's "Face Off" of God's Existence

_____________________________

A 100-year-old Baptist church in the heart of New York was the venue Saturday for an ABC debate on the existence of God. Actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort "faced off" against two atheists from the "Rational Response Squad," in a debate moderated by ABC Nightline's Martin Bashir.

"We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case," said Comfort, "but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. 'Nasty' is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."

In the debate, Comfort presented proof for the existence of God, while Cameron offered evidence to show that the theory of Darwinian evolution is unreasonable and unscientific. They pointed evolutionists to www.IntelligentDesignVersusEvolution.com, where they're offering $10,000 to anyone who can provide a genuine, living transitional form supporting evolutionary claims. The debate also addressed such questions as "Who made God?" and "What about the heathen in Africa who've never heard about God?"

"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."

While Comfort and Cameron will have to wait until Wednesday to see what the public thinks of the debate, they report that they've already received encouraging email from one audience member who commended their presentation: "Good job last night! Although I received my invitation to the show via the atheist camp, I must confess that I was impressed with the two of you (and that I was embarrassed by at least two atheist audience members, whose hostile questions bordered on heckling--I admired your calm and courteous responses). ...I find the 'Design means there was a Designer' argument to be perfectly logical. I just have yet to come across convincing evidence that this Master Designer of the Universe inspired the Judeo-Christian Bible.'"

Another encouragement, Comfort added, was that both mothers of the two atheists in the debate are Christians--one of whom was in the front row of the audience. Comfort stated, "Both sincerely thanked us for our stand, and said that they were earnestly praying for us."

The entire debate will be streamed Wednesday, May 9, at 1:00 p.m. EDT ( 10:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/, then again at 2:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/abcnewsnow/, and an excerpt will be aired that night on ABC's Nightline.

We will have the debate available for viewing online from our video sharing accounts. The videos will be available for viewing after ABC streams it live on their website Wednesday, May 9. You can visit the following link to find the video when it is available. Keep checking after ABC streams it live.

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/abc_debate.shtml

Touring Last Night's Dreamscape

2007-05-08T09:45:00.001-05:00

I don't usually remember my dreams, and I'd never actually post them if I did, and yet here I go...

For some reason my dreams always involve rescuing someone from something, or performing heroic deeds, call it my sub-conscious 'Walter Mitty' but last night's was far different, which is why I'm making note of it.

There are two parts to this one; both related somehow, beyond my ability to understand, and yet very different.

I was basically minding my own business, driving around on a cooler looking golf-cart, call it a 'sports-cart'. And I was driving it everywhere, even into what looked like a post office, but was a more official place. At one point I abandoned the cart because the people inside told me I shouldn't be driving it inside the building so I drove it back outside, parked it, and walked back in to explore.

The next thing I knew there was a bunch of people in there, many of them dressed in period clothing-- I'm wanting to say 'Roman' but that wasn't quite it, it was more a mix of Roman and Victorian.

There were people there who knew me, though I cannot now remember if I knew them. Just outside this building was a small pond surrounded by a boardwalk on the building side, and stone and grass on the outward side. Some of these people were admiring the water, but I looked and couldn't see any life, no fish at all, until I saw an eye beneath the water turn its gaze toward me. It was then that I discerned the shape of a snapping turtle, a BIG snapping turtle and I pointed it out to the aforementioned period-dressed folk, who then smiled and thanked me. I can only assume that the reason no fish were in the pond was because the turtle had eaten them all.

I then reentered the building and saw a group of people to my left sitting and chatting. I approached and saw that there was one seat available on a small sofa beside an attractive young woman, and completely contrary to what my waking-self would do, I sat down next to her and put my arm around her.

She didn't pull away and none of the others, among whom were a few who knew me, raised an eyebrow or acted as though what I had done was the least bit remarkable or inappropriate. It was then that my waking-self realized what I had done and my dream-self [oddly subject to my waking-self's sensibilities] apologized and tried to pull my arm away from around her shoulders [my arm wasn't merely over the back of the sofa but over her shoulders and my hand upon her opposite shoulder and upper arm... affectionately] but she quickly moved her hand [her right hand-I was sitting on her left] and grasped my retreating hand and pulled it back to where it was, affectionately draped across her shoulders.

Then she said something odd [to my waking-self. I get the impression that my waking-self was along for the ride on this dream which is perhaps why this dream was markedly different from the ones I usually remember]:

"You can meet with Mr. ______ [(?)...began with a 'W'] on Wednesday at _______ [(?) a public place... restaurant? office? Neither my dream-self, nor my waking-self recognized the name]. He's my pastor at Cloverdale Baptist Church. We can't see each other unless he approves. Do you go to church anywhere?"

I don't remember responding to her question, but my waking-self was thinking 'Praise God, I do!' And yet I was also troubled by what she said [whether troubled in my dreaming-self or waking-self I cannot now say. Perhaps both], but I can't say why [I didn't immediately respond], perhaps it was because I had just met her, even though she had yet to give me her name.

I still don't know her name.

I do remember being troubled by the fact that I had to meet someone who wasn't her father [of that I am sure] to win approval to date her. And why her pastor? Why HIS approval?

[Interesting note on Cloverdale Baptist Church. It's less than two miles from where I live, and less than one mile from the flowershop where I work mornings. About six weeks ago the boss-lady, her chief designer, and myself spent an entire afternoon at Cloverdale Baptist Church dressing it for a wedding. Our floral designer will not make arrangments at the shop then cart them to the church because there is too much risk associated with transporting them. So everything; flowers, containers, filler, everything you can possibly imagine a designer needs to create arrangements... glue-guns even!... was carted to the church and carried to the sanctuary where he put everything together. It took about 4 hours... About two hours longer than I thought it should take!]

I was also troubled by feelings of doubt despite the voice that kept saying, 'this IS what you've been praying for...'

Call me old fashioned but I'd like to get to know someone before I contemplate marriage, and that is exactly the impression I received from her in her telling me what would make our seeing each other possible... 'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers' [2Cor 6:14], and was the context of my dream-self's recollection of my walking-self's adventure at Cloverdale Baptist Church. This woman was talking potential marriage. Hmmmm.

The dream moves on from there...

In the same building was a Roman style bath, though not as spacious as the baths of ancient Rome. I was in a smaller room-- a changing room I believe --with a group of men in toga's armed with short-swords. There was tension in the room, even in me. Someone was breaking through the outer wall and these men with swords were waiting for the stone and tile to tumble in and when it did they began attacking the men trying to climb through the hole.

I had no sword. I was in a corner where I could look through the doorway and see the far wall of the other room. That wall was being broken through as well, but because of the din of fighting in the room where I and the sword-wielding toga men were, they didn't hear the sound of crumbling stone and tile in the other room.

Seeing what was about to happen I ran from the room I was in, into the room where the new attack was emerging, and into a rest room of sorts with stalls. There were other people in this room. Seven men. All were attempting to hide somewhere. I managed to find a stall to hide in, which was small enough that I could lift my feet up, pressing my back to one side and using my feet and legs against the other to keep my body suspended above the floor.

There came a great noise of fighting from the outer room and soon the rest room's door swung open and the seven hiding men were herded out.

Lastly, a man who looked remarkably like Brad Pitt opened the door where I was hiding and asked, 'How do we chose so that we will overcome the others?'

I stood up and said, 'We choose first.'

And that's where my memory fails me. Was I leader to this second party of attackers that included, of all people, Brad Pitt? I don't know. Yet if I was, why would I have attempted to hide myself unless I couldn't have been sure who would win the battle in the other room? As to why I responded to Brad Pitt the way I did, I can only assume I said 'We choose first' because when choosing from seven, he who chooses first ends up with 4 while he who chooses second is left with only 3.

Bizarre, I know. Was it just a dream? My own 'Dream no. 9'?

2007-05-07T11:32:00.000-05:00

If you read my post detailing the quality of questions asked of Republicans last week, this post detailing the questions asked to Democrats is little different in terms of format. I won't list by number the questions I thought were fair since the ones I object to are so few in number... 4 to be exact.

Judging strictly by the pie chart above, the questions were markedly different. Night and day different.

Forget any initial commentary on the debate itself for now, let's move on to the questions I had 'problems' with.

Fair Questions: 51

Bogus Questions: 2
[By their corresponding numbers]

34. Bogus only because it displays colossal ignorance on the part of ‘Auggie’ who seems to have no understanding of the differences between 'Profit' and 'Profit Margin', and well as no grasp of the 'Laws of Supply & Demand'.

55. This last question hearkens back to one of Matthews' ridiculous questions to the Republicans. If it was bogus there it's bogus here. Biden, by the way, deftly answered, 'Absolutely, yes, there's a winner. Taking myself out, I'm looking at a bunch of winners right here.'

Irrelevent Questions: 2
[By their corresponding numbers]

30. This one came from an online viewer, and offers nothing more than an opportunity for the candidate to preen and strut for the camera. A pointless question.

52. A pointless question accept, perhaps, to give the candidate an opportunity to engage in a game of one-upmanship with Al Gore, and John Edwards. Over all, a thoroughly stupid question.

I was very impressed with Brian Williams... a complete professional.

What really get's me about this debate, is that the questions were honest, prefaced, and not the least bit 'softball'. These Democratic candidates would have received the same fair treatment from FOX News, yet several of these 'Candidates' feared they'd be mishandled by 'Republican shills' at FOX, and yet the treatment they received at MSNBC was anything but a cake-walk.

This is the kind of debate the Republicans deserved... but didn't get.

The Questions:

_________________________
(s) = Email or Audience question asked by David Stanton
(w) = Brian Williams

1. Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would "wipe his boots" with Senator Reid.

Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?

2. Senator Biden, same question to you, which is: Do you agree with Senator Reid that the war is lost?

3. Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?

4. Senator Edwards, you made a high-profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, quote, "We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake."

Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?

5. Congressman Kucinich, do you think one can be against the war and yet still fund it?

6. Governor Richardson, if you were representing New Mexico in Congress, despite your opposition to the war, do you think you would vote to fund the troops?

7. Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've cosponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now... and draw the troops out. Is that possible, the notion of no more troops in Iraq?

8. Senator Gravel, for those who may not be familiar with your past, two-term U.S. Senator from Alaska. You played a role in the fight to cut off money for the Vietnam War. What would be your advice, Senator, for the elected officials on this stage who are at a conflict, opposed to the conflict, but also feel the need to keep on funding the conflict?

9. (s) Senator, Marsha from here in Orangeburg in South Carolina says, "As a spouse of a 19-year active duty professional soldier, who has served in Iraq and worldwide in numerous deployments, what would you consider to be a "mission complete" status in Iraq?

Next phase: (w) "We enter now the second phase of tonight's conversation. The in-house title for these questions was "Elephants in the Room," according to our political staff -- what may be uncomfortable questions about issues or beliefs attached, for whatever reason, to all of you -- perception issues, for lack of a better word."

10. Senator Obama… you've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren't you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

11. Senator Edwards, you've spoken with great passion and energy and eloquence about the issue of poverty in the United States, your "two Americas" theme.

And yet I want to read you a quote from the political journalist Roger Simon: "Many people miss the point about the haircuts. The point is not the cost. John Edwards is a very rich man and could afford even a $4,000 haircut. But why did he pay for his haircuts out of campaign funds?" Senator?

12. Senator, I have a follow-up for you. On modern day America, you've been of counsel to hedge funds. Do hedge funds make America any better in any way?

13. Senator Clinton, you represent the state of New York. How is America a better place because of all these burgeoning hedge funds?

14. Governor Richardson, you were one of the last people on this stage to call for the resignation of the attorney general, Attorney General Gonzales. When asked by a journalist why you were taking long to make up your mind about this, you replied, quote, "It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest." Is that the right way to make personnel decisions?

15. Senator Dodd, while you represent the Nutmeg State in the U.S. Senate, you may be the most Washington of all the people from Washington on this stage here tonight: son of a U.S. senator, in the Senate for two decades yourself, a committee chair, and you've been rather unabashed about accepting money from lobbyists. How then do you make the case with people that you will reform or change Washington ways?

16. Congressman Kucinich, you were anti-war before the anti-war position started surging in the polls. The question is, why don't you think you have more traction politically in the United States?

17. Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times said, "In addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaff machine." Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?

18. Senator Gravel, at a forum earlier this year -- I want to get this right -- you said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not, so then, why are you here tonight? Shouldn't debates be for candidates who are in the race to win the race?

19. Senator Clinton, recent national polls indicate the majority of the general public has an unfavorable view of you, right now, at this point in time. Why do you think Republicans are looking forward to running against you with so much zeal?

Next Phase: Public Policy

20. Senator Edwards, on the topic of abortion. Our most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated a majority of Americans approved of last week's Supreme Court decision to make so-called partial birth or late-term abortions illegal. Most of the people on this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling. A lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion. Is this a case, do you think, of the Supreme Court and the public with opinions in one place, and yet a lot of elected officials in another?

21. Senator Biden, as president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

22. Senator Dodd, you were the only senator on this stage to vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts. Do you regret your vote?

23. We'd like to ask the same question of all of you, down the line, in order, and it calls for you to say a name or to pass. And, Governor Richardson, we're going to start with you. The question is your model Supreme Court justice?

24. Senator Clinton, a question for you: Did the government -- did any role that federal government plays fail those students at Virginia Tech?

25. Because our producers are learning about the consumption of time, we have our first "show of hands" question tonight. (Laughter) How many of you, in your adult lifetime, have had a gun in the house? One -- Senator Gravel, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich.

26. Senator Biden, the kind of flip side of the question I just asked Senator Clinton: What could the federal government have done to save those kids at Virginia Tech?

27. Let's talk about health care, an issue that currently ranks a solid second in virtually every opinion poll in the United States. Senator Edwards, you have said you would raise taxes to pay for a health care plan. The question is: Which ones?

28. Governor Richardson, you are perhaps the most strident on the position against raising taxes to pay for this. But how could it possibly be the domestic Marshall Plan some people say it must be without that kind of revenue?

29. (s)This is from Daniel in Eastover, South Carolina. He says, "I would like a comment concerning the ban on South Carolina from the NAACP; and why they, the candidates, are in South Carolina if they support the NAACP"

"The NAACP has asked tourists, groups and sporting events not to come to South Carolina until the confederate flag has been removed from the statehouse grounds. Do you agree with that?"

30. (s)The next question is a short-answer question; one sentence. And I am going to ask each of you, beginning with Senator Gravel.

This is from Paula in Conway, South Carolina: "What is the most significant political or professional mistake you have made in the past four years? And what, if anything, did you learn from this mistake which makes you a better candidate?"

31. (s) Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?

32. (s)Senator Biden, "In comparison to countries like Japan, China and India, we have the least number of young people going for advanced degrees in science and engineering. How are you going to reverse this brain drain?" From Darren in Evanston, Illinois.

33. (s)Senator Dodd, this is from Joe, and he asked, "I have to pass a drug test to earn a paycheck. Shouldn't the welfare recipient have to pass one to receive a check, as well?"

34. (s) Senator Edwards, this is for you from Auggie in Darlington, South Carolina. "Concerning the astronomical windfall of major oil companies again in the first quarter. Why is gas still on the rise?"

35. (s)Representative Kucinich, this is from Ashley in Elgin, South Carolina. "I am what I consider a middle class American. It is almost to the point where I am consider dropping my medical insurance because premiums are just too high. What are you planning to do to help Americans have affordable health care premiums?"

36. (s)And this from Susan in West Colombia, South Carolina, again, for all of us, one sentence, and the question is this: "While sitting in the Oval Office on the first day of your administration, name the first thing that you want accomplished by the end of that first day."

Next Phase: Signing off on NBC Affiliates and Cable, but continuing online

37. We're going to switch categories now to what we are calling non-Iraq foreign policy. Senator Obama, what are America's three most important allies around the world?

38. Senator [Obama], thanks. I'll give you a follow-up. I didn't hear you mention Israel, and I ask because there is a quote attributed to your name. You said recently, "No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Do you stand by that remark?

39. Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?

40. Senator Edwards, Russia has been in the news of late. Just today, they suspended an arms deal over a squabble. Simply, do you regard them as a friend or a foe?

41. Governor Richardson, with your forays into diplomacy, four nominations for Nobel Peace Prizes, when you consider that President Bush said he once looked into the soul Putin, how would you do things differently with Russia?

42. Senator Clinton, a friend of yours from back home, said this week: Quote, "the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Another quote: "America will be safer with a Republican president."

How do you think, Senator, that it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post 9/11 world has taken on so?

43. Senator Dodd, same question [but distinct enough to warrant its inclusion in this list]. How has this label been attached to the Democratic Party, that the Republicans will protect America best?

44. Second "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?

45. Congressman Kucinich. Why is your hand not up?

46. Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

47. Is anyone on this stage willing to enter into Congressman Kucinich's effort to impeach Vice President Cheney? Is this a proper use of public congressional time and energy?

48. Senator Dodd, the state of Connecticut has legalized civil unions for gay people. Tell me, is there a difference between gay marriage and civil unions?

49. Senator Biden, a quote from Tom Friedman in The New York Times: "Unfortunately, today's presidential hopefuls are largely full of hot air on the climate energy issue. Not one of them is proposing anything hard." What would you propose for the average American that would be hard?

50. Governor Richardson, Fidel Castro is still alive. How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?

51. Senator Gravel, your two terms in the Senate representing Alaska have sat on top of, of course, a huge reserve of oil. With the French system as the model, is the United States, in your view, woefully behind in its use of nuclear energy?

52. What in your personal life, Senator Obama, have you done personally to make for a better environment? Personal life?

53. Senator Edwards, who do you consider to be your moral leader?

54. Senator Clinton, overall, is Wal-Mart a good thing or a bad thing for the United States of America?

55. Senator Biden, a question for you. A friend of mine who's in the leadership of the Democratic Party says that if the party goes down a third straight time, what will happen is what he defined as modern-day extinction of the Democratic Party. Putting yourself aside, perhaps, is there a winner on this stage tonight, and does your party have what it takes to reverse this trend and win the White House?

Pithy Review: The Children of Hurin

2007-05-06T23:37:00.000-05:00

JRR Tolkien may have died way back in 1973, but his son Christopher has done a masterful job of keeping his father's legacy alive. At the ripe old age of 81 Christopher Tolkien gives us what will likely be his father's last work of fiction, The Children of Hurin.

As far as Tolkien goes, among his larger works The Hobbit is the most accessible, followed by the trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion. The language in each of these grew successively more archaic, and The Children of Hurin is the most difficult to read because of its language. But that's not to say it isn't an enjoyable read. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The fact that this latest novel was pieced together from unfinished fragments is not entirely seen by the casual read. But it does carry with it, throughout the story, a sense of... incompleteness, for lack of a better word. While The Silmarillion greatly employed 'archaic' language forms, it was filled with rich vibrant light; color, sound, texture, it was all there, but not so with The Children of Hurin, this last story is a but a shadow of The Silmarillion.

Despite this, it was, as I said, an enjoyable read. It offered a broader glimpse into Middle Earth just after the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the fifth (and second to last) battle for Middle Earth against Morgoth, whose evil surpassed that of Sauron. Yes, Sauron was bad, but Morgoth was badder.

The cowries I shelled out for this book, hardbound, was well worth the price. Not simply because it sprang from the mind of Tolkien himself, but also because of the numerous illustrations by Alan Lee, the conceptual artist for The Lord of the Rings films.

Don't let this review fool you. The Children of Hurin is still an easier read than much of what Cormac McCarthy has written, and I absolutely LOVE Cormac McCarthy!