Sunday, December 21, 2008

so, how sick is the liberal mindset...

Wonderful? Sorry, George, It’s a Pitiful, Dreadful Life

ht, Newsbusters, NYT's City Editor Rips Into 'It's a Wonderful Life'; A Rare Window Into a Deeply Cynical Media Mind

Anyone who can take this move, about doing one's responsibilities and making a quiet but important difference in one's own world, and try to say it's pitiful and dreadful, obvious has some serious issues and needs to see some professional help.

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife. It is also a nightmare account of an endless home renovation.

I suppose he must think that way, because how very non-pc is the movie!! Instead of living life as a care-free ne'er-do-well, George Bailey shoulder's responsbilities even when he would rather not do so. Instead of seeing the sites in far-off places, he comes to find things of infinite worth in his home town. Instead of being the known hero, he's the everyday hero. While those around him are fighting the war to keep the Germans and Japanese at bay, he's fighting a war to make sure that those off fighting have something at home worth fighting for and coming home to.

George isn't a perfect here, and when things start to fall apart around him, his reactions are understandable but still harsh. He's a good man who through no fault of his own is about to be punished for things he didn't do.

The attitude of the writer of this article is sad and pathetic to the extreme. His notion that Pottersville would have been a better place than Bedford Falls is sickening.

Monday, December 15, 2008

business as usual...

Hamas Meets With Carter, Signals Ceasefire With Israel May End

Former President Jimmy Carter met with the leader of Hamas in Damascus on Sunday, the same day the Palestinian terrorist group marked its 21st anniversary and signaled its intention to end an erratically-upheld ceasefire.

Is there anyone...anyone!!!...out there who can please, please, please, make Jimmy Carter retire and shut up!! I mean, sure, let him built H4H houses to his heart's content, or raise bees, that's fine, but someone please get this man out of the national light! Carter was an abyssmal failure as a president, and why he should think he can do better now is anyone's guess.

And, oh, Hamas is going to break it's cease-fire with Israel. Show of hands, please, for anyone out there who is surprised by that???

After an Egyptian-mediated truce went into effect in last June, rocket attacks dropped off significantly (from a high of 257 in February to just one in July, eight in August, one in September and two in October.)

But since early November, Hamas and allied groups have fired well over 100 rockets and more than 100 mortar shells across the border, according to figures provided by the Israeli foreign ministry. The upsurge prompted an Israeli embargo that has drawn international condemnation.

Yeah, aren't double standards wonderful things??? Hamas starts attacking Israel again, Israel responds, and other nations act as if Israel is the bad guy.

I seriouisly think the world is essentially upside-down. Victims are treated as criminals, criminals are treated as victims, the bad guys are given whatever they demand, the good guys are shafted, absolutes are relativized and political expedients are made into absolutes.

So, how much longer can we go on in such a state of idiocy?

Friday, December 12, 2008

random sports ramblings

And, so, it's that time of year again.

You know it, you who follow college football even remotely. It's the strange time, that strange three or so weeks between the end of the regular season and New Years, when the so called BCS bowls begin being played.

And why are those games such a big deal? After all, how many of them really mean anything? Only one, maybe two, are of any importance to the championship.

And how did two championship teams get to that game?

Let's be fair, and admit that both Florida and Oklahoma have played well enough to deserve their places in that game. The problem is, so have other teams.

Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama can make strong claims to being just as worthy, not to mention some of the teams not in BCS conferences but who went undefeated (and if you think they aren't for real, just remember the lesson Oklahoma learned from Boise State a couple of years ago).

But they won't have a chance to play for that title. They have to be content to play simply to win a bowl game. Games essentially meaningless and worthless, except as money-making tools.

So, like last year, I'm going to propose again a way the fans can effect this situation. It may be a kind of counterintuitive way, but it's perhaps the only real way to do it, because it effects the main reason such bowl games are still going on--the money.

And my solution is, simply, don't spend money for these meaningless bowls. Fans of Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama should simply stay home. These teams deserve a real shot at the title, but are being denied it by a system that simply isn't set up to find a real champion, so their teams are being done wrong. The system is not worthy of being supported any more.

If those meaningless BCS games were played before empty stands, the BCS powers-that-be would get the message very quickly, and we'd likely get a playoff in no time.

Sometimes, listening to sports talk radio is almost too revealing.

I've noticed something in recent times. I've noticed when I've heard sports people seem to be either bored or even actively against a team like the San Antonio Spurs making it again to the NBA Championship, or when they may as well be cheering for the Red Sox because no one cares about a Philadelphia and Tampa Bay World Series. Or when they may as well have already have had Lebron James leaving the Cav and going to the Knicks (who happen to be in New York).

I'm not sure what to label it. Maybe it's arrogance, or maybe it's a sense of putting their business before the games, or maybe it's them wanting what they perceive to be best for the sport (and for their business), but it's distasteful to me.

Because I wonder, "Why do they even want small-market teams?"

After all, if for them it's best for New York and Los Angelas to have the best teams, why have any others? Maybe Chicago can keep theirs, and maybe Houston, and Boston and Atlanta and Dallas, but real, why have any others? If having small markets teams be good and keep large markets from getting in playoffs and championships is so bad for the sports and for business, than why should those teams even exist?

Are they only poor relations, there to bring in the small-town fans and maybe add the occasion bit of drama and nice story (like Tampa Bay this passed year)? But who betide them if they happen to go toe-to-toe with the Red Sox and have the gall to actually win their playoff series, because in the end, the main thing isn't to determine the best teams and best players, it's to have as many people watch the series as possible.

Yeah, I guess that qualifies as arrogance.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

more on "'social justice' wackiness'

More about this topic.

Chicago Schools Administrator: Homosexual High School Is 'Necessary'

A proposed homosexual-friendly Chicago public high school is “necessary” for the well-being of students, a Chicago Public Schools administrator told Wednesday.

Joyce Brown, who is in charge of the public school district’s high school counselors, said the “Social Justice High School – Pride Campus” is necessary because “the issue (of homosexuality) is out there.”

The proposed school would offer taxpayer-funded support for homosexual and lesbian students. The school proposal was to be voted on by the Chicago Board of Education on Nov. 19, but the plan was pulled at the last minute.

So much of what this lady Brown says is the usual sickly-saccharine-sweet stuff one expects of these feelings-oriented pc types.

It appears, though, that the school is only proposed, and not yet a reality.

One must wonder, how would such a school really work? Does a student have to be glbtwhatever before being allowed to attend? What would the classes teach? If a hetero student was allowed to attend, how much would he or she be allowed to voice opinions against the school's credo?

In other words, is this not just another attempt to raise up immorality and silence those who want to speak out against it, and all in the name of that modern virtue "social justice"?

Were I a betting man, I would put my money on it being another waying of putting down and quieting those who believe in biblical morality.

Monday, December 8, 2008

'tolerance' is a one-way street

Go the other way, and you're likely to get your windshield sledge-hammered (and maybe not just metaphorically, either).

Creation Museum Disappointed by Cincinnati Zoo Withdrawal

After working for months with the Cincinnati Zoo on a special cross-promotion package to elevate local and regional tourism during the Christmas season, the Creation Museum learned that the zoo—after a 2 ½ day business relationship—has pulled out of the arrangement because of a high volume of complaints.

“My family and I have been Cincinnati Zoo members for more than 10 years now, so I am also personally saddened that this organization I esteem so highly would find it necessary to back out of this relationship. At the same time, I have learned that the zoo received hundreds of complaints from what appear to be some very intolerant people, and so I understand the zoo’s perspective. Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents, and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise,” Ham continued.

“Our museum will continue to promote this excellent zoo on our website and also in the printed material we pass out inside the museum. We are committed to promoting regional tourism. It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith. Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” Ham added.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

made of fail 1

Obama Could End Abstinence Education in Fight Against AIDS

Promoting abstinence played a significant role in President George W. Bush’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS around the world, which could be a key part of his legacy. However, some conservatives think an incoming Barack Obama administration could scrap the abstinence portion of the AIDS fighting program.

“Around the world, we've also supported care for more than 10 million people affected by HIV, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children,” Bush said in a speech Monday from the White House.

“More than 237,000 babies have been born HIV-free, thanks to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children,” he added.

The president of Uganda and other African leaders have been receptive to abstinence education, McClusky said.

Further, a decrease in sexual activity among unmarried young people in Kenya has helped reduce that country’s HIV infection rates by about two-thirds over the last decade, according to the White House.

That should be enough to refute critics of abstinence education, said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America.

But never let moral absolutes and proven success get in the way of your liberal and unbiblical agenda.

After Obama’s victory in the presidential race last month, one of his advisers on women’s health, Susan F. Wood, told Bloomberg News that an emphasis on abstinence and monogamy over condom use has not helped prevention efforts.

“We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family planning services and strengthening public health,” Woods said.

Monday, December 1, 2008

not-judging ourselves to death (literally)

Religious Leaders: Churches Should be ‘Nonjudgmental’ about Behavior That Transmits HIV

At a telephone news conference in advance of World AIDS Day, AIDS activist groups and representatives of various religious groups said that counseling teens and others to be abstinent and restricting sex to marriage just isn’t “realistic,” and called on churches and the incoming Obama administration to deal with HIV/AIDS in a “truthful” and “medically accurate way.”

What I find most inane is that while they don't want churches to tell teens to save themselves for marriage (which would likely put an almost total stop on the spread of such diseases), they want the issues dealt with in a "truthful" and "medically accurate way".

Which means, in lib-speak, condoms and abortions all over the place. Let the high school quarterback have as many cheerleaders as he wants (which they want us to not call immoral) just so long as he doesn't commit the modern sin of not using a condom. And let the cheerleader be with the quarterback as much as she wants (because it's unreasonable to not expect her to act that way) just so long as she has access to abortion when she gets pregnant.

And, well, we all know that not all cheerleaders are girls, so if the QB goes that way or both ways...

But churches shouldn't comment on that, these people seem to think. Better to use political correctness as the measure of right and wrong, then what God has said is right and wrong.

Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, United Church of Christ: I think your question exemplifies why we are struggling with stigma and discrimination in our culture, because it betrays a bias about what is moral and immoral. So, I think we’ need to take a public health approach; we need to be nonjudgmental when we speak to people and we need to make sure people have accurate information.

Stigma and discrimination keeps people from getting the information that they need. It’s often fear-based. And when people are faced with judgment they don’t get what they need to respond effectively. So I think we need to take much more of a public health approach for their concern.

It’s not about whether people are engaging in moral or immoral acts, that’s a personal judgment that is being made. It’s about realizing what behaviors cause transmission and preventing those behaviors.

And I sit here, and wonder...when did supposedly smart people become this idiotic???

Thursday, November 20, 2008

a (so-called) pro-lifer suffering from hallucinations

A Pro-Lifer Who Welcomes the Obama Presidency

And with a title like that, we head for the mountains of madness...

In many situations I’m hesitant to use the term “pro-life,” as for a lot of people it really means nothing more than “anti-abortion.”

Gee, we wonder why. Could it be because THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!!!

To be pro-life should mean doing all that one can to protect life from the womb to the death bed.

If you want to be like that, that's all well and good, but FIND YOUR OWN TERM!!!

(yes, I am using all caps, because I do want to shout that at them)

Seriously, their attempts to hijack the pro-life position to fit their liberal agenda is distasteful to the core.

My happiness was not naive.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he works very hard at blinding and deafening himself from reality.

On the other hand, I expect a presidency that will do more community building,

Let's see, what could that be lib-speak for? The Fairness Doctrine? Hate crimes laws? a 'spreading the poverty' socialistic economic policy?

care more about the poor

Actually, that's probably the lib-speak for the socialistic economic policies.

strengthen relations with allies

Translated--play footsies with the Muslims and throw Israel overboard, to a greater or lesser degree.

listen more carefully to cautions and criticisms

Lib-speak for "Try to please everyone before doing anything", probably with an unhealthy dose of compromising with the UN thrown in for good measure (like restarting support for the UN group that supports China abortion policies).

and not engage in a “shoot first, ask questions later” foreign policy.

Lib-speak for "No matter how or how much you harm us, we'll not respond in any significant way. We'll let the UN pass resolutions that we all know you'll ignore, or some variation on that theme".

selling out (and it looks like they didn't need to)

eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — "Compatible Partners" — for gay and lesbian users, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.

Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.

eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.

eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its "Diversity" section of its Web site and in advertising materials.

I was a member at eHarmony not so very long ago, and while it was a kind of up-and-down experience, in the end I thought it was ok.

But this is distasteful to me, especially sense, as the article says, they were not found to have violated any law.

It's a sell-out, plain and simple. It's validating the intimidation tactics used by many in the gay-(special)-rights position, letting them know that they can threaten and people will cave.

And while I think the end results from my time with eHarmony is positive, it makes me ill now that I've supported them, even if it was a bit before this happened.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

movie review--quantum of solace

A few weeks ago, I gave in to a bit of curiosity, and from the library checked out an old James Bond movie. It was "You Only Live Twice", and was from the time when Sean Connery was in the role of the super-spy.

So, I took it home, and an evening or two later, watched it. At the end of it, I sat in my chair thinking "Ok, what was the big deal?"

The few times I've heard disucssions about Bond movies, the common opinion seemed to have been that Bond was at his best when Connery was Bond. I haven't watch many Bond movies. I do remember seeing one, I think it was "Live and Let Die", once when I was traveling. It was, if I may be blunt, a rather ridiculous movie. I expected something more from YOLT.

I'm not sure I got it. Oh, it as better, which may not have been all that hard to do, but it was still just very iffy. The character of Bond in the movie was rather unlikeable. He was selfish and chauvinistic (a PC word, I know, but in this case very true), and with little to any emotional display. Even when his first lover in the movie is poisoned and dies while sleeping with him, he didn't show much in the way of regret or grief or consternation.

I've seen the Brosnan Bond movies, and thought them ok. Rather too clean and super-hero-ish, maybe, but the character was at least likeable at time.

So, last week, I took a gander at "Quantum of Solace", and left it rather impressed indeed.

This new Bond is very different from any I've seen in my admittedly limited experience with the movies. Of coures, he wears tuxedoes and nice suits, but they don't seem to be a part of him as much as they were with Brosnan.

There was almost no use of the kind of techno-tricks that seemed common with Brosnan's Bond. No Q to come up with gadgetry. I rather liked that, it keeps the movie from that super-hero type of feel.

Perhaps the best parallel to this Bond that I can think of is to be found in the Tom Clancy novels, in the character of Clark. A kind of stoic, intense, super-competant killer.

Though, really, the character is more involved with that (that same with Clark as well).

This movie is a direct sequel to the last, Casino Royale, and even brings back many of the characters from it. Bond is still in some state of grief over the betrayal and death of his love from CR, Vesper, and still trying to discover what and who is behind it. At the same time, on the outside, he is denying it to others, perhaps even to himself.

Trips to rough and exotic places are, of course, in order. Haiti is shown as a poor and rough place, though I would guess not as much as the reality. There is an important scene in some kind of opera house, which reminded me a bit of scenes from "The Godfather" movies. Things finally come to an end in South America, not counting a short finale in Russia.

One thing that makes Bond hard to like for me is the philandering and womanizing nature of the character. It was present in YOLT and LaLD and in the Brosnan movies, and sadly even here, though this one seems far more interested in his tasks at hand then in flirting. In QoS, there is the obligatory bedroom scene, sadly, though even it was rather downplayed. I rather think they did it almost as an afterthought, as if thinking "Well, we have to, because that's what Bond does".

As opposed to the Bond in YOLT, this one seems to care for the women who cross his path. His feelings for Vesper still haunt him, and he also seems to care for the Argentine woman whom he meets and rescues in Haiti.

And his relationship with M is given some new twists. They disagree and knock heads, as per usual, but they seem to have a true concern for each other.

I'm really liking this new Bond a lot.

Monday, November 10, 2008


(my pardon for the all-caps title, but that was my take on the article in question here, and the spin applied to it)

I Am Barack Obama

Whenever John McCain and Sarah Palin would ask: “Who is Barack Obama?” I would cringe. The implication to me was pretty clear. Obama is an outsider. Obama is not your typical American. Obama is not like “us.” He’s an Arab. A Muslim. A Terrorist.

He would cringe? No doubt. Considering how Sojo pretty much sold their souls for him (check how they try to shift blame on the Rev Wright hate sermons), anyone asking legitimate questions about their candidate-of-choice would no doubt cringe when questions about said candidate are raised.

Obama an outsider? What that may mean.

Obama not your typical American? Perhaps. The typical American doesn't pal around with people who tried to bomb government buildings, or sit in sermons where the pastor referred to his country as "US of KKK A".

Not like us? See above.

Arab? Can't say I ever heard that.

Muslim? That was around a bit.

Terrorist? Please. When someone like William Ayers is at the least an associate, then one should expect that to be brought up.

I cringed because I am Barack Obama.

Umm, there's a picture of the writer at the bottom of the page. And let me say, he doesn't look much like Obama at all.

I too am a child of immigrants. My father also immigrated to the U.S. from a nation that begins with K and has five letters. I too have a funny sounding name. I too grew up in a single parent home. I became a Christian in a church that would be considered outside the boundaries of a typical white evangelical church. Obama and I graduated from the same undergraduate college. We hold graduate degrees from the same institution. We have both worked in community organizing. We’re both married to strong, independent women. We are both fathers of two elementary-aged kids. We both live in Chicago.

I am Barack Obama.

So, a bunch of surface similarities are suppose to make us think that is why he feels so close to our president-elect?

Yeah. Sure.

So when Obama was portrayed as someone not worthy of trust by the typical American, I took personal offense.

So??? I've never heard of the author before (though his associating with Sojo isn't a plus in my mind), but last I checked, questions about Obama had nothing to do with the author. Trying to make this somehow 'personal' to him is illegitimate and distasteful, a twist on the politics of race. Do get it over, sir.

I was stunned that my fellow Christians would question the faith of an individual whose testimony of conversion is about as evangelical as you could get.

And who was so pro-abortion he was even pro-infanticide towards those babies who didn't have decency to die when trying to be killed in the womb (even though the question of whether an unborn child is human or not is "above my pay grade"). He wants to legitimize so-called gay marriage.

Joe the Plumber is not the face of America.

More cheap shots at the man who did the most to expose Obama as the socialist he is.

I am Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is America.

Then may God have mercy us, because we will need it.

Friday, November 7, 2008

so this is tolerance???

Los Angeles Interfaith Leaders Support Mormon Church Against Attacks by Opponents of Prop

I'm not going to say that Mormons are Christian, not even close. But to their credit, they are pro-family. Which puts them in the opposition to those who think themselves 'ahead of the curve'.

The peaceful faiths, families, educators, activists, and community servants who make up the Protect Marriage Coalition are saddened to hear of the continued targeted attacks on the Mormon people during and after the conclusion of this fair and certified election. Like many churches, the family is the anchor of the LDS faith and it is no surprise that its members in California joined other faiths in giving everything they had to Proposition 8.

Many California churches have also experienced harassment, drive-by attacks, obscenities and defacement of property. Such acts do not build trust with the voters of California.

And then there's this...

“Gays” Call for Violence Against Christian Supporters of Prop 8

In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “… I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.” “Angelo Ventura,” said, “… hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil!

BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM!” And, “Jonathan,” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, over at, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

Let's not make more of it then what it is (it's quite enough as it is). It's a few voices, and maybe all they're doing is letting off steam. But maybe not, either. If the first link above is to be believed, then there is already stuff going on that goes beyond simply disagreeing and expressing it.


It's been a couple of days since election day. Trying to figure how to think about it has not been easy.

Falling into extreme pessimism has been most tempting, and not without reason. That such a person was chosen for our highest office is something that I still cannot comprehend. Although I say that the media is complicent in it because of how they tried to hide and spin all the things about him, in the end the people knew what he was. They knew what he said to Joe the plumber, and knew what it meant. They knew his stands on abortion and even infanticide. They knew the type of person he was, and they chose him anyway.

Very well. The people have spoken. Now we shall see what comes of it.

I am not completely pessimistic. For one thing, he is, after all, a politician, and one of the cheapest currencies in the world is a politician's promise.

Also, I am not forgetful of things in Scripture. Although not a king, perhaps there is something to be said for "The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it wherever He wills". I have consoled myself a time or two with that thought that "What has been intended for evil, God can turn to good".

But let us not be naive and dreamy, either. Even if he only accomplishes a bit of what he has said, it will be quite damaging enough. If he sets up the economy the way he wants, the damage will be serious. If he gets something like the Fairness Doctrine passed, free speech will be damaged, and I can't help but think that hate crimes laws will not be long in following and will be used to further restrict speech. If he passes the abortion legislation he wants, then any gains done in recent times will be set back. If he makes immorality normal and legal in marriage, then we will have lost all claims to being a moral people.

So, what now???

It is easy to use Scripture out-of-context here. I could pull out "If my people...will humble themselves, and pray...then I will forgive their sins, and heal their land". And there is much to be said for what is being said there. We do need to humble ourselves, pray and seek God's face, and turn from our sins. We need to repent.

I'm not going to say that passage is necessarily applicable to us. If we do those things, perhaps God will heal our land. If we repent, he will forgive our sins. But I think that promise was given to a certain people, a people called Israel, and we the church aren't them. But the passage still gives good advice.

Now, if the repentence were to be truly national, then maybe our land could be healed. But I'm not a pollyanna, and if anyone reads this, they are likely already Christ's, or at least think they are.

We need to repent. I couldn't care lesser about having big services in large churches or stadiums with lots of people gathered and weeping on each other's shoulders. I couldn't care less about the theatrics. We need real repentence, not a show. And by 'we' I mean myself as much as anyone reading this.

We, the church, need to repent. If others who are not Christians can be led to repentence, then all the better for them and for us.

We need to repent of abiding the presence of wolves among the sheep. No small list could be made of those wolves, and no doubt disagreements would arise in some cases of which is which, but let us start with some that are obvious--those who are ecumenical to the degree of saying that all religions are ways to God; those who would deny or abide the presence of those who deny basic biblical doctrines such as the Godhead and Christ's death and resurrection and ascension; those who make the Gospel about health and wealth and manipulating God into blessing them; those who would trade eternal life for some kind of supposed utopia on earth.

How often have we seen the dark and ugly side of things like the Word of Faith preachers? It is to our shame and those scam scum can not only still do their thing, but get wealthy doing it.

How often have we seen how shallow and wrong this new apostolic and prophetic movement is? I wish there were prophets, but if there are any, they aren't in Kansas City, or Pensacola, or Toronto, or any other such place. How many more trainwrecks like Bentley do we need to see that there is something deadly wrong with what their saying and doing? It is to our shame that we have abided such things, falling for their supposed manifestations, trading in sound doctrine for barking like dogs in church aisles.

There are no doubt other things that we need to repent of. Some may point out how divorce in the churhc is no better than in the world, and maybe they are right, but I am cautious about that. How many of those people turned to Christ after being divorced? How many are cases of Christians who fell but have repented and been restored? We must be wise in how we view such stats, while also considering that they may be showing us a problem.

We need to return to the Bible, and what it says, and preach that.

I cannot promise the same blessing that the passage above promises, except the part about God forgiving those who repent, because I do not think that will happen, at least at this time, and I've already given one reason why, that those promises are not really directed to us. Perhaps a day will come when our land will be healed, but it will not come until Christ returns. But I'm not speaking to a nation, but to the church.

I am not a Word of Faith sycophant, nor a dominionist of any stripe. What I see in the Bible is "If they hated Me, they will hate you as well" and "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Some I have heard and read seem to say that if we get right with God, we can expect favor with the world and even a sort of christianization of the world. I think that much the opposite is what would happen.

I am not a bold man. I am not a preacher. I don't know how all of this will work out for any of you, or even myself. The threads that surround us are huge, I would even say worldwide. The fact that we may have a bad and even ungodly leader is not new in history, but the seeming global quality of it all is new. And we shouldn't ignore that.

Before our God, we must be humble and pray and turn from our sins. Before people, we must stand firm, and expect persecution and ridicule and rejection. Some will hear, and repent and believe. Many will not. Let's go ahead and accept now that it will be so.

The time is short. I can give no advice on what specifics any of us should do outside of what I've said above. God will be with us, though, if we are with Him.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

how to continue doing what kills you

Still trying to deal with what happened Tuesday. Am not surprised, but not happy either.

At any rate, I'm not the only one doing so, and so perhaps such ideas as these are to be expected. Expected, but shown the door at our earliest convenience.

Should the GOP Double Down on Social Conservatism?

So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.

This argument makes sense to us, and we’ve been holding forth in our comments on this very topic. If the GOP decides to go in the Bobby Jindal direction (fundamental Christianity, creationism, hard-line anti-abortionism, aggressively anti-gay rights), it will be committing political suicide. As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.

The first paragraph above is from an article linked to on the page linked to above.

The GOP will be committing political suicide if it continues on its present course of trying to placate the liberal media, play nice and compromise with liberals, and basically try to be good little centrists. If it returns to what it should return to--biblical morality, pro-life, and true justice--then they would be surprised at how many will back them. But it's hard to find much respect for a jelly.

If the GOP follow the advice given above, then we conservatives need to jettison them.

Monday, November 3, 2008


At the risk of seeming like some kind of coast-to-coast conspiracy nut...

I have a seeming 'coincidence' I want to point out.

I remember, a mere few weeks ago, driving by gas stations, and seeing a rather terrifying sight. The sight was of gasoline prices at around $4.00 a gallon. And I think that our prices around here were about average for the nation, or even a bit under.

Stories and theories were flying, discomfort and even fear were everywhere. I even sat in a Sunday School class were one man started a short rant about gas reaching $7.00 and how he was looking to get a horse-drawn buggy or wagon. It reached it's apex, at least for me, when one morning stories of a sudden and steep hike caused many people to fill their tanks toot-sweet, which caused many station to have all of their gas used up.

That was only a few weeks ago. In August or even Septmeber.

Now look. Gas prices around here are about half what they were at that time. I've seen prices under $2.00 a gallon. For the moment, that 'crises' has passed us by.

(but lest you get complacent, look here.)

But what has happened since the time gas prices started going down? We've had the Big Bailout!! 700 billion dollars, something that to an outsider like me seemed to happen almost out of the blue. I know that there have been those who warned about this for some time, but the actual crises itself seemed to come with great suddenness and great urgency.

And it's still with us.

Why do I note this? Let's pretend for a moment, that I'm a conspiracy theory nut, particularly of a political sort. Let's pretend that when people talk about a 'vast right wing conspiracy', they are actually setting up a smoke screen to cover up a vast left wing conspiracy. Let's pretend that when liberal news agencies don't adequately cover the facts about a particular left-wing presidential candidate, they are actually trying to adequately cover up those facts.

Attempts at trying to make the high gas prices a winning liberal issue failed, and failed resoundingly. The motto for that time became, to quote our esteemed conservative veep candidate, "Drill, baby, drill!!!" People were enthused and even demanding about wanting to start exploring new oil reserves now, or even yesterday, and they weren't listening to liberals talk about how it wouldn't help in the current crises because of time. The people were ready to learn from today's crises by preparing for tomorrows.

So, now that gas prices have gone down, there is suddenly little said about it. That is now not so much of an issue to hold over liberal candidates.

But the bailout is, and that is one that, unjustly, liberals have managed to spin in their favor. Not without help from real and so-called conservatives, it should be pointed out.

So, it has been conveniently overlooked by the media that it was a few conservatives who a few years ago tried to warn us about this and tried to do something about it. It was been conveniently overlooked at the was liberals who were in charge of those institutions when they started going under, who profitted from them, who received political donations from them, who have been hailed as heroes of the situation even though they were the ones who created the mess.

It is a complex situation, not one so easily fixes by looking for new oil reserves. And it has been one that liberals have been able to seemingly use to their advantages.

So, am I a conspiracy nut for seeing the "coincidence" that the one issue that was harmful to liberals has been lessened at the same time that another that is useful to them has been brought forward? Or dare I think there is more then mere "coincidence" going on here?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

'social justice' wackiness

PETA Wants Proposed Homosexual High School to Have ‘Vegan’ Cafeteria

In the name of “tolerance,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants a proposed Chicago public high school designed for homosexual and lesbian students to offer a vegetarian-only menu.

“The school in Chicago is in a very unique position in aligning its cafeteria with the social justice message that they’re teaching in the classroom,” PETA Director of Media Relations Michael McGraw told

IFI opposes Social Justice High – Pride Campus, Higgins said, because taxpayer dollars will go to fund the “controversial and unproven socio-political theories” behind the school’s founding.

Ok, let's see...

This is a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL!!!!! As in, tax payer money is going into creating a public high school based solely on the students supposed sexual orientations!!!

As in, if I lived in Chicago, my tax money would be used to build and run this travesty???

Then, there is the name...Social Justice High.

Yes, that's right, the words 'social justice' front and center in the name.

And, finally, there's PETA sticking it's furry little nose in, trying to make the school meatless.

I find this sick and sad.

real justice

I put up a post yesterday, telling about how Obama, and I think by extension those in the current 'social justice'movement, are looking at using the courts to implement their own agendas, which involve among other things a version of class warfare--courts are to be to favor the 'have-nots' over the 'haves', championing the poor, playing favorites based on real or perceived economic conditions.

By way of counterpoint, consider these, please.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge you neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 18:17

Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:2-3

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.
Deuteronomy 1:17a

There is no denial here of the fact that the Bible says much about caring for those who can do little or nothing to help themselves--the orphans and widows, for example. Such acts of mercy are good things.

But that is not what we are seeing put forward nowadays. We are seeing rather the injustice of favoritism. On the surface, it's favoritism for the poor. To repeat what the article yesterday said...

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

This is injusticed, plain and simple.

If he were saying that judges should favor the strong and great over the weak, people would see the injustice right off (I hope) and have nothing to do with it. But because it's suppose to favor the 'little man', then it's put under the misnomer of 'social justice' and becomes acceptable by many.

This must be avoided by us. Justice must be just, meaning it must judge cases fairly, no matter the party's social standing.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

who says there is no "culture of death"?

Is Forced Death Coming to Washington State ... Again?

Every so often, I come one someone, usually in my reading, that says that there is no "culture of death". This, despite the numbers on abortion, attempts to not save the lives of babies who survive abortion attempts (thank you, Mr. Obama), Kevorkian and assisted suicide.

I do think these people are blind. Perhaps not willfully (though one does wonder).

But now, the voters in Washington have to make a decision again regarding who should live and who should die. And as the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide makes perfectly clear, Initiative 1000 has huge problems, which is why they are working night and day to encourage voters in the state to vote against the Initiative. Make sure to check out the powerful ad on the Coalition's web site, featuring recently deceased Barbara Ann Wagner.

For starters, Eileen Geller, R.N., B.S.N., points out what could and probably will happen if this Initiative becomes law:

· Spouses and family members do not need to be told before – or after – a loved one is given lethal drugs.
· Persons suffering from depression can be given a lethal overdose without any psychological counseling or treatment – nothing in the Initiative requires an assessment of potential depression by a qualified professional.
· Health care insurers and HMO's could exploit I-1000 to save costs, since a bottle of lethal drugs costs far less than other end-of-life care.
· Heirs to a patient's estate are allowed to participate in the assisted suicide and to witness the request for lethal drugs. This would contravene existing practice governing wills and estates, a scenario that worries law enforcement because of the real potential for abuse.

Protecting the vulnerable, the ill and the dying is a never-ending struggle for each of us who realize that a human being's life, including one's own life, is a gift from God and not a thing to be used or abused at will. So, in this politically volatile year, I believe it is time for every person with the right to vote and a properly formed conscience to assess carefully what President Ronald Reagan once said: “What America needs is spiritual renewal and reconciliation – first, man with God, and then man with man.”

what they mean when they say "social justice"

Obama Sees Supreme Court Justices as Champions of the Weak Over the Strong

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

“He’s talking about the Court being a liberal activist body, a tool for social change,” said Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

But deciding who is powerless and who is powerful isn’t the question, says Alt. Instead, justices should judge cases based on which side presents the more compelling legal argument, regardless of who the plaintiff is.

“The judges and the courts should not be playing favorites,” he said. “They shouldn’t be paying attention to who it is who’s making the arguments, they should be deciding who has the better legal argument.”

What this pretty much comes down to may be labelled in a few different ways--rule of sympathy, rule of emotions, rule of emotional blackmail or emotional manipulation, rule by perception.

But it's not Rule of Law. And it certainly is not justice.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Monday, October 20, 2008

what sojo seems to want us to ignore

Obama's Abortion Extremism

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.


They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.


What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

It's a long article, there is much more in it then I'm giving here, but it's well worth the read. Anyone thinking this man is in any way pro-life has voluntarily put their head in the sand, or is making a political compromise that is beyond sickening, and for the supposed 'pro-life' Sojourners to try to push this man on us only shows how far down the road to compromise (and worse) they have gone.

Friday, October 17, 2008

disgusting compromising

I'm not going to link to this article, because it sickens me too much to want to give it any amount of bump. If you want to verify it, it's called "A New Conversation on Abortion" and it's found at Sojourners.

In last evening's presidential debate, the first steps were taken toward a new national conversation about abortion. For too many years, the old one hadn't changed very much. It came up every four years during elections and seldom in between. The Republicans repeated that they think abortion should just be completely illegal; and the Democrats repeated their only mantra of a "woman's right to choose." And the number of abortions remained mostly unchanged.

Oh, so we should stop, because we haven't made much progress? So you want sell out, Mr. Wallis? You want to put this issue behind you, I guess, so you can focus on more important things, like how to spin Obama's "spread the poverty" tax plan?

Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results

I wish I has an angry red-faced smiley here, because if I did, I would put a whole line them right here, to express how I think and feel about this 'abortion reduction' crap.

Let me put it this way...

Let's say that all we asked from Nazi Germany was only a reduction in the number of Jewish people put into extermination camps and killed off and put into mass graves. How does that sound to you?

Let's say that all we adked from al Qaeda was a reduction in the number of planes they flew into buildings. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists is a reduction in the number of people killing themselves in suicide bombing attacks against Israel. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from the KKK of years ago was a reduction in the number of racial attacks and killings on their part. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked of Stalin or Pol Pot or any other commie-dictator-mass murderer was a reduction in the number of people they put into gulags and mass murdered. How does that sound?

No, Mr. Wallis, this is not an area of compromise. Murder is murder, whether it's 10 or 5 or those numbers in millions. Murder is absolutely wrong, and we ask not for the reduction of it, but the absolute banning of legalized murder via the legalizing of abortion.

Your attempts at compromise are sickening and disgusting, Mr. Wallis. You do not speak for me and such as myself.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

more kiddie indoctrination

Calif. First Graders ‘Indoctrinated’ in Visit to Same-Sex Wedding, Critics Say

( – Nearly five months after California’s Supreme Court issued a decision creating same-sex marriage, a class of first graders was the first to be officially exposed to a same-sex marriage ceremony in San Francisco.

It’s a move that some say is “indoctrination.”

“This shows that homosexual ‘marriages’ are designed not just to gain public approval of the homosexual lifestyle, but designed to indoctrinate children to be ‘better’ than their ‘bigoted elders,’” Randy Thomasson, president and founder of the non-profit Campaign for Children and Families, told

“‘Get them while they’re young’ is the goal of homosexual activists, and they’re succeeding in San Francisco,” he added. “Now parents and grandparents have a vivid example from San Francisco of how children are already being indoctrinated to support homosexual marriage and see this as an acceptable ‘relationship’ based on ‘love,’” Thomasson told

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

of course, why stop at indoctrination...

...when the grandkids can be used to put pressure on grandparents to vote know who.

CBS Promotes Pro-Obama Video by Sarah Silverman, Censors and Ignores All Its Profanity

Be warned, the above does contain language used by her video. It's pretty bad, which is one thing the Newsbusters' article is pointing out.

PRICE: So forget the stump speeches and the big crowds. This election may all come down to a one-on-one conversation with a grandson.

SILVERMAN: If they vote for Barack Obama they're going to get another visit this year. If not, let's just hope they stay healthy until next year.


One thing to point out it the double-standard and hypocrisy shown here. Who else but a liberal could get away with calling on parents to use their children to influence the grandparents? Who else but a liberal could get away with saying the things she says about Jews and blacks in the video? And who else but a liberal would have those things not just ingored by the media, but laughed at?

The more this campaign goes on, the more sick it becomes.

get them indoctrinated early

Obama Pushed on Our Kids in Lit Textbook

Over at RealDebateWisconsin Fred Dooley was contacted by the mother of a Racine Unified School District 8th grade student in Wisconsin public schools about an outrageous thing she found in her son's school textbook. Apparently, in this textbook supposedly teaching about literature, one of the books being pushed as a perfect example of that subject is Barack Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father. That's right, a book by a current political candidate for president is being pushed on our children as "literature." It also seems probable from campaign donation records that a principle member of the publishing company is a large Obama donor.

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an sign.

Monday, October 6, 2008

leaving the big two

This presidential election has provided a rather classic no-win situation for someone like myself.

On the one hand, there are the Dem Leacherals (a name I'll explain later). Voting for Obama is, for me, not an option.

On the other hand, there are the Rep Compromiservatives. I simply cannot trust McCain as a politician, which is sad, because although he's had his failings, as a man he seems to be one that can be admired and respected.

But McCain the politician isn't one I can trust. He has shown too often a habit of compromising with leacherals on almost any issue.

The choice of Palin for his Vice-President was unexpected, and gives some life to his campaign. Before selecting her, I was anticipating him picking someone like Lieberman, who despite being a Liberal who can be partially respected is still a Liberal, and that I would in essence not be left with a choice. Choosing Palin at least gave me pause in that regard.

But maybe not enough. The truth is, McCain is still the one running for President, and while the VP pick is important, it doesn't supercede the Presidential choice.

As now, McCain has voted for the bailout. This is touchy, because it's about things I don't understand well. But I think I do understand that the government essentially owning mortgages is a very bad idea, and that this bailout is essentially socialism sneaking in the back door. None of that is good.

So, what is a conservative like me to do?

The thought of not voting at all is there, and one I don't readily dismiss. It isn't enough to say that I'll be voting for "the lesser of two evils", because I would still be voting for an evil. An Obama presidency has the strong potentially of being shameful and a disaster, but a McCain one doesn't promise to be much better.

I think that my vote has some worth. Not in a monetary sense, but in a sense of approval and favor of what the person and the party stand for. It would take a very un-Democrat Democrat to have me vote for such a one, seeing all of the things the Democrat Party supports--legalizing immorality, the continuing of abortion, weakening of the military, higher taxes and the redistribution of wealth. A Democrat would essentially have to not be a Democrat in order to get my vote.

My vote, then, is simply not to be given to one I do not deem worthy of it. Obama is not, and I have my serious doubts about McCain.

So, what's left.

Not voting, as I said, is an option. Not because I do not value the right to vote, but because I do, and I must exercise that right with wisdom. And if there is no canditate I can approve of with my vote, then for me to vote just because there is an election with no one I can approve is to essentially waste that right.

There are also other, smaller parties. I'm not Libertarian, and certainly not a Green. I have read the positions of the Constitution Party, though, and while I'm not in complete agreement with them, I am enough to at least consider casting my vote for their candidate.

For any who may be interested, here's the Constitution Party's Platform.

There is still time. We'll see how these last few weeks go. Perhaps McCain can avoid pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, though how much of a victory that would be for all of us is doubtful.

And if we elect Obama, then, well, we'll only have asked for what's coming.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

hoisting oneself

Try these two quotes on for size, both from the same person.

The first is found here (warning: may expose you to Palin Derangement Syndrome).

A call to arms

When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, "Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?"

And he said, "Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian."

The context shows that "these people" are the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

And no comment on the Jesuit's inability to decide what God is. These are, after all, progressives.

The second quote comes from this source.

Anne Lamott

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." (Traveling Mercies; although on page 22 of Bird by Bird she attributes this quote to "my priest friend Tom")

The irony here is great.

Monday, September 15, 2008

cultural suicide

Sharia Courts "Legally Binding" In UK

It is reported today that Islamic Sharia courts are exploiting a loophole in British law and pronouncing judgements on cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence...

"In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter - in keeping with sharia law."

A mainstream court would have demanded equal treatment...

Similarly, two Christian preachers were booted out of a Muslim neighbourhood in Birmingham. The officer, who was very aggressive, told the preachers

"We were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

There have also been reports of Pakistani police officers and government officers failing to help women fleeing their families in "honour crimes" cases, even returning them to their families in the knowledge that they face harsh punishment.

I'm really starting to think that our cultural has a death wish.

Granted, this is Britain, but it's close enough to be in many ways similar to our culture. And all too often, as goes Europe, so too do many in the US wish to go.

Seriously, who in their right minds thinks this is a good idea???

And now the foot is in the door, or even more then just the foot. Now they make legal ruling descriminating against women. Now they can tell Christian ministers that their right to free speech doesn't apply to Muslim communities.

All that in a theoretically 'free' country.

Now I'm just waiting for the libs over here to start touting this as the next wave of progressiveness.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

and the redefinings continue to creep in...

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms

ROSEVILLE, Calif. – "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied

And never minding that it makes marriage sound like business arrangement...

But, that's Cali for you. The fruitier and nuttier, the better, I guess is their thought.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

when peaceniks attack!!

Anti-War Protest at GOP Convention Turns Violent

Five people were accused of setting fire to a trash bin and pushing it into a police car, St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said.

A group of protesters came toward the delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes, delegate Rob Simmons told KMSP-TV.

One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing, the station reported.

Up to 200 people from a group called Funk the War nosily staged their own march. Wearing black clothes, bandanas and gas masks, some of their members smashed windows of cars and stores. They tipped over newspaper boxes, pulled a big trash bin into the street, bent the rearview mirrors on a bus and flipped heavy stone garbage bins on the sidewalks.

Protesters were seen lying on an interstate exit ramp to block traffic in the downtown area and linking arms to block other roads.

On the weekend, authorities seized weapons and devices from a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which was not among the organizers of the march. The devices were designed to disable buses, the sheriff’s office said. Five people from that group were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder and conspiracy to damage property, the sheriff’s office said.

Because nothing says "Stop the war!!" quite like senseless violence against senior citizens and police, and the smashing of car and store windows.

Zheesh, can anyone say "Hypocracy!!!" really loudly?

Friday, August 29, 2008

another reason republicans are now not conservatives

GOP Platform Draft: Global Warming is Man-Made

( – A final draft of the Republican Party platform includes a first-ever plank on global warming that says human activity has contributed to climate change.

"The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere," the draft reads. "Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth."

“I am not surprised that it’s a plank in the platform, because that’s part of McCain’s platform, but it’s disappointing, because it’s an example of Republicans playing ‘me too’ rather than leading,” Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told on Thursday.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

the throwing of the tomatoes :-)

And I thought Spain was famous only for bull fighting!! I had no idea they had this event!

Spanish Town Holds Annual Tomato Fight

Bunol, Spain (AP) - Spanish revelers have pelted each with 113 tons of ripe tomatoes in an annual food fight. Town hall says an estimated 40,000 people took part in the hour of messy fun in the village of Bunol near Valencia. The ritual dates back to the 1940s.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

obama lied, children died

Campaign Admits Obama Lied About Abortion Vote, Media Asleep

As NewsBusters reported on August 13, the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

But, of course, he doesn't make enough money to say whether these just-born children (not to mention those still in the womb) are really human or not.

Friday, August 15, 2008

another example of cali fruit-and-nuttiness

L.A. adopts day laborer rules for home improvement stores

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Wednesday requiring certain home improvement stores to develop plans for dealing with day laborers who congregate nearby in search of jobs.

The ordinance mandates that proposed big-box stores obtain conditional-use permits, which could then require them to build day-labor centers with shelter, drinking water, bathrooms and trash cans.

The issue is also part of the wider debate over illegal immigration.

Marvin Stewart, president of the Minuteman Project, said the ordinance was another example of how the city condones illegal immigration. "All of this is flying in the face of what the city is supposed to be doing in terms of upholding the law," Stewart said.

For my part, my thought is that if (IF) these types of stores want to put us such shelters, that is their own business, though the issue of whether they are helping illegal immmigrants does come into play as well.

But for a city council to say that such businesses must build such shelters goes beyond what they should be allowed to mandate.

This is another example of government creep, another example of liberals taking away our rights.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

cultural relevance, off the deep end

New Indian Bible Draws Fire over Hindu References

A new Indian version of the Bible recently, published by the Catholic Church, has run into controversy over its inclusion of verses from the Bhagavad Gita, a form of Hindu chant, and references to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

An illustration in the new version, New Community Bible, depicts Jesus, Mary and Joseph as poor Indian villagers. Mary wears a simple sari and has a bindi on her forehead alongside Joseph in a turban and loincloth.

Pastor Vijay Thomas, who heads a Bible college in Chennai, told Christian Today, “By making it appear ‘Indian’ with references to Hindu scriptures and great poets, people will not come to the truth. This is a complete turn back from the real Bible."

Thursday, July 31, 2008

when good is called bad...

Dems attack Sen. Coburn for delivering babies for free

How afraid is the Democrat leadership of truly maverick conservative GOP
Sen. Tom Coburn, who is waging war with Hapless Harry Reid over binge spending
and secrecy?

They’re so afraid of his effectiveness that they are trying to kneecap
him with bogus Ethics Committee complaints about his practice of not charging
for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center. Coburn continues
to serve as an OB/GYN in Oklahoma.

read my mind: If Sen. Coburn were aborting babies for free instead of
delivering them, he’d be getting awards instead of ethics complaints.

Heck, if he were aborting babies for free, he'd likely be a hero of the Dem, pro-choice, and fems (maybe not really of Planned Parenthood, though, as it may take away from the profit margins they may get from the mall abortion outlets).

Really, this is the best 'scandal' the Dems can come up with? The guy must be saint, in that case.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

movie review--the x-files--mulder is mulder, scully is house

When I saw last year that this summer there would be an "X-Files" movie coming out, I was quite happy about the prospect. "The X-Files" numbers among my very favorite TV serieses, and the hope of a continuation of it, even in movie form, was a nice hope indeed.

The summer has seen some very good movies so far. Sadly, I cannot put "I Want to Believe" really among those.

It's not awful. It's not garbage. It's actually pretty interesting, in it's ways. should I put didn't feel much like an X-File. If anything, it seemed more like one of those investigation shows, like a "Law and Order" or a "Criminal Minds", with a bit of "House" thrown in when it came to Scully at the hospital.

The movie does bring us in after the events of the series' end. It's been a few years, Scully is now a doctor at a hospital, and Mulder is still in hiding from the FBI. That same FBI comes to Scully looking for Mulder to help them find a missing agent, with the offer that all will be forgotten if he helps. Scully convinces him to do so, and they are off.

Perhaps one problem with the movie is that it tries to do too much. There are things about hospital ethics, doctor-patient relations, experimental cures and stem cell research, a pedophile former priest and far-reaching consequences to his actions, what prayers God hears and what sins He forgives, and the creepy people performing Frankenstein-like experiments in the scrap yard.

Which brings up another problem, the feel of the movie. The usual X-Files episode succeeded in bringing about such things as creepiness, drama, a sense that things are not just not normal, but not normal is an way that is not easy to say--conspiracies within conspiracies, strange creatures, aliens, cover-ups.

The movie tried, I think, but it didn't really have that. We do see the one patchwork man, but only on an operating table. To go with the Frankenstein theme, it would be as if the villagers burned down the castle before the monster rose and did havoc. It may be smart of them, but it makes for a not-as-interesting movie.

On the plus side, there was Mulder and Scully. And they brought back Skinner, too. Nothing is said about the others from the end of the series, no mention made of what happened to Reyes or Doggett or Kirsch.

No alien bounty hunter roaming about. No black oil roiling over people's eyes. No mysterious lights in the sky. No Gibson Praise. No supersoldiers. And I guess Cancerman is still dead.

It's not a bad movie, it's just...unsatisfying.

Friday, July 25, 2008

movie review--the dark knight--'24' lite

For those of you who need your '24' fix after the writer's strike put a stop to the coming season, I can recommend "The Dark Knight" to you.

Granted, Batman isn't Jack Bauer. In fact, I think if Batman were to ever meet Jack Bauer, he would start whimpering. Well, maybe not, that's probably an exaggeration.

Rather, think of "The Dark Knight" as Bauer lite.

The movie has many of the elements that make '24' so very much worth watching. Crises and dilemmas, explosions, races against time, moral and ethical questions, impossible choices, looks into the high cost of doing what is right, betrayals and people changing, good people who are killed or twisted.

It's shorter, so there's not the many layers of conspiracy that a '24' season has, but it does have the twist in the middle, where it looks like it may be over but is only just starting to fire up.

There are times when Batman shows how far he will go to try to find his enemy, in this movie the Joker, and stop his havoc. Although he doesn't seem to have planned it, he lets Dent pretend to be him in order to lure out the Joker. An interrogation gets rather rough. In the leadup to the finale he uses a form of city-wide spying technology to find where the Joker is hiding.

And the parallel's continue even into the life of Wayne. His 'job' comes between him and Rachel from the first movie, he is given the choice of whether to save Rachel or Dent at one point (and unlike in 'Batman Forever', he is not able to be both), and his use of the spying tech may have driven a friend from him.

And finally, in the last scenes, we see him taking the fall for crimes he didn't commit, in order to preserve the reputation of a man who had been heroic until becoming deformed. Perhaps that is the most Bauer-ish thing he did.

This is a very good movie, with lots of stuff going on in it, and lots of things one could point out. I'll mention in passing the idea of how choices take a role--Rachel must choose between Bruce or Dent, Batman must choose to save Rachel or Dent, two ferry boats full of people must choose which will die. And in a twist to that, Dent in the end, as Two-Face, gives up making choices and relies on the flip of his coin.

I don't know if I can say it's better then, say, 'Iron Man'. I do think it's much more intricate and not an simplistic. It's very different, and is well worth watching.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

be afraid...

Richard Simmons — Congressman?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Fitness star and effervescence extreme Richard Simmons is on Capitol Hill today, tackling the issue of childhood obesity and pushing for increased school exercise programs. But as he testifies before the House Education and Labor Committee, the 60-year-old is nodding toward that celebrity siren song: political office.

In a half-serious, half-jocular tone, Simmons described his approach to the hearing, saying, "I want to have the respect of a congressman, I want to talk like a congressman, and maybe, someday, I'll be a congressman."

Ok, when and how did he turn 60???

"After this congressional hearing, I will go home," Simmons said, "I will talk with my Dalmatian dogs, I will pray to God and then I'll see what else I can do to help."

Yeah, if that doesn't strike into your heart, I'm not sure what will.

Monday, July 14, 2008

perhaps all reason has not left us yet

Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling

It's a very short article, maybe because it looks to be recent news (see, who says I don't do cutting edge :-)).

The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off America's coastline.

So, it may not be enough to finally start the drilling, but one can hope it will be a step in the right direction.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

when real life is stranger then fiction

A father undermined

A Gatineau judge's bizarre attempt to undermine a father's authority sends a frightening message to all parents: When it comes to raising children, the state knows best.

Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged, in court, her father's decision to ground her. The girl had been living with her father -- the parents are divorced -- and he forbade her to attend a school trip after she disobeyed his instructions to stay off the Internet.


This was hardly an instance of cruel or arbitrary authority. There was no abuse involved, not even close. The father, it seems, used clear and consistent warnings, letting his child know that there would be consequences for inappropriate behaviour. This is how you raise responsible children who understand the results of their actions. It is an approach to discipline that should be encouraged, not outlawed by the state.

Although such a thing is not yet here in the US, I fear it will only be a matter of time. And while the paper does say that the judge's decision was "aberrant" and unlikely to be followed, one can wonder if that will really be so.

At the least, it's another foot in the door, and there are those who would not mind forcing that door open even further.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

enter the thought police

Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'

The National Children's Bureau (this is from a UK newspaper, but given how the left in the US seems to like the bad decisions made in Europe, well, just wait a bit...), which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Wow, I'm glad I didn't have those people behind me when I was in other countries. Let's be honest, a lot of the food I had in my time in Russia was very good, but some things just weren't to my taste. The one kind of soup, for example, which was served cold. I tried a few times to eat it, but eventually had to give up. Or the fish gelatin dish, a delicacy where I was I think, but one I couldn't develop a taste for at all.

And if these people actually did some thinking (not that I expect too much of them), they would realize that children are just as likely to say "yuk" to foods of their own country as to foreign foods. Very likely their responses to foods have less to do with any culture behind the food as to things like how the foods look, smell, the child's own tastes in foods, any tempermental issues the child may be having at that time, or whatever.

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

So, yeah, report your local toddler to the nearest authorities if they refuse to eat something from a foreign land.

Why does this seem like these people are only trying to create a problem, and then have people report incidents so that they can justify their own existence?

But it's still scary. This whole 'thought police' thing would be ridiculous if I didn't think they were serious about having people report incidents to the local council, and the more the merrier.

Monday, July 7, 2008

movie review--hancock--a bit of a mess

"Hancock" is a mess. Some, I know, haven't like it. I remember hearing last week a person on a local radio station who gives brief reviews of movies, and his take on "Hancock" was rather low, a mere one-and-a-half out of five stars.

My take on it is a bit higher. I actually enjoyed it, and thought it pretty good. Not great, but worth a viewing.

The character of Hancock is indeed a mess when the movie begins. He's obviously a 'good guy', but of a rather rough sort. He's obvious out to get the 'bad guys', but his methods are clumsy and destructive, and his way with people not very good. For example, in one scene he saves a man from being killed by a train, but in doing so causes the train to wreck, and while it looks to have been only a freight train, it was still quite a wreck.

The man he saves is some kind of PR guy, and in return for the save he tries to help Hancock improve his image and people skills. That is one big part of the rest of movie, and the other is how this encounter with the PR guy leads to another encounter with someone like Hancock.

In one sense, Hancock is like a Superman with an attitude problem. He flies, he's bulletproof, though he doesn't seem to have things like x-ray vision or heat rays. He isn't an alien, and is much older then he appears, but doesn't seem to know what exactly he is due to a head injury and amnesia.

One way in which the movie is a mess is that it doesn't explain things very well. We never really learn what Hancock is, or the others like him, or really what their role was suppose to have been.

There is quite a bit of language in the movie, little of it really bad. There is some crass humor. There is no sexual stuff that I remember, except one thing at the beginning.

The part of the story where the PR guy tries to persuade companies to give away their products, such as medications, is one of interest. I don't know how much money such companies would put into research, or how much testing would be needed for such things to be approved, but it does strike me as naive to expect such companies to give away their work for the little reward of putting a certain logo on their other products.

The rights and wrongs of company's policies, charitable works, and how to really help people, are beyond the scope of a review such as this. Suffice it for now to say that 'Hancock' is rather simplistic in this regard.

All told, though, it's a pretty good movie. Maybe a little more thought could have been put into the story, but it doesn't really take away from it.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

liberal arrogance over DC gun ruling

Don't Shoot!

"Don't shoot -- I want to grow up," read the protest sign an 11-year-old boy held in the wake of 30-plus shootings of Chicago schoolchildren this school year.

Typical liberal tactic--bring out the kids who don't have the ability to grasp the issues (just don't show the ones butchered in abortions, that's just distasteful).

The affirmation of the individual's right to bear arms must also be countered by us

Wow, there's is one of the most crystal-clear examples of liberal elitist thinking I've ever seen. Thank you, ma'am, for showing us so succintly how low and mean you think of us, and how you think it's your job to protect us from ourselves. Such arrogance is rarely accompanied with such candor these days.

ok, maybe we now need to ask, what ISN'T offensive

Because when we can't have pictures of puppies without offending Muslims, then what can we have?

Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Coming up in the news in the next few months, they'll starting protesting shops that sell calendars with pictures of puppies.

Monday, June 30, 2008

are we really this nuts (or, dare I say, bananas)???

Spain calls for ape’s rights

On Wednesday, the Spanish Parliament called on Spain to protect the great ape’s right to life and freedom. Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Ape Project called it an “historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades.” The Project works to remove the great ape “from the category of mere property” and to “provide these amazing creatures with the right to life, the freedom of liberty and protection from torture.”

While the Great Ape Project laments “the arbitrary denial of fundamental rights and protections to non-human great apes,” it is difficult not to notice arbitrariness of another sort in such fervent defense of animal rights from a nation that sanctions(and subsidizes) some 92,000 abortions annually.

And who, we may ask, is one of the people behind this madness?

The Project’s chief philosophical proponent, Dr. Peter Singer, doesn’t see the inconsistency. In a 2007 article in the Melbourne Herald-Sun, Singer argued that though “the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life…mere membership of our species doesn’t settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life.”

Singer argues that consciousness (and thus the ability to experience pain) is the proper criteria for evaluating “personhood.” Thus, for Singer, an adult ape has more intrinsic value than a human infant, more consciousness, and thus more of a right to life.

Yep, Peter Singer.

Friday, June 27, 2008

maybe there's a conflict of interest?

Ok, first, there's this.

Perhaps 30 years later, evangelicals, because of "an increase in
questionable rhetorical practices in the nonprofit sector," need to form the
ECRA: The Evangelical Council for Rhetorical Accountability. Those of us who
have a lot of pew time know ... not to mention those who listen to religious
broadcasting and partake of religious literature, Web sites, and blogs (!) ...
that such accountability is sorely lacking.

The need for an ECRA became clearer than ever to me this week when a
beloved elder in the evangelical broadcasting community spoke out against Sen.
Barack Obama. What is evident to me in this interchange is not just a difference
in policy, but also a ...

.. difference in rhetoric, defined as how one attempts to argue and
persuade. In times like these -- dangerous times, election seasons, and so on --
we must not only scrutinize what people say and whether we agree with it, but
also how they say it and whether we agree with their means of persuasion. I'm
suggesting that we sharpen our sense of rhetorical accountability just as we
sharpen our sense of financial accountability.

The specter of censorship notwithstanding...

Then, there was this.

Faithful in pews might not be voters in November

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign is aggressively reaching out to evangelicals.

The Illinois senator dispatched former 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer to meet with fellow Roman Catholics. He sent Brian McLaren, one of the country's most influential pastors, to meet with fellow evangelicals. And aides have conducted more than 200 "American Values Forums," soon to be followed up with house parties and town hall-style meetings aimed at young Catholics and young evangelicals.

And a bit later, a response from McLaren.


Of course, we all know that I'm not one of the country's most influential
pastors. Nor was I sent to meet with fellow evangelicals on Obama's behalf,
although I'd be happy to share with anyone of any faith persuasion my hopes,
concerns, and commitments regarding the presidential election.

I was invited to speak on faith and politics at one of Senator Obama's
"faith and values" forums in Iowa last year. And I am an enthusiastic supporter
of The Matthew 25
Network, which is supporting Senator Obama, and which you can read about here and here. And I plan to be more
outspoken about the election in the coming months, here and elsewhere - not as a
spokesperson for any organization, but as a responsible private citizen. In
fact, I just said good-bye to a CNN crew who was here filming a story about
Evangelicals who support Senator Obama, tentatively to be aired on

I think I'll wait for the AP article writer to have his or her say about McLaren's claims. My point here is simply point out that McLaren calls for some kind of niceness when it comes to political rhetoric, at least when it is directed agains the man he is out there campaigning for (which he admits to, whether Obama "sent" him or not).

Btw the God's Politics blog (which has much more politics then God, on may think) was one that quite vigorously defended the statements of Obama former pastor Jeremiah Wright. As seen here.

Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective
Why America Needs the Uncensored Prophetic Voice of the Black Church

I think it's a case of these people being quite willing to dish it, but not so much ot take it.

book review--the shack--concluding remarks

A work like this is difficult to deal with, in terms of whether to recommend it or not.

On the one hand, in many ways it is far ahead of much of what passes for 'Christian' thought today. The author's bold statements about the Trinity, about Heaven after death, about the resurrection of Christ, are statements made in the face of attacks on those same doctrines from various fronts. In that sense, the book is well worth reading.

On the other hand, when he says things that smack of universalism, or tries to make us think that God is our servant, well, those are some pretty serious things, too.

And it's not so easy to simply say to take the good and bypass the bad. Not all errors are equal. How one views the Creation account, for example, may be counted a small matter (though I sometimes wonder about that), but how one views the resurrection of Christ is quite another matter. So when people like Crossan and Borg try to tell us that there was no real resurrection, I have no qualms about saying they have no part in the faith. In that sense, Young is well inside it, and I am glad.

When he tries to tell us that God is our servant, however, I can only raise the eyebrows. I fear how such a mindset would be in some people. Isn't that very much how Word of Faith views God, even up to the point of commanding the Spirit to do thing, and using Scripture almost against God in order to make Him do things?

I think this points to where one of my mains qualms is in the book. His portrayal of God is not one that would cause a Moses to take off his shoes before Him, or make a Job be quiet with unanswerable questions, or strike down a man for having the audacity to touch the Ark of the Covenant, or send plagues upon plagues upon a people for the stubbornness of their ruler, or rain fire and brimstone on some wicked and immoral cities, or give His prophets words about coming disasters and conquests if the people didn't repent.

In other words, the God in Young's book is a rather tame, rather nice, rather domestic diety. Papa in the Shack is usually in the kitchen, cooking, talking about being especially fond of people. It's not exactly the type of being who feels any kind of holy awe or even fear before.

If put to the question, I guess I would say that "The Shack" is by a narrow margin a recommend. It's a book to read with one eye's open, so to speak. If one does so, there is much to consider in it, and some good may be gained from it. If one simply accepts what it says because it sounds good or makes one feel good, then the book has become a stumbling block, and would have been best avoided.