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?