Who would vote for Hillary? For Obama? For Huckaby?
In this very early season of overly zealous candidate posturing, you can bet that demographic studies and surveys are being administered by the various presidential candidates at a manic pace. Each man or woman (they ya go, Hillary) running this time around wants to know EXACTLY who they appeal to, who they do not appeal to, and who is undecided, so that they can change their message, their itinerary, or their look to meet the perceived needs and tastes of a specific demographic niche. The male Clinton went on the now defunct Arsenio Hall show and "played" (with great help from the band and a sound mixer) the saxophone, and sadly, Huckaby recently pulled the "I play a cool instrument" ploy and played his bass on the I Got a Huge Chin late night program. The point being made is that prospective candidates can and usually will do some crazy things to appeal to all. Of course, we know that many of these vain attempts just come off as juvenile and overly contrived.
So, in the quest for more comedy, various lists will now be made to help some of the candidates see what they can do to appeal to different demographic groups. Read on in a spirit of fun...
Top 5 things Hillary needs to do to appeal to the Hip Hop crowd:
5. Shave that moustache
4. Develop her own finger signs (just avoid the one you use for Bill)
3. Employ the use of a '62, slammed Impala when riding from the airport to the speaking engagement location. Make it blue pearl, with a white interior. Don't slack on the dubs.
2. Get Flavor Flave to emcee a hood joint par-tay in Compton, replete with chicken and waffles. Get Gore to karaoke "Bust a Move" in the back yard.
1. Try not to make any more pseudo-racist remarks about Obama, at least until after the election.
Top 5 ways Huckaby might appeal to Muslim's:
5. Try to avoid using a copy of the Q'uran as a coaster
4. Lay off the "Mohammad sucks" remarks when passing a mosque
3. Go to Mecca, buy a coke, look around, pose for a few photo's, and return home. No big whup.
2. Get a really dark tan. Wear sandals more often.
1. Avoid using the words "Hell" and "Islam" on the same day, especially if the liberal media is around.
Top 5 ways Obama could appeal to white, middle aged, church-goin' women:
5. Somehow, very quietly, let it slip out that you may in fact be part Cuban.
4. Avoid using the Bible as a coaster
3. Go on Martha Stewart's show and share your pot roast recipe
2. Drop Oprah. Pick up Barbara Bush.
1. Eat at Ruby Tuesday's every Thursday for lunch. Wear a red hat.
Top 5 ways Thompson may appeal to the pacifist, anti-war, anti-gun, tree hugging crowd:
5. Lay off the growling
4. Remove the Green Peace bumper sticker from the toilet seat in your RV.
3. Don't wear your revolver the next time you do a sit down with Matt Lauer.
2. Replace the Rib eye lunch special with an organic salad and bean sprout, tofu enhanced soup. (just have an aid ready with a big mac and fries in the limo)
1. Offer to take AlGore on a free trip to the Arctic to find that polar bear that is supposedly drowning amidst the melting glaciers. Just you and him. Once there, what to do next will just come to you.
Well candidates, read, implement, and hope for the best. Possibly some of your other running mates will receive similar advice in the near future.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Happy and Gay?
The Gay agenda in Hollywood is ever increasing in frequency and intensity.
But what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Almost every group in America, from the NRA to the NEA and even NASA, and all points in between, have been declared to have an agenda, usually by another group that distrusts the other. While it can be rare for an interest group, special cause group, or political group to openly state its obvious and overt agenda, the tree is known by its fruit, eventually, regardless of attempts to mask or water down the specified agenda. So, keeping these points in mind, the question returns.....what is the gay agenda?
The proposed answer here is: "acceptance."
Gay agenda movies are nothing new. The Hollywood machine has churned out such flicks as "The Birdcage," "In and Out," "Brokeback Mountain," and more recently, "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry." But this list is just a sampling. Even "Mrs. Doubtfire" had overt gay agenda markers all through it, masked as a "family film."
In the more recent "Chuck and Larry" film, two men who are obviously not gay pretend to be so, in order to break the law and supposedly secure financial security for one of the fire fighters. The premise falls flat on its face immediately when the audience member realizes that all the widower fireman has to do is remarry or leave the force. But oh no, that would not bring about the real cause of the film, which was to attempt to prove that dependant clauses in insurance regulations are "unfair" and sexually slanted. The final court scene is a terribly feeble scene of swinging blindly at the windmills of the gay agenda, in the pathetic hopes of persuading the vast heterosexual community that gay people are not only just like everyone else, but deserve special treatment. Never mind that those two last statements are contradictory, as is the overall gay agenda.
This movie, along with copious speeches, rallies, and articles, are vain attempts, at best, to force the heterosexual community (which by all reasonable estimations make up over 95% of the total human population -- gay biased "studies" notwithstanding) to accept the gay lifestyle as "normal." But do heterosexuals ever feel the need to convince homosexuals to accept the hetero lifestyle? Ever thought of that?
The acceptance the homosexual community is seeking is a temporary, outward based acceptance from the hetero world they live in. The homosexual community is full of confused, angry, bitter, misguided, and conflicted people (male and female) who are not at all at peace within themselves. These individuals may not realize this, but they are hoping that if they can find, or force, acceptance among some in the hetero world, that this will appease their inner conflict and help them cope with the same. Translation? Basically, it's the same trite and useless game anyone struggling with sin (rebellion against God) tries to play to appease the guilt and shame they feel when going against God's laws and commands. It does not matter if the issue is homosexuality, theft, deceit, pride, lust, or any other form of human vice, the wrong way to go is to try to find an excuse for the sin, hoping that some degree of "acceptance" of it among peers will assuage the pain.
The homosexual community is wasting its time with trying to force so called acceptance among the heterosexual world. First of all, even the most liberal of hetero's out there inwardly find homosexuality a weird curiosity at best, and repugnant at worst. Secondly, any outward acceptance will not translate to inner peace. Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with human sin and sides with Godly mandates is neither ignorant nor a hate monger....provided they do so with the painful awareness of their own utter depravity before a holy God. Finally, as with all sin, there is a way to find inner peace, but this can only begin by facing the one and only God, and we do this by accepting as our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ alone has paid the price for our sins and made us right before God. He alone can set us free from the penalty of our sin and secure for us an eternal home with God.
We all waste so much time trying to cover our sins, re-translate our sins, and doctor our sins, hurting and turning on each other in the process. There can be no happiness in our lives until we have peace with God, accepting His laws and commands as He has stated them Himself, realizing that all His laws are good and there for our good. With God, it's all about the relationship, and He has done all the work necessary for us to have a right relationship with Him. He is the Master and we are the servants; He is the King, and we are His subjects. Until we get in line with this reality, we will have no peace, regardless of our best errant efforts.
But what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Almost every group in America, from the NRA to the NEA and even NASA, and all points in between, have been declared to have an agenda, usually by another group that distrusts the other. While it can be rare for an interest group, special cause group, or political group to openly state its obvious and overt agenda, the tree is known by its fruit, eventually, regardless of attempts to mask or water down the specified agenda. So, keeping these points in mind, the question returns.....what is the gay agenda?
The proposed answer here is: "acceptance."
Gay agenda movies are nothing new. The Hollywood machine has churned out such flicks as "The Birdcage," "In and Out," "Brokeback Mountain," and more recently, "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry." But this list is just a sampling. Even "Mrs. Doubtfire" had overt gay agenda markers all through it, masked as a "family film."
In the more recent "Chuck and Larry" film, two men who are obviously not gay pretend to be so, in order to break the law and supposedly secure financial security for one of the fire fighters. The premise falls flat on its face immediately when the audience member realizes that all the widower fireman has to do is remarry or leave the force. But oh no, that would not bring about the real cause of the film, which was to attempt to prove that dependant clauses in insurance regulations are "unfair" and sexually slanted. The final court scene is a terribly feeble scene of swinging blindly at the windmills of the gay agenda, in the pathetic hopes of persuading the vast heterosexual community that gay people are not only just like everyone else, but deserve special treatment. Never mind that those two last statements are contradictory, as is the overall gay agenda.
This movie, along with copious speeches, rallies, and articles, are vain attempts, at best, to force the heterosexual community (which by all reasonable estimations make up over 95% of the total human population -- gay biased "studies" notwithstanding) to accept the gay lifestyle as "normal." But do heterosexuals ever feel the need to convince homosexuals to accept the hetero lifestyle? Ever thought of that?
The acceptance the homosexual community is seeking is a temporary, outward based acceptance from the hetero world they live in. The homosexual community is full of confused, angry, bitter, misguided, and conflicted people (male and female) who are not at all at peace within themselves. These individuals may not realize this, but they are hoping that if they can find, or force, acceptance among some in the hetero world, that this will appease their inner conflict and help them cope with the same. Translation? Basically, it's the same trite and useless game anyone struggling with sin (rebellion against God) tries to play to appease the guilt and shame they feel when going against God's laws and commands. It does not matter if the issue is homosexuality, theft, deceit, pride, lust, or any other form of human vice, the wrong way to go is to try to find an excuse for the sin, hoping that some degree of "acceptance" of it among peers will assuage the pain.
The homosexual community is wasting its time with trying to force so called acceptance among the heterosexual world. First of all, even the most liberal of hetero's out there inwardly find homosexuality a weird curiosity at best, and repugnant at worst. Secondly, any outward acceptance will not translate to inner peace. Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with human sin and sides with Godly mandates is neither ignorant nor a hate monger....provided they do so with the painful awareness of their own utter depravity before a holy God. Finally, as with all sin, there is a way to find inner peace, but this can only begin by facing the one and only God, and we do this by accepting as our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ alone has paid the price for our sins and made us right before God. He alone can set us free from the penalty of our sin and secure for us an eternal home with God.
We all waste so much time trying to cover our sins, re-translate our sins, and doctor our sins, hurting and turning on each other in the process. There can be no happiness in our lives until we have peace with God, accepting His laws and commands as He has stated them Himself, realizing that all His laws are good and there for our good. With God, it's all about the relationship, and He has done all the work necessary for us to have a right relationship with Him. He is the Master and we are the servants; He is the King, and we are His subjects. Until we get in line with this reality, we will have no peace, regardless of our best errant efforts.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
What to GIVE for Christmas
The Charlie Brown Christmas special has been running annually for over 30 years, and in that animated masterpiece, the real meaning of Christmas has been exposed openly and concisely, and watched by countless millions. So, why do so many people still miss the meaning?
Christmas is all about celebrating the advent (coming) of Christ, in human form, some 2,000 years ago. The significance of His birth and His mission was missed by almost everyone in that time, so maybe we should not be surprised that people still miss the point. However, that is not a resignation to perpetual ignorance - rather - it is a chance to bring clarity and illumination to a world that needs to see Jesus lifted up.
Christ came in response to God's desire to usher in a new covenant with mankind, in that, God would satisfy His own righteous anger and judgment towards our sin, and proclaim us justified and sinless before Him in response to our faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. It may be a tad trite, but the word "giving" appropriately encapsulates this holy plan to redeem mankind from the ravages of sin, for Christ had to willingly give of Himself so that we could be made right with God (see Romans 3: 22 - 28). In light of such truth, it is also appropriate for us today to see Christmas as a time of celebrating "giving," even as we worship the Lord who has saved us.
Giving should be central to all that is Christmas. Giving gifts is giving, but to limit giving to those who are going to gift you right back is missing the point in a big way. You see, Christ gave to those who could never rescue themselves, and could never give back in kind. He rescued the helpless, and saved the doomed. His giving was the epitome of agape love, which is godly love, the highest and purest form of love. Agape is a Greek word that in an earthly translation means basically, "love that is unconditional and is not dependant upon return." He gave of Himself because no one else could, and because of His love for His creation (that's you and me). So, with this in mind, maybe we should re-think giving at Christmas time.
The suggestion here is to develop a new tradition at Christmas with you and your family. How about deciding to not give gifts to each other, but with prayer, choose rather to give to someone, or a family, or group a gift of finances, time, effort, etc.? The idea would be to seek out those who are helpless and cannot reciprocate in any way. Think of a widow on your street or neighborhood. How about that child that needs the basics just to survive? What about that missionary you know who could really use a care package from home? A soldier overseas that would love some notes, some cookies, and a blanket? How many people in the local nursing home would love a visit and some warm slippers and a hug? The list goes on and on, but the wonderful tradition must start somewhere. Yourself and your children need to experience this, rather than just talk about it.
We can try and try to capture the Christmas time spirit and meaning in all kinds of ways, but we will miss the point if we fail to actually give in a way that resembles the spirit in which Christ gave. Christmas time is a great time to put feet to our faith and action into our walk and start CONNECTING with PEOPLE!
So, pray for direction (let God lead you in this), resolve to be an active giver, and then get on with it. Such action will forever change your whole perspective on Christmas and then maybe we can all watch Charlie Brown with no guilt and a ton of joy. Go get 'em Chuck!
Christmas is all about celebrating the advent (coming) of Christ, in human form, some 2,000 years ago. The significance of His birth and His mission was missed by almost everyone in that time, so maybe we should not be surprised that people still miss the point. However, that is not a resignation to perpetual ignorance - rather - it is a chance to bring clarity and illumination to a world that needs to see Jesus lifted up.
Christ came in response to God's desire to usher in a new covenant with mankind, in that, God would satisfy His own righteous anger and judgment towards our sin, and proclaim us justified and sinless before Him in response to our faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. It may be a tad trite, but the word "giving" appropriately encapsulates this holy plan to redeem mankind from the ravages of sin, for Christ had to willingly give of Himself so that we could be made right with God (see Romans 3: 22 - 28). In light of such truth, it is also appropriate for us today to see Christmas as a time of celebrating "giving," even as we worship the Lord who has saved us.
Giving should be central to all that is Christmas. Giving gifts is giving, but to limit giving to those who are going to gift you right back is missing the point in a big way. You see, Christ gave to those who could never rescue themselves, and could never give back in kind. He rescued the helpless, and saved the doomed. His giving was the epitome of agape love, which is godly love, the highest and purest form of love. Agape is a Greek word that in an earthly translation means basically, "love that is unconditional and is not dependant upon return." He gave of Himself because no one else could, and because of His love for His creation (that's you and me). So, with this in mind, maybe we should re-think giving at Christmas time.
The suggestion here is to develop a new tradition at Christmas with you and your family. How about deciding to not give gifts to each other, but with prayer, choose rather to give to someone, or a family, or group a gift of finances, time, effort, etc.? The idea would be to seek out those who are helpless and cannot reciprocate in any way. Think of a widow on your street or neighborhood. How about that child that needs the basics just to survive? What about that missionary you know who could really use a care package from home? A soldier overseas that would love some notes, some cookies, and a blanket? How many people in the local nursing home would love a visit and some warm slippers and a hug? The list goes on and on, but the wonderful tradition must start somewhere. Yourself and your children need to experience this, rather than just talk about it.
We can try and try to capture the Christmas time spirit and meaning in all kinds of ways, but we will miss the point if we fail to actually give in a way that resembles the spirit in which Christ gave. Christmas time is a great time to put feet to our faith and action into our walk and start CONNECTING with PEOPLE!
So, pray for direction (let God lead you in this), resolve to be an active giver, and then get on with it. Such action will forever change your whole perspective on Christmas and then maybe we can all watch Charlie Brown with no guilt and a ton of joy. Go get 'em Chuck!
Friday, November 30, 2007
"Congraduations"
Is life a circle, or a continuing line?
In eastern thought, life is seen as a circle, with history repeating itself and people reaping what they sow. In western thought, life is seen in linear terms, as a line with points, and a distinct beginning and end, and with those two ends never touching.
In the eastern philosophy (which is the philosphical tact that Christ was exposed to) every person eventually winds back up where they began - feeble, helpless, and dependant upon others for survival, with life going on in a never ending circle. The western ideal touts that we all run a race, and the one with the most "points" between their two divergent, non-intersecting markers wins. Now, turn that line metaphor up on it's end, along with the hash marks, and what you have is something identical to the markings on a scientific, graduated cylinder. Beginning to make sense?
Here in America, we want everything in life to be measured and compared. Winning is everything. You would think we all came directly from Egypy, given our fascination with pyramid-esque thinking. It's all about being at the top. So, naturally, we think about graduating events in our lives as stepping stones to reaching the top. And of course, the "top" is the only place to be, right?
But what if we thought more in the eastern vein? What if we saw life as a continium, always keeping our beginning in view, knowing that what we do will be visited again and again? How would this influence the teachings of Jesus in our lives, and how we saw life in general? In eastern thinking, graduating (in academics, in age, in careers, etc.) would be seen more as something that enlarges and enhances the circle of one's life, rather than as a hurdle that is jumped and never seen again.
In reality, "graduating" happens slowly and naturally for most people, as they grow, face challenges, adjust, adapt, grow in their relationship with Christ, and just live. If we eschew the graduated cylinder (or yardstick metaphor) model and lean more towards the circle, we will lose our obsession with reaching certain points, and thereby have a better chance of seeing living life, rather than surpassing hash marks, as our goal. If life becomes a competition, even with ourselves, we turn it into a game, rather than a gift to be developed and shared, as Christ intended. He came to give us life, and life abundant - not an "edge" for competiting.
So, as we enjoy another day of the Lord's blessings, let us be thankful for the true life made possible in Christ, and let us find our sense of purpose in that relationship with God's Son, rather than in achieving any trivial status in human estimations. Besides, when we finally "graduate" from this life, our relationship with Christ will be all that matters then.
In eastern thought, life is seen as a circle, with history repeating itself and people reaping what they sow. In western thought, life is seen in linear terms, as a line with points, and a distinct beginning and end, and with those two ends never touching.
In the eastern philosophy (which is the philosphical tact that Christ was exposed to) every person eventually winds back up where they began - feeble, helpless, and dependant upon others for survival, with life going on in a never ending circle. The western ideal touts that we all run a race, and the one with the most "points" between their two divergent, non-intersecting markers wins. Now, turn that line metaphor up on it's end, along with the hash marks, and what you have is something identical to the markings on a scientific, graduated cylinder. Beginning to make sense?
Here in America, we want everything in life to be measured and compared. Winning is everything. You would think we all came directly from Egypy, given our fascination with pyramid-esque thinking. It's all about being at the top. So, naturally, we think about graduating events in our lives as stepping stones to reaching the top. And of course, the "top" is the only place to be, right?
But what if we thought more in the eastern vein? What if we saw life as a continium, always keeping our beginning in view, knowing that what we do will be visited again and again? How would this influence the teachings of Jesus in our lives, and how we saw life in general? In eastern thinking, graduating (in academics, in age, in careers, etc.) would be seen more as something that enlarges and enhances the circle of one's life, rather than as a hurdle that is jumped and never seen again.
In reality, "graduating" happens slowly and naturally for most people, as they grow, face challenges, adjust, adapt, grow in their relationship with Christ, and just live. If we eschew the graduated cylinder (or yardstick metaphor) model and lean more towards the circle, we will lose our obsession with reaching certain points, and thereby have a better chance of seeing living life, rather than surpassing hash marks, as our goal. If life becomes a competition, even with ourselves, we turn it into a game, rather than a gift to be developed and shared, as Christ intended. He came to give us life, and life abundant - not an "edge" for competiting.
So, as we enjoy another day of the Lord's blessings, let us be thankful for the true life made possible in Christ, and let us find our sense of purpose in that relationship with God's Son, rather than in achieving any trivial status in human estimations. Besides, when we finally "graduate" from this life, our relationship with Christ will be all that matters then.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Picking a Candidate
Is it electoral time already?
It is hard to imagine how fast and furious the hype and speculation has come out of the liberal press concerning the 2008 elections. Of course, to understand the intense hatred of all liberal media for George W. Bush is to understand why the hype is so in-your-face. If they are not misrepresenting the progress of establishing democracy in Iraq, they are trying to focus upon what they hope will be their time in the presidential race. Either way, they want to shove George W. aside and move on. Someone has apparently forgotten to tell them that he is still president, fully vested with all the powers thereof, and conducting business so that this country remains free, so that those on the left can enjoy their drunken, litter ridden "save the planet" crusades and fund raisers at mansions of the godless and famous.
Well, election time for the top job is coming up within a year and a half, so it's not too soon to begin looking towards who you will vote for. As you are considering such things in such a timely fashion, here are some tips and handy thoughts that may help guide you on your way towards picking "your candidate."
1. Remember what we are: a Republic. Yes folks, we have a representative government, not a true democracy, even though there are many democratic-themed ways we do things. But as a true republic, we choose people to REPRESENT us, and our beliefs, values, and hopefully, virtues we all share. As such, the business of choice is all the more weighty, for in a republic, we are essentially electing someone to go and do their thing, provided they do their thing in a way that is consistent with what they said their thing was prior to election. An example of this going horribly wrong would be ol slick Willy - Bill Clinton. Posed as a moderate (were you fooled?) but proved to be a flaming liberal....even as that old battle axe Hillary pulled his strings. An example of this going right is our current president. Bush told the nation what he was, and dadgoneit, he has stuck to his principals. He has pulled precious few surprises, the latest being his unbelievably lenient take on immigration. Other than that, he has stuck pretty close to representing what he said he would represent.
2. Keeping with that theme, as you survey the candidates, you want to seek out someone who will be faithful to represent in office what they said they would represent in running for that office. This goes back to voting records, stances on certain issues, and an overall consistency in their stated values and virtues. We can all be wowed by persuasive speeches, but what you really want to find is consistency. That way, you can at least know what you are in for if your candidate prevails.
3. Reflecting your virtues. Please note that "values" are usually substituted for the word "virtues" in our society, but that's not all that surprising when you consider just how flakey some in our culture are. Values denotes a transient, personal take on what is right and wrong, while virtues alludes to those things that are good and honorable regardless of time or situation. Some candidates may "value" free choice, while another candidate may hold the sanctity of life as a virtue. Values change with situations, virtues do not. Hard work, honesty, accountability, responsibility, etc. are virtues, and so, does your candidate reflect those things that do not change for you?
4. True to America: Our constitution is not a terribly complicated document. Our country was established to promote religious and political freedom in a republic-based government founded upon real, true biblical principals. Inherent in that design was an understanding that personal responsibility would be key to making it all work. Mutual respect. Putting others first. The American spirit shines brightest when you see hard working people sacrificing for others. Is your candidate truly in line with the basic tenets of the constitution, or do they give you the feeling they would like to rewrite the whole thing? Do they really prize the wonder of democracy, or do they seem to long for another type of government, more reflective of other countries? It is incredibly naive to think that every presidential candidate is loyal to the basic foundational principals of this country.
5. Is this all they can see? The best leaders are those who have leadership thrust upon them, rather than those who seek it out with all their being. Now, no one is running for the office of the president unless they want the job, but some (AlGore, for example) reveal that without that position, their life has no purpose. If all a candidate can hope for or apply themselves to is the obtaining of an office, then if/when they get it, they will live to protect their position, rather than use their position to benefit the people of this great country. That is a simple fact. Anyone in a high position who can walk away from that position, is in a very favorable position to lead properly. Got it?
6. Finally, have you prayed about all this? Jesus said to His disciples that those in government are there by God's will, and we are to submit to their authority. In all of history, God has used both good and bad leaders to do His will, but that fact of sovereignty does not absolve us of the need to both pray and vote. This is number 6 on the list, but it should be # 1. However, you still need to be informed and think this all through logically as you pray for guidance. And while we're at it, let's all pray that God will give us a godly leader who will bring virtues and godly principals to the white house, in the hopes that we can remain a strong symbol of good and decency in this world.
Liberals love to show everything that burns or bleeds, but turn aside from their sadistic telecasts and look at the true America. Sure, we have problems, but we are also still a country comprised mainly of decent, hard working and conservative people who believe in virtues and in God. We give more than any other country in history, and our military is one of the strongest and yet most benevolent in history as well. We should be both thankful and proud to be Americans, and we must see the need to preserve this nation by being active in the political process. So, pray, and vote!
It is hard to imagine how fast and furious the hype and speculation has come out of the liberal press concerning the 2008 elections. Of course, to understand the intense hatred of all liberal media for George W. Bush is to understand why the hype is so in-your-face. If they are not misrepresenting the progress of establishing democracy in Iraq, they are trying to focus upon what they hope will be their time in the presidential race. Either way, they want to shove George W. aside and move on. Someone has apparently forgotten to tell them that he is still president, fully vested with all the powers thereof, and conducting business so that this country remains free, so that those on the left can enjoy their drunken, litter ridden "save the planet" crusades and fund raisers at mansions of the godless and famous.
Well, election time for the top job is coming up within a year and a half, so it's not too soon to begin looking towards who you will vote for. As you are considering such things in such a timely fashion, here are some tips and handy thoughts that may help guide you on your way towards picking "your candidate."
1. Remember what we are: a Republic. Yes folks, we have a representative government, not a true democracy, even though there are many democratic-themed ways we do things. But as a true republic, we choose people to REPRESENT us, and our beliefs, values, and hopefully, virtues we all share. As such, the business of choice is all the more weighty, for in a republic, we are essentially electing someone to go and do their thing, provided they do their thing in a way that is consistent with what they said their thing was prior to election. An example of this going horribly wrong would be ol slick Willy - Bill Clinton. Posed as a moderate (were you fooled?) but proved to be a flaming liberal....even as that old battle axe Hillary pulled his strings. An example of this going right is our current president. Bush told the nation what he was, and dadgoneit, he has stuck to his principals. He has pulled precious few surprises, the latest being his unbelievably lenient take on immigration. Other than that, he has stuck pretty close to representing what he said he would represent.
2. Keeping with that theme, as you survey the candidates, you want to seek out someone who will be faithful to represent in office what they said they would represent in running for that office. This goes back to voting records, stances on certain issues, and an overall consistency in their stated values and virtues. We can all be wowed by persuasive speeches, but what you really want to find is consistency. That way, you can at least know what you are in for if your candidate prevails.
3. Reflecting your virtues. Please note that "values" are usually substituted for the word "virtues" in our society, but that's not all that surprising when you consider just how flakey some in our culture are. Values denotes a transient, personal take on what is right and wrong, while virtues alludes to those things that are good and honorable regardless of time or situation. Some candidates may "value" free choice, while another candidate may hold the sanctity of life as a virtue. Values change with situations, virtues do not. Hard work, honesty, accountability, responsibility, etc. are virtues, and so, does your candidate reflect those things that do not change for you?
4. True to America: Our constitution is not a terribly complicated document. Our country was established to promote religious and political freedom in a republic-based government founded upon real, true biblical principals. Inherent in that design was an understanding that personal responsibility would be key to making it all work. Mutual respect. Putting others first. The American spirit shines brightest when you see hard working people sacrificing for others. Is your candidate truly in line with the basic tenets of the constitution, or do they give you the feeling they would like to rewrite the whole thing? Do they really prize the wonder of democracy, or do they seem to long for another type of government, more reflective of other countries? It is incredibly naive to think that every presidential candidate is loyal to the basic foundational principals of this country.
5. Is this all they can see? The best leaders are those who have leadership thrust upon them, rather than those who seek it out with all their being. Now, no one is running for the office of the president unless they want the job, but some (AlGore, for example) reveal that without that position, their life has no purpose. If all a candidate can hope for or apply themselves to is the obtaining of an office, then if/when they get it, they will live to protect their position, rather than use their position to benefit the people of this great country. That is a simple fact. Anyone in a high position who can walk away from that position, is in a very favorable position to lead properly. Got it?
6. Finally, have you prayed about all this? Jesus said to His disciples that those in government are there by God's will, and we are to submit to their authority. In all of history, God has used both good and bad leaders to do His will, but that fact of sovereignty does not absolve us of the need to both pray and vote. This is number 6 on the list, but it should be # 1. However, you still need to be informed and think this all through logically as you pray for guidance. And while we're at it, let's all pray that God will give us a godly leader who will bring virtues and godly principals to the white house, in the hopes that we can remain a strong symbol of good and decency in this world.
Liberals love to show everything that burns or bleeds, but turn aside from their sadistic telecasts and look at the true America. Sure, we have problems, but we are also still a country comprised mainly of decent, hard working and conservative people who believe in virtues and in God. We give more than any other country in history, and our military is one of the strongest and yet most benevolent in history as well. We should be both thankful and proud to be Americans, and we must see the need to preserve this nation by being active in the political process. So, pray, and vote!
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Why Do We Care?
There are many times in life when it is wise to step back and see the trees in the forest...
It has been almost 2 years since Hurricane Katrina ripped the gulf coast, destroying countless homes, flooding dozens of counties, and sparking a huge political debate.
Huh?
Only in American can a natural catatrosphic weather event be politicized ad nauseum. While left wing pundits continue to try to make it a reason to bash the current party holding the white house, the trees in the forest are being ignored, and for good reason. After all, no self respecting, whining left wing liberal extremist wants to see the trees of good sense and responsible thinking. All they want to do is color the forest in a dark shade of gloom and irrational, emotionally charged misthinking.
First, let's examine the "fair" city of New Orleans, which received the lions share of press coverage. Why do we care? Because New Orleans, and the destruction thereof, was populated heavily with citizens that the Democrats and their liberal press soldiers consider "their constituents." But a closer look at the "trees" in New Orleans reveals a story that was totally ignored by the left wing press. First of all, government studies revealed that approximately 80% of New Orleans residents were receiving some form of government assistance. Translation: 80% of the population was getting either free food, free room and board, free utilities, free paychecks, or some combination of any of these. That number is almost unthinkably high, even in some of America's poorest cities. New Orleans also had a very high crime rate (and still does) whereas considering the major categories of crimes (Larson, theft, murder, etc.) New Orleans routinely average about 1.5 times greater the national average. New Orleans also had a high number of citizens who were disabled or elderly and poor. Reflections of this fact was seen nightly on the news for weeks after the hurricane, and yet many polls indicated that the vast reason given as to why people did not leave New Orleans when told about the approaching Hurricane was, "I just didn't want to leave." EVERY person who lived in New Orleans represented a precious life that Christ gave His life for, and that fact arises higher than any other. But it is always very wise for us to consider all the facts, and see the trees in front of us. So why did New Orleans receive almost all the press coverage, and other areas and town were basically ignored? Was it for political reasons? Since the mainstream press is overtly liberal, what agenda did they have in mind?
Another oft repeated phrase in the liberal media and in their coverage of the hurricane aftermath was, "how could this have happened?" Or, "the unthinkable has happened." Well, pity to those who had the poor sense to say such a thing. Here are the facts in that forest!
1. New Orleans is bordered by 3 major bodies of water. First, lake Pontchartrain to the North, the mighty Mississippi to the East, and then the Gulf of Mexico to the South. Lake Pontchartrain is basically a huge swamp that has an ever-changing shoreline and is very susceptible to follow the Mississippi in its flood stages, which happens routinely all year round. Of course, the gulf of Mexico is like a giant funnel, sucking in hurricanes at the rate of about 5 a year. So, New Orleans isn't exactly what you would call a "dry city" by any means. Damp, moist, and humid, the city of sin invites water like Paris Hilton invites photo's.
2. New Orleans is, on average, 6 feet under sea level. Mind you, that sea that is so level is basically on the southern doorstep of the big easy. Find another U.S. city that is 6 feet under sea level. Surrounded by 3 massive bodies of water, and 6 feet under sea level. Yep, hard to imagine flooding happening in that situation!
3. New Orleans has been totally dependant upon levee's and bilge pumps for its very survival for countless decades. Every day without major flooding was a gift from God. A good analogy would be to try to build a city on the very edge of an active volcano, and then declare after a major fire, "how could this have happened?" How, indeed.
Two years later, New Orleans has become synonymous with Hurricane Katrina, and yet the rest of Louisiana and all of Mississippi's shoreline residents get nothing but a footnote mention, ever. Why? Decide for yourself. While inhabitants in these other areas quietly rebuild and return on their own, the whining and complaining about the alleged "injustice" in New Orleans continues. And just recently, a special report shows that crime is rampant in the big easy once again, as the police force works out of trailers, trying to bring order to a city that has been known for decades as the best place in America to "go slumming."
Why do we care if that wretched place is ever rebuilt? That is a really good question. New Orleans was always dirty, crime-ridden, and slummy, on its best day. Full of crime, prostitution, and drug use, it was hardly the envy of any other town in America. It had little charm, unless you consider going to see topless women dancing in store and bar windows "charming." However, good, decent people died in that horrible hurricane, and as hard as it may be to imagine for anyone who knows what it is to grow up in safe, clean, law abiding neighborhoods, it was "home" to hundreds of thousands of residents. No one wants to see their home destroyed. No one wants to see elderly citizens drown, suffer, or be displaced. The city as a whole was a nasty place to live by almost any standard, but every person in that city suffered in some way -- not at the hands of the government, but because of a natural disaster that will, given time, return to visit New Orleans once again.
It is not the government's job to secure safety for residents who choose to live anywhere within 10 miles of the gulf coast. Sooner than later, anyone with enough sense to breathe had better understand that building, or choosing to live on the gulf of Mexico (not to mention the panhandle and entire state of Florida, much less the entire east coast area) is an open invitation for disaster to strike. If you build on the gulf of Mexico, you will, sooner or later, be significantly impacted by a hurricane. No exceptions. So roll the dice, and don't whine when your number comes up. It's no one's fault but your own. And by the way, don't forget that New Orleans is already under water, technically, metaphorically, and literally. It might not be your wisest first choice for a gulf coast home location.
Aspire to visit areas on the water, but get smart and move inland. A good suggestion might be somewhere near a forest.
It has been almost 2 years since Hurricane Katrina ripped the gulf coast, destroying countless homes, flooding dozens of counties, and sparking a huge political debate.
Huh?
Only in American can a natural catatrosphic weather event be politicized ad nauseum. While left wing pundits continue to try to make it a reason to bash the current party holding the white house, the trees in the forest are being ignored, and for good reason. After all, no self respecting, whining left wing liberal extremist wants to see the trees of good sense and responsible thinking. All they want to do is color the forest in a dark shade of gloom and irrational, emotionally charged misthinking.
First, let's examine the "fair" city of New Orleans, which received the lions share of press coverage. Why do we care? Because New Orleans, and the destruction thereof, was populated heavily with citizens that the Democrats and their liberal press soldiers consider "their constituents." But a closer look at the "trees" in New Orleans reveals a story that was totally ignored by the left wing press. First of all, government studies revealed that approximately 80% of New Orleans residents were receiving some form of government assistance. Translation: 80% of the population was getting either free food, free room and board, free utilities, free paychecks, or some combination of any of these. That number is almost unthinkably high, even in some of America's poorest cities. New Orleans also had a very high crime rate (and still does) whereas considering the major categories of crimes (Larson, theft, murder, etc.) New Orleans routinely average about 1.5 times greater the national average. New Orleans also had a high number of citizens who were disabled or elderly and poor. Reflections of this fact was seen nightly on the news for weeks after the hurricane, and yet many polls indicated that the vast reason given as to why people did not leave New Orleans when told about the approaching Hurricane was, "I just didn't want to leave." EVERY person who lived in New Orleans represented a precious life that Christ gave His life for, and that fact arises higher than any other. But it is always very wise for us to consider all the facts, and see the trees in front of us. So why did New Orleans receive almost all the press coverage, and other areas and town were basically ignored? Was it for political reasons? Since the mainstream press is overtly liberal, what agenda did they have in mind?
Another oft repeated phrase in the liberal media and in their coverage of the hurricane aftermath was, "how could this have happened?" Or, "the unthinkable has happened." Well, pity to those who had the poor sense to say such a thing. Here are the facts in that forest!
1. New Orleans is bordered by 3 major bodies of water. First, lake Pontchartrain to the North, the mighty Mississippi to the East, and then the Gulf of Mexico to the South. Lake Pontchartrain is basically a huge swamp that has an ever-changing shoreline and is very susceptible to follow the Mississippi in its flood stages, which happens routinely all year round. Of course, the gulf of Mexico is like a giant funnel, sucking in hurricanes at the rate of about 5 a year. So, New Orleans isn't exactly what you would call a "dry city" by any means. Damp, moist, and humid, the city of sin invites water like Paris Hilton invites photo's.
2. New Orleans is, on average, 6 feet under sea level. Mind you, that sea that is so level is basically on the southern doorstep of the big easy. Find another U.S. city that is 6 feet under sea level. Surrounded by 3 massive bodies of water, and 6 feet under sea level. Yep, hard to imagine flooding happening in that situation!
3. New Orleans has been totally dependant upon levee's and bilge pumps for its very survival for countless decades. Every day without major flooding was a gift from God. A good analogy would be to try to build a city on the very edge of an active volcano, and then declare after a major fire, "how could this have happened?" How, indeed.
Two years later, New Orleans has become synonymous with Hurricane Katrina, and yet the rest of Louisiana and all of Mississippi's shoreline residents get nothing but a footnote mention, ever. Why? Decide for yourself. While inhabitants in these other areas quietly rebuild and return on their own, the whining and complaining about the alleged "injustice" in New Orleans continues. And just recently, a special report shows that crime is rampant in the big easy once again, as the police force works out of trailers, trying to bring order to a city that has been known for decades as the best place in America to "go slumming."
Why do we care if that wretched place is ever rebuilt? That is a really good question. New Orleans was always dirty, crime-ridden, and slummy, on its best day. Full of crime, prostitution, and drug use, it was hardly the envy of any other town in America. It had little charm, unless you consider going to see topless women dancing in store and bar windows "charming." However, good, decent people died in that horrible hurricane, and as hard as it may be to imagine for anyone who knows what it is to grow up in safe, clean, law abiding neighborhoods, it was "home" to hundreds of thousands of residents. No one wants to see their home destroyed. No one wants to see elderly citizens drown, suffer, or be displaced. The city as a whole was a nasty place to live by almost any standard, but every person in that city suffered in some way -- not at the hands of the government, but because of a natural disaster that will, given time, return to visit New Orleans once again.
It is not the government's job to secure safety for residents who choose to live anywhere within 10 miles of the gulf coast. Sooner than later, anyone with enough sense to breathe had better understand that building, or choosing to live on the gulf of Mexico (not to mention the panhandle and entire state of Florida, much less the entire east coast area) is an open invitation for disaster to strike. If you build on the gulf of Mexico, you will, sooner or later, be significantly impacted by a hurricane. No exceptions. So roll the dice, and don't whine when your number comes up. It's no one's fault but your own. And by the way, don't forget that New Orleans is already under water, technically, metaphorically, and literally. It might not be your wisest first choice for a gulf coast home location.
Aspire to visit areas on the water, but get smart and move inland. A good suggestion might be somewhere near a forest.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A War of Words
Recently, Ken Burns' latest documentary on World War II has been running on PBS-type stations, and it is an excellent piece of work. In typical Burns style, he includes personal testimonies and historical data and mixes it with tons of never-before-seen footage to give a comprehensive look back in time at one of the greatest wars of all time. Historically, it is an important documentary that should be preserved into the foreseeable future.
Some advocate not looking back, telling others to "forget the past, and move on," but such advice is idiotic at best. It is true that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes we all made prior if we do not examine them in the present, and learn from them. Those who want to forget the past are either hoping for a magical future, or are trying to run from the markers they have left behind. Either way, they are proving their lack of cranial competence, but this group of people are dwarfed by those who refuse to live in the present.
Take for example this little war we have going on now, called the Iraq war. Actually, to be perfectly honest, that war was won within 100 hours, essentially. American military dominance simply shut down and shut up what was considered the 4th greatest military regime in the world in a matter of days. It was totally embarrassing to those on the opposing side, and for the next 50 years, no one in the Islamic world will ever forget or be able to deny the absolute dominance of the American war machine. So, that much should be settled in the history books. But of course, the war of words rages on, as both liberals and conservatives try to record history that is being made right now, each vying for the chance to post the truth. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in this struggle, as some of the worlds most latent liberals control the NEA (National Educators Association), and that organization will only sanction text books that give a truly liberal slant.
The war of words continues on Capital hill, where our representatives and congressmen fight for the right to discourse about the war in their terms. Democrats cry out that this is an unjust war, opened up under false pretenses, and blantently refuse to admit that they voted for it. Republicans are searching for a solid place to stand in support, afraid to put their convictions first, lest that yields a losing race to be re-elected. All the while, our brave troops battle on, fighting insurgencies and visiting terrorists from other countries who pop in to Iraq for a little shootin'. The war is won, but Iraq was so devastated by Saddam and his regime that it is going to take time to bring forth a decent measure of civility and stability to this country. In the end, what we may end up with is a benevolent dictatorship, or a hybrid form of democracy, but it will take decades to know for sure what Iraq is post Saddam. It took him decades to turn it into a military state, after all.
The war of words sometimes is fought in local and national papers. The doggedly liberal press cannot bring themselves to print one positive word about the growing infrastructure in Iraq. To their shame, they will censor any positive publicity, based soley on their hatred for President Bush. During the Vietnam war, the liberal press owned the airwaves and print media, and American got a steady diet of reports from "men" who would surely blow off a hand or foot if they ever tried to handle a gun of any kind. So called journalist like Rather walked around in disgust at the conditions and all the loud banging of those guns, unable to believe that such a thing could ever exist in his white bread world. His bread and butter report was painted with the same two colors each and every time: black, and red. His reports always included lots of doom and despair, and lots of blood, to make sure people back home only knew of defeat and horror, and nothing of victory and hope. Any war ever fought has those four basic elements, but liberals like Rather and Cronkite simply "forgot" the latter, and heaped on the former. Finally, after 6 or so years of such reporting on the big 3 networks, Americans of every kind began to buy in. That war was not unwinable, it simply died in the forum of public opinion. 40,000 American lives were given so that Liberals could make their point that all wars are bad, and should be avoided, along with eating beef, driving gasoline powered cars, and going to church. Shame on anyone in America for ever allowing godless, whining liberals to influence their better judgment.
Which brings us to the present conflict, war, or whatever you may want to call it, in Iraq. Bottom line is this: America continues to go to ballgames and shop in malls and go to church without a thought or mention of the hundreds of thousands who are fighting for their lives half way around the world. No less than Germany and Japan in the mid 40's, the terrorists who inhabit the eastern part of our world would like nothing more than to wreak havoc on America and ultimately destroy us, and our fighting men and women are staving off that attack by giving of themselves. What's more, they are winning, have won, and will continue to win out over the black forces of Islamic extremism as long as they are needed. Schools are reopening, bridges are being built, free marketing is taking over in both small and large towns, and families are starting to know what it is like to live in relative peace for the first time in memory. Our soldiers are proving to be some of the most loving and honorable forces to ever walk this earth, showing compassion and diligence to work to help the Iraqi people carve out a new life in freedom. It is not beyond the scope of human consideration to believe that our military, if given proper time to gear up and amass, could indeed subdue practically any country in the world, and all this without a draft. We are a force of the highest power, and yet, our troops have something more powerful to tout: dignity and grace. The people of our armed forces are by and large far more interested in aiding and helping than killing and destroying. Germany and Japan will forever be known for their horrible atrocities in earlier wars; America will forever be known (among other countries, at least) as having one of the most benevolent armed forces in history. THIS is the side of the story the liberals refuse to report or admit, to their chagrin. Decades from now, images and words alike will prove that the American armed forces were an awesome military that showed tremendous gentleness and class. It is such a privilege to say that about your military, at any time in history.
Some advocate not looking back, telling others to "forget the past, and move on," but such advice is idiotic at best. It is true that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes we all made prior if we do not examine them in the present, and learn from them. Those who want to forget the past are either hoping for a magical future, or are trying to run from the markers they have left behind. Either way, they are proving their lack of cranial competence, but this group of people are dwarfed by those who refuse to live in the present.
Take for example this little war we have going on now, called the Iraq war. Actually, to be perfectly honest, that war was won within 100 hours, essentially. American military dominance simply shut down and shut up what was considered the 4th greatest military regime in the world in a matter of days. It was totally embarrassing to those on the opposing side, and for the next 50 years, no one in the Islamic world will ever forget or be able to deny the absolute dominance of the American war machine. So, that much should be settled in the history books. But of course, the war of words rages on, as both liberals and conservatives try to record history that is being made right now, each vying for the chance to post the truth. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in this struggle, as some of the worlds most latent liberals control the NEA (National Educators Association), and that organization will only sanction text books that give a truly liberal slant.
The war of words continues on Capital hill, where our representatives and congressmen fight for the right to discourse about the war in their terms. Democrats cry out that this is an unjust war, opened up under false pretenses, and blantently refuse to admit that they voted for it. Republicans are searching for a solid place to stand in support, afraid to put their convictions first, lest that yields a losing race to be re-elected. All the while, our brave troops battle on, fighting insurgencies and visiting terrorists from other countries who pop in to Iraq for a little shootin'. The war is won, but Iraq was so devastated by Saddam and his regime that it is going to take time to bring forth a decent measure of civility and stability to this country. In the end, what we may end up with is a benevolent dictatorship, or a hybrid form of democracy, but it will take decades to know for sure what Iraq is post Saddam. It took him decades to turn it into a military state, after all.
The war of words sometimes is fought in local and national papers. The doggedly liberal press cannot bring themselves to print one positive word about the growing infrastructure in Iraq. To their shame, they will censor any positive publicity, based soley on their hatred for President Bush. During the Vietnam war, the liberal press owned the airwaves and print media, and American got a steady diet of reports from "men" who would surely blow off a hand or foot if they ever tried to handle a gun of any kind. So called journalist like Rather walked around in disgust at the conditions and all the loud banging of those guns, unable to believe that such a thing could ever exist in his white bread world. His bread and butter report was painted with the same two colors each and every time: black, and red. His reports always included lots of doom and despair, and lots of blood, to make sure people back home only knew of defeat and horror, and nothing of victory and hope. Any war ever fought has those four basic elements, but liberals like Rather and Cronkite simply "forgot" the latter, and heaped on the former. Finally, after 6 or so years of such reporting on the big 3 networks, Americans of every kind began to buy in. That war was not unwinable, it simply died in the forum of public opinion. 40,000 American lives were given so that Liberals could make their point that all wars are bad, and should be avoided, along with eating beef, driving gasoline powered cars, and going to church. Shame on anyone in America for ever allowing godless, whining liberals to influence their better judgment.
Which brings us to the present conflict, war, or whatever you may want to call it, in Iraq. Bottom line is this: America continues to go to ballgames and shop in malls and go to church without a thought or mention of the hundreds of thousands who are fighting for their lives half way around the world. No less than Germany and Japan in the mid 40's, the terrorists who inhabit the eastern part of our world would like nothing more than to wreak havoc on America and ultimately destroy us, and our fighting men and women are staving off that attack by giving of themselves. What's more, they are winning, have won, and will continue to win out over the black forces of Islamic extremism as long as they are needed. Schools are reopening, bridges are being built, free marketing is taking over in both small and large towns, and families are starting to know what it is like to live in relative peace for the first time in memory. Our soldiers are proving to be some of the most loving and honorable forces to ever walk this earth, showing compassion and diligence to work to help the Iraqi people carve out a new life in freedom. It is not beyond the scope of human consideration to believe that our military, if given proper time to gear up and amass, could indeed subdue practically any country in the world, and all this without a draft. We are a force of the highest power, and yet, our troops have something more powerful to tout: dignity and grace. The people of our armed forces are by and large far more interested in aiding and helping than killing and destroying. Germany and Japan will forever be known for their horrible atrocities in earlier wars; America will forever be known (among other countries, at least) as having one of the most benevolent armed forces in history. THIS is the side of the story the liberals refuse to report or admit, to their chagrin. Decades from now, images and words alike will prove that the American armed forces were an awesome military that showed tremendous gentleness and class. It is such a privilege to say that about your military, at any time in history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)