Why is everyone complaining about the Huckabee cross? Didn't anyone see the elephant in the room called a Christmas Tree?!!! Or that he mentions "Christ" or says, "God bless and Merry Christmas". Of course it was meant to be a cross! He's a preacher.
The important thing is that it all appears to be a lie!
According to research on involuntary non-verbal communications "people telling falsehoods often involuntarily send a telltale nonverbal message to listeners by frequently blinking their eyes."
Watch when he talks about being worn out from "all the television commercials you've been seeing". He blinks incessantly - he isn't worn out, doesn't expect you are, and wants you to see more (such as this ad).
Then he says, "What really matters is a celebration of the birth of Christ." But, again he blinks incessantly - what really matters to him is getting elected.
In the 30-second political commercial, he blinks about 39 times. What is he hiding? Why do I not trust him?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
A thought for the day...
When John the Baptist was preaching, "Soldiers ... asked him, 'And what is it that we should do?' He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.' " (Luke 3:14)
And, what does Jesus say about John? That he was "more than a prophet." (Mat 11:9) and "Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist." (Mat 11:11)
So, if John is the second greatest person in the Bible and God has a commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and (we are told) God is opposed to soldiers killing the enemy, why did John miss this opportunity to say, "Soldiers, throw down your weapons and kill no one," and instead says something that is apparently innocuous: "be satisfied with your wages"?
Was John afraid of angering the soldiers? The same John who stood out the gates of the palace and loudly condemned Herod Antipas for adultery!!!???
Think about it.
And, what does Jesus say about John? That he was "more than a prophet." (Mat 11:9) and "Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist." (Mat 11:11)
So, if John is the second greatest person in the Bible and God has a commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and (we are told) God is opposed to soldiers killing the enemy, why did John miss this opportunity to say, "Soldiers, throw down your weapons and kill no one," and instead says something that is apparently innocuous: "be satisfied with your wages"?
Was John afraid of angering the soldiers? The same John who stood out the gates of the palace and loudly condemned Herod Antipas for adultery!!!???
Think about it.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Some Great Choices for President
When we look for a Presidential candidate first we look to someone who is dedicated, honest, intelligent, experienced, and has the ability and drive to work for the country. Then we ask personal questions of empathy, compassion, and sympathy. Only after they are vetted through this process will we ask for a position on the issues.
What if I told you that there was a person who had almost 20 years of experience in the highest levels of government? He was instrumental in the Cold War victory and the defeat of the Soviet Union resulting in the freedom of all ofFor those interested in a business leader, there is the guy who was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the University of Notre Dame, and the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan. In addition, a board member of the Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, and The Rand Corporation.
For charity and community programs, there is always the hero who was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation – an educational support fund for local schools, Vice President of the regional Boys and Girls Club, on the board of directors for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition, and KQED public broadcasting for San Francisco.Then there are those who look for a Secretary of State in the line of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan. I know another man who fits easily into that category.
Of course, this is a Christian country and our President must believe in God. There is always the son of a Presbyterian minister who participated and assisted his father in his ministry throughout his life. He was a first-hand witness of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and has worked throughout his life for the fair treatment and success of minorities.
For the jock in all of us, there is the football jock who know more about football then the average Monday morning quarterback (and some of the Sunday afternoon quarterbacks on the field). Someone who excelled in sports and enjoys it to the fullest, competing at the collegiate level.
What if I told you he was black?
What if I told you he was a she?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The world actually is black and white
The world actually is black and white.
There is right and there is wrong and we must make rules based on what is right or wrong. Only after that can we look at each violation on a case-by-case basis and determine a "special circumstance". If we have no standard, we have no measurement of success.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Drugs, the President, and kids
"Rudy defends Obama's discussion of previous drug use" screams the headline, but "Romney feels ... [that] Obama committed a huge error.”
So, is admitting drug us an error? Is admitting it to students a bad mistake? Is Rudy making room for his own faults ("ye that live in glass houses...")?
First, drug use is not only bad, it is stupid. While doing drugs should not be a life sentence, it is both an indication of poor judgment and physically effects the brain. I know this for a fact. I have a brother who smoked a lot of pot in the 70s and now is an avowed liberal. He voted for Clinton, TWICE, as well as alGore and Kerry, and is proud of it!? If that isn't a reason not to use drugs, I don't know what is. Talk about being scared straight!!!! (Oh, and I would never vote for my brother for President.)
There are two reasons to admit drug use. First to get help, second to let the cat out of the bag before your opponent uses it as a tool against you. Obama doesn't need help with drug use now (I think).
So, is it bad to tell students they can turn their lives around? Of course not. Part of the problem with addiction is the feeling that you are worthless and cannot correct your errors. The fact that Obama overcame a problem and made something out of himself despite it is what makes America great. But he is missing a great Liberal opportunity by not pointing out that Big Government made it possible through welfare, social programs, and redistribution of wealth.
Is Mitt Romney wrong then in saying it is an error to tell students of his past faults? In a way. Obama caveatted that his conversion was based on lies "noticing ... some places poor, some rich. We spend so much money on military, but we don't spend our money on schools." Admitting a fault, even to children, isn't a bad thing. Instead of showing how individual effort and knowledge corrected that fault, he uses mis-characterizations (spending no money on schools and all the money on the military) and lies to promote his agenda. Romney was right in that the admission was not to help the kids in study hall, it was only to help Obama in his run for President. Kids see a drug user that, despite his lies and inability to accept the blame for them, might be President. Both Mitt and I are scared that this may come true.
So, is admitting drug us an error? Is admitting it to students a bad mistake? Is Rudy making room for his own faults ("ye that live in glass houses...")?
First, drug use is not only bad, it is stupid. While doing drugs should not be a life sentence, it is both an indication of poor judgment and physically effects the brain. I know this for a fact. I have a brother who smoked a lot of pot in the 70s and now is an avowed liberal. He voted for Clinton, TWICE, as well as alGore and Kerry, and is proud of it!? If that isn't a reason not to use drugs, I don't know what is. Talk about being scared straight!!!! (Oh, and I would never vote for my brother for President.)
There are two reasons to admit drug use. First to get help, second to let the cat out of the bag before your opponent uses it as a tool against you. Obama doesn't need help with drug use now (I think).
So, is it bad to tell students they can turn their lives around? Of course not. Part of the problem with addiction is the feeling that you are worthless and cannot correct your errors. The fact that Obama overcame a problem and made something out of himself despite it is what makes America great. But he is missing a great Liberal opportunity by not pointing out that Big Government made it possible through welfare, social programs, and redistribution of wealth.
Is Mitt Romney wrong then in saying it is an error to tell students of his past faults? In a way. Obama caveatted that his conversion was based on lies "noticing ... some places poor, some rich. We spend so much money on military, but we don't spend our money on schools." Admitting a fault, even to children, isn't a bad thing. Instead of showing how individual effort and knowledge corrected that fault, he uses mis-characterizations (spending no money on schools and all the money on the military) and lies to promote his agenda. Romney was right in that the admission was not to help the kids in study hall, it was only to help Obama in his run for President. Kids see a drug user that, despite his lies and inability to accept the blame for them, might be President. Both Mitt and I are scared that this may come true.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Global Warming
OK, I will face the fact that the globe is, in fact warming. But, "warming" is relative. It may be warmer today than it was yesterday, but it is not hot by any stretch of the imagination (it might get up to 70 degrees today). Of course, 35 years ago, the planet was cooling and we were all warned about that. And, I expect the planet will warm an cool as it has done for billions of years. That is why we have "ice ages", "mass extinction of dinosaurs", and pop-cycles.
But, did man cause the present warming?
No more than he did in melting the ice sheet that covered the northern hemisphere which cause glaciers in the Hudson, Susquehanna, and Ohio Valleys or completely ripped off half of a mountain in Yosemite.
What is more important - can man stop, limit, or alter the "warming"?
We are not talking about something as simple as controlling a tornado, or even directing a relatively small storm like hurricane Katrina. No, we are talking about controlling the weather on a global scale. I don't think we are capable of that, or will be for some time. Even exploding nuclear weapons in the 50s did little to influence the weather (and nothing at all to control it).
Then again, do we want to control the weather. Think about all the things mankind has done in their effort to "help" mother nature. The best example is Yellowstone. The US Park Service has actually ensured the extinction of the Rocky Mountain grey wolf. They have also eliminated the white-tailed deer, bobcat, wolverine, cougar, lynx, and mountain lion from the park and promoted the serious decline of the grizzly bear, black bear, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and beaver. All "to protect" the environment. Just imagine what the Government can do for the weather!
So, let's see, they can't predict the temperature or rain accurately more than a week in advance (and often more than a few days in advance). They can't steer a hurricane or tornado or cyclone. And people want them to try and influence the weather on a global scale?
That is a sure recipe for disaster.
I tell you what we can do to combat global warming. Open the windows, turn on a fan, and put the coats in the closet, but not too far away because global cooling is just around the corner.
But, did man cause the present warming?
No more than he did in melting the ice sheet that covered the northern hemisphere which cause glaciers in the Hudson, Susquehanna, and Ohio Valleys or completely ripped off half of a mountain in Yosemite.
What is more important - can man stop, limit, or alter the "warming"?
We are not talking about something as simple as controlling a tornado, or even directing a relatively small storm like hurricane Katrina. No, we are talking about controlling the weather on a global scale. I don't think we are capable of that, or will be for some time. Even exploding nuclear weapons in the 50s did little to influence the weather (and nothing at all to control it).
Then again, do we want to control the weather. Think about all the things mankind has done in their effort to "help" mother nature. The best example is Yellowstone. The US Park Service has actually ensured the extinction of the Rocky Mountain grey wolf. They have also eliminated the white-tailed deer, bobcat, wolverine, cougar, lynx, and mountain lion from the park and promoted the serious decline of the grizzly bear, black bear, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and beaver. All "to protect" the environment. Just imagine what the Government can do for the weather!
So, let's see, they can't predict the temperature or rain accurately more than a week in advance (and often more than a few days in advance). They can't steer a hurricane or tornado or cyclone. And people want them to try and influence the weather on a global scale?
That is a sure recipe for disaster.
I tell you what we can do to combat global warming. Open the windows, turn on a fan, and put the coats in the closet, but not too far away because global cooling is just around the corner.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
This is one of my favorite times of the year.
The shadows of the summer leaves have been replaced with a golden glow of the sunlight shining under and through the changing leaves. The foreboding shadows of the forest have been replaced by a golden warmth. And the air is crisp and cool so that the hearth of the sheets warms the soul in the night.
Of course, there is the creeping chill that is winter, but that change only heightens my anticipation.
Not having grown up with a change of season, I enjoy the life that is glorified in this wonder.
The shadows of the summer leaves have been replaced with a golden glow of the sunlight shining under and through the changing leaves. The foreboding shadows of the forest have been replaced by a golden warmth. And the air is crisp and cool so that the hearth of the sheets warms the soul in the night.
Of course, there is the creeping chill that is winter, but that change only heightens my anticipation.
Not having grown up with a change of season, I enjoy the life that is glorified in this wonder.
Friday, November 9, 2007
On the Border (Fence)
Consider this...
The Rio Grand river in South Texas, the border with Mexico, winds along changing positions like Hillary Clinton answering a question about drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Between Falcon Dam (the last dam on the river before the Gulf) and the mouth of the Rio Grande, the river travels about 275 miles. This distance by road is about 146 miles and "as the crow flies" (which, down there, are actually boat-tailed grackles) it is about 130 miles. There are several places where the river curves so wickedly that two bends are less than 50 feet apart for a 1 mile stretch of river.
Question...
Do you build a fence right along the river ... all 275 miles of it? Do you cut corners and spend half the money and build a straighter fence? If you build a straighter fence, what happens to the US land between the fence and the river? To whom does it belong? And what do you do when the river decides to change course around the fence (which it is wont to do)? To whom does the fence belong then? (hint: the land that shifts to the south side of the river then belongs to Mexico by treaty.)
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of border security. I am just pointing out the obvious here. (Obvious to me, anyway.)
The Rio Grand river in South Texas, the border with Mexico, winds along changing positions like Hillary Clinton answering a question about drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Between Falcon Dam (the last dam on the river before the Gulf) and the mouth of the Rio Grande, the river travels about 275 miles. This distance by road is about 146 miles and "as the crow flies" (which, down there, are actually boat-tailed grackles) it is about 130 miles. There are several places where the river curves so wickedly that two bends are less than 50 feet apart for a 1 mile stretch of river.
Question...
Do you build a fence right along the river ... all 275 miles of it? Do you cut corners and spend half the money and build a straighter fence? If you build a straighter fence, what happens to the US land between the fence and the river? To whom does it belong? And what do you do when the river decides to change course around the fence (which it is wont to do)? To whom does the fence belong then? (hint: the land that shifts to the south side of the river then belongs to Mexico by treaty.)
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of border security. I am just pointing out the obvious here. (Obvious to me, anyway.)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican U.S. Sen. John Warner said Wednesday the Republicans' loss of the state Senate on Tuesday was due in part to the narrow direction the party has taken in recent years.
While it is difficult to argue with someone who has been as successful as John Warner, I will disagree with him. Republicans didn't loose in Virginia because they had taken the 'narrow direction', but because it has become more and more difficult to differentiate between the Republican and Democrat candidates.
In my district, the Republican ran on Democrat ideals like land use limits and using state funds for transportation (read that big government and more taxes). The only real difference was the immigration issue, which he supported controls on, as did all who won.
Republicans need to establish (re-establish?) themselves on the principles of the common American (strong religion, strong family, strong business) instead of where they are drifting (special interests, earmarks, and government waste).As Republicans, we must maintain the standard of God, Family, and Growth. This is in the interests of everyone in this great country and omits no one. The only people that refuse to enter our tent are those who are intimidated by God, hate the family, or want to stifle growth. And never do we as Republicans deny anyone a chance to come in from the Democrats' rain, but we do expect those who come to our party to celebrate with us.
Our tent is open to everyone, but our tent poles are our principles.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
MSM Liberal Inculcation
I listen to the local ABC affiliate (WMAL) because they have Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, and Chris Plante. But they also have ABC News, which drives me batty with their half-truths, manufactured correlation, and misleading
Nov. 6, 2007 - Election Day in Virginia.
ABC news reports that "Voter turnout will be low, which is expected to benefit Republicans."
Let's see... Virginia is a 'red' state. What's more, Virginia is a Conservative state. Even the Democrats that we elect pretend to be conservative. It would appear on the surface (everything else being equal) that if only 10% of the voters go to the polls then 10% of the Republicans and 10% of the Democrats will turn out. Therefore, the stronger party will win the election.
What is the advantage then of saying it is "... expected to benefit Republicans"?
Very simply, it makes Republicans complacent (we don't need to go vote, we are going to win anyway) and inspires Democrats to go out an vote (or risk loosing). That is the only purpose for this type of report and why the liberal MSM reports it. (Can you say, "influence the election"?)
Nov. 6, 2007 - Election Day in Virginia.
ABC news reports that "Voter turnout will be low, which is expected to benefit Republicans."
Let's see... Virginia is a 'red' state. What's more, Virginia is a Conservative state. Even the Democrats that we elect pretend to be conservative. It would appear on the surface (everything else being equal) that if only 10% of the voters go to the polls then 10% of the Republicans and 10% of the Democrats will turn out. Therefore, the stronger party will win the election.
What is the advantage then of saying it is "... expected to benefit Republicans"?
Very simply, it makes Republicans complacent (we don't need to go vote, we are going to win anyway) and inspires Democrats to go out an vote (or risk loosing). That is the only purpose for this type of report and why the liberal MSM reports it. (Can you say, "influence the election"?)
Monday, November 5, 2007
Illegal Aliens
Yes, that's what they are ILLEGAL and ALIENS.
Not 'undocumented immigrants' - that would be people who are immigrating to the United States to become citizens who have yet to file the required paperwork.
They aren't even 'immigrants'. Mexico's most profitable export is 'undocumented workers' sending back millions of dollars to their families to boost the economy of Mexico.
They are here ILLEGALLY. That is all there is to it.
Making them legal with amnesty would be a slap on the face of every hard working immigrant who ever came to this country legally and fought to become a citizen. People like my great-grandparents who came over from Germany in the late 1800s. Who fought prejudice and learned English to become productive citizens of the United States. People like my neighbor who was here awaiting a visa in the early 1990s and worked 16-hour days every day but Christmas ... and paid income taxes on those earnings to ensure nothing would prevent his family from citizenship. Who had to sell everything he had acquired because the laws changed and his family was required to return to Brazil. HE waited in Brazil for three years to return and, after this country treated him poorly, he still strove to become a legal citizen. Those are documented aliens and the people we need to immigrate and naturalize.
Not the person who brakes into our country, steals our services, and expects us to pay his debts.
There are many hard working immigrants who I admire and support. Don't insult them with 'undocumented aliens' and instant citizenship!
Not 'undocumented immigrants' - that would be people who are immigrating to the United States to become citizens who have yet to file the required paperwork.
They aren't even 'immigrants'. Mexico's most profitable export is 'undocumented workers' sending back millions of dollars to their families to boost the economy of Mexico.
They are here ILLEGALLY. That is all there is to it.
Making them legal with amnesty would be a slap on the face of every hard working immigrant who ever came to this country legally and fought to become a citizen. People like my great-grandparents who came over from Germany in the late 1800s. Who fought prejudice and learned English to become productive citizens of the United States. People like my neighbor who was here awaiting a visa in the early 1990s and worked 16-hour days every day but Christmas ... and paid income taxes on those earnings to ensure nothing would prevent his family from citizenship. Who had to sell everything he had acquired because the laws changed and his family was required to return to Brazil. HE waited in Brazil for three years to return and, after this country treated him poorly, he still strove to become a legal citizen. Those are documented aliens and the people we need to immigrate and naturalize.
Not the person who brakes into our country, steals our services, and expects us to pay his debts.
There are many hard working immigrants who I admire and support. Don't insult them with 'undocumented aliens' and instant citizenship!
Friday, November 2, 2007
Marriage
One of the advantages of being married is that, when your spouse is overburdened with problems and has trouble praying, you can pray their prayers for them. "... a man shall ... be joined to his wife ... and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." (Mark 10:7-8)
Of course, it also means that when one suffers, so does the other (but married people already know that).
And remember...
Love is a gift, given freely, given completely, expecting nothing in return.
Love is wanting to do things you wouldn't normally do.
And Love is a choice.
Of course, it also means that when one suffers, so does the other (but married people already know that).
And remember...
Love is a gift, given freely, given completely, expecting nothing in return.
Love is wanting to do things you wouldn't normally do.
And Love is a choice.
Conservatism - my core belief
When I go to a restaurant, I follow the waiter around to ensure the meal is properly documented. Nor do I go into the kitchen and check the ingredients or watch the chef prepare the food. But I do look at my tab to ensure the price is accurate and to calculate the tip.
Voting for a person requires the same level of trust. It is because of this trust that a campaign must be based character, not the electorate. For example, if a person believes that abortion should be legal, he should express those beliefs when running for office. If the electorate agrees, they will vote for him.
Remember, not all issues are known when campaigning - like people flying jets into large buildings - but if you agree with the character of the candidate, you will be more comfortable with decisions when the unexpected happens.
Then, when it comes time for re-election, you review your tab and calculate the tip.
Voting for a person requires the same level of trust. It is because of this trust that a campaign must be based character, not the electorate. For example, if a person believes that abortion should be legal, he should express those beliefs when running for office. If the electorate agrees, they will vote for him.
Remember, not all issues are known when campaigning - like people flying jets into large buildings - but if you agree with the character of the candidate, you will be more comfortable with decisions when the unexpected happens.
Then, when it comes time for re-election, you review your tab and calculate the tip.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Just a Thought ...
God doesn't want you to be happy.
He wants you to be holy
... happiness comes with that.
He wants you to be holy
... happiness comes with that.
Babalu
Few people actually fight endlessly for democracy and freedom. This is one that I admire. I hope we never forget those who suffer under the oppression of an evil castro and communism just 225 miles from Miami. Think about that. It is roughly the same distance as from Washington, DC to NY City, or Houston to Dallas. Pretty close to forget a neighbor who experiences hell and Paradise at the same time.
Influential Conservative?
I can't believe Dick Morris made the list of the "Most Influential Conservatives". Dick Morris is a great political strategist, but he is a Liberal. If hating Hillary makes you a conservative, more than half the people in this country would make the list. If being afraid of Hillary were included, the number would be closer to 80%. (In case you are wondering, I didn't make the list ... yet.)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Protesters at the Pentagon
Every morning I slug (hitchhike) to the Pentagon and get on the Metro to downtown DC. On Mondays, there is usually a group of people outside the Metro stop wanting to quit the war. They usually have banners saying things like "Thou shalt not kill."
I am sure there are disagreements about this, but the Bible, while opposing murder, supports whole heartedly the defense of a nation. The finest example I know of is taken from the New Testament. Luke, Chapter 3, verse 14 says, "Soldiers also asked him [John the Baptist] , 'And what is it that we should do?' He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.' (New American Bible)
Here was an opportunity for God to say, "Soldiers shall not kill." Instead He says (through His prophet), "be satisfied with your wages." Pretty anticlimactic, if you ask me.
So, you soldiers out there, go ahead and kill all those terrorists out there before they blow up your wives and children (or my wife and children). It makes sense that if we stop killing them, we are allowing them to kill innocent people. My addition to that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill, nor allow others to kill either." Allowing others to kill innocents is tantamount to killing them yourself.
I am sure there are disagreements about this, but the Bible, while opposing murder, supports whole heartedly the defense of a nation. The finest example I know of is taken from the New Testament. Luke, Chapter 3, verse 14 says, "Soldiers also asked him [John the Baptist] , 'And what is it that we should do?' He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.' (New American Bible)
Here was an opportunity for God to say, "Soldiers shall not kill." Instead He says (through His prophet), "be satisfied with your wages." Pretty anticlimactic, if you ask me.
So, you soldiers out there, go ahead and kill all those terrorists out there before they blow up your wives and children (or my wife and children). It makes sense that if we stop killing them, we are allowing them to kill innocent people. My addition to that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill, nor allow others to kill either." Allowing others to kill innocents is tantamount to killing them yourself.
October 31, 2007 - We have created new life ... It's ALIVE!!!!!
Welcome to my world.
The Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" thus guarantying "Freedom of Speech", I do not. Get over it. There is nothing in the constitution that says I have to put up with what you think. You can leave your thoughts here, but if they are offensive, vulgar, or idiotic, you will be blocked and erased.
The Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" thus guarantying "Freedom of Speech", I do not. Get over it. There is nothing in the constitution that says I have to put up with what you think. You can leave your thoughts here, but if they are offensive, vulgar, or idiotic, you will be blocked and erased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)