(Matthew 5:43-48) "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." In this generation of Christianity, you don't find many Christian people that know how to truly love their enemies. Christian people seem to have problems with loving their own in the church. Many of the brethren in the church appear to have problems in loving one another. That's strikingly odd but that's the truth. We don't even know what it means to love our enemies today. How can we learn how to love our enemies when we won't love the brethren in the church? Today if a brother stares at us the wrong way or they don't like the same things that we like, we won't have much to do with them. We allow trivial, insignificant things to affect us when it comes to loving the brethren in the church. It's amazing. There are many church members that are at odds with one another in that local assembly. That's why there are so many quarrels and schisms in the body. There's a lack of love among the brethren. Many of us in the church don't understand the need to love one another. When the brethren are in kahootz with one another, it causes division in the body. There's a lack of unity among the brethren in our churches today. It also is a poor testimony before the world. It should be natural for the brethren to love each other. If we in the body of the local assembly can't love each other, there's no way we can love those in the world that despise and hate us.
When we read Jesus' commandment to love our enemies in Matthew 5:44, we need to have a proper perspective what it means to love our enemies. When Jesus says to love our enemies he's not saying that we must be intimate with our enemies. In order for there to be an intimate relationship, there must be common ground among two people. Naturally there's no common ground with your adversary. When understanding what Jesus is referring to, one must understand there's three types of love: Agape, Philial, and Eros. Eros is the type of love which refers to romantic love between a married couple. This type of love is based upon moods and perceptions and it comes and goes. The other type of love which is Philial, stems from the word "Philadelphia" which stands for the city of brotherly love. This type of love is towards friendships we have with other people that we enjoy to be around. The first type of love is Agape which is a Godly type of love. This type of love isn't a slave to circumstances or how one is treated. This type of love seeks the well-being of mankind in general. This is a love that must come from the Lord. It's a love that's not selfish. Agape love is the kind of love that's necessary when Jesus says to love our enemies. This type of love isn't concerned about how we're treated. We love other people regardless. We are constrained by the love of God in our lives and as a result, we love other people, which includes our enemies. These other types of love are dependent upon circumstances. Agape love is unconditional. We must love our enemies unconditionally.
When Jesus says to love our enemies, we should also pray for them. We should pray for those that despitefully use us. We should be concerned for their souls and their eternal destiny. That's a love that no man can generate himself. This shows that we belong to the Lord when we can love and pray for our enemies. There's been classic examples of those that were persecuted for Christ's sake that love their enemies. Jesus was the ultimate example. He was mocked and ridiculed on this earth by the Pharisees and Saducees. He was condemned. He was mocked by Herod. However, he humbly and faithfully was obedient unto death. When he was crucified on the cross, Jesus uttered these words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) Jesus loved the world. He loved those that mocked Him and used Him. Another classic example is Steven who was stoned in Acts. He was accused of blasphemy. In Acts 7:59-60 says, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." Stephen didn't possess animosity toward those that stoned him. Another example is David. Anyone that reads the book of I Samuel knows Saul's jealousy toward David after David slayed Goliath. Saul sought to kill David on a number of occasions. In I Samuel 24:4 you read where David cut off a piece of Saul's skirt. David's heart was smote as a result. David could have used the opportunity to kill Saul. But he didn't. Saul was still the King of Israel and David respected his position. David showed love to Saul despite Saul's jealousy toward David. Saul had no cause to desire to kill David.
One final example I want to mention is the great English Reformer and scholar William Tyndale. He was responsible for translating considerable portions of both the Old and New Testament into the Modern English of that day. He drew directly from both Greek and Hebrew translations. Much of his work eventually was incorporated into the King James 1611 translation of the Bible. He spoke against the politics of that day during the English monarchy. He had to go into hiding and carry on the translation of both the Old and New Testament. In 1535, Tyndale was seized in Antwerp and was betrayed by Henry Phillips and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels. He was tried on heresey charges in 1536 and condemned to death. He was strangled before he died. Tyndale's final words was "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes!" It was amazing. Tyndale didn't saying, "Lord destroyed all those that have persecuted me." No, he asked the Lord to illuminate the King of England's heart and mind and show him the error of his ways. That's Agape love. Agape love is concerned about the welfare of their enemies. Agape love desires for your enemies to be saved and know the truth. Tyndale showed no animosity toward the King of England. His desire was to see the work of God advanced. Praise the Lord for people like William Tyndale!
I'm thankful for all the examples we read in the Bible for those that loved their enemies and prayed for them. I'm thankful for those in church history that were martyred for their faith that had a desire to see their enemies converted. When we pray for and love our enemies, we're manifesting the love of God toward the world. God help us in this generation. We have troubling loving the brethren. Until we learn to love the brethren, there's no way we can love those that persecute and despitefully use us.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Republican Party Needs to Stand Upon the Principles They Claim to Uphold
According to a Reuter's news report President Obama yesterday met in a face-to-face showdown with the Republican House leaders in Baltimore, Maryland. The event was the annual retreat of Republican members of the House of Representatives. Giving the lower poll numbers in regards to the American publics' view of what kind of job Obama is doing as president as well as the surprise election of Republican State Senator Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts, Obama felt it was necessary to engage in some-sort of "dialogue" with the Republicans to give voters the impression that he understands the "pain" many Americans are feeling. It was a very testy meeting. President Obama criticized Republicans and accused them of trying to block his policies while urging them to "join with me" in creating jobs. The session lasted for 82-minutes; 12 minutes longer than Obama's State of the Union speech on Wednesday. President Obama not only agreed to address his opponents but take their questions live on cable television was a sign he is trying to dig out of his deepest political rut since he became president a year ago. I had the privilege to see part of that session on the Fox News Channel.
President Obama sought to counter his rivals attempt to paint him as a big-spending liberal who only desires to expand the government. He accused the Republicans of portraying his now-stalled healthcare reform effort as a "Bolshevik plot." The truth is that the healthcare bill would raise our taxes around 13% and it would give the government control over one-sixth of our nation's economy. Also, there were many closed-door deals involved in persuading the more moderate Democratic House and senate members to vote for the healthcare bill. President Obama then went on to say that "I am not an ideologue." When one takes a view of the company he keeps as well as the fact he follows after Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it's apparent that he's an idelogue. Take a view of the policies he's tried to promote such as this healthcare bill, cap and trade bill, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would lift the restrictions on homosexuals not being allowed to be open about their sexuality.
Assailing Republicans from trying to obstruct him on everything from economic stimulus to healthcare reform, Obama suggested their motive was to score points with voters during the November Congressional elections. One of the questions that Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling asked was, "Will the new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25% of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President." Obama complained the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign. Georgia Rep. Tom Price charged Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering "no ideas and solutions." Obama exclaimed, "I don't think I said that."
In nine months there will be the November Congressional elections. The Republican Party must outline some type of draft on what principles they uphold as well as what they would attempt to accomplish if they win the November elections. They need to offer a clear vision just as the Republicans under Newt Gingrich in 1994 offered their "Contract With America" before the Congressional elections that fall. The Republicans in Congress today have a much larger problem than the Republicans did in 1994. The Republicans that won power in 1994 didn't have much history for being in charge of Congress for a number of years. The Republicans that won the House in 1994 won it for the first time in 40 years. The Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1986. Therefore, the voters were willing to give them a chance. Unlike the Republicans that captured the House in 1994, most of the Republicans that are in the House and Senate today were in charge for approximately twelve years in both Houses until 2007. (In the U.S. Senate the Republicans were in charge for 10.5 years) Most Americans still remember how pathetic the Republicans were before voting them out. The Republicans that were voted out in 2006 were drunk on power just like the Democrats are today as well as they violated their principles. They ruled the opposite on what they claimed their principles were.
The problem with the Republican party is hypocrisy. They're crooked just like the Democrats are crooked. I was very critical of how the Republicans, including President Bush were running the country given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and a conservative. Even though I'm opposed to the Democratic Party, I can predict how they're going to vote on issues. With the Republicans, you don't know. Many Republicans campaigned as conservatives but wound up going contrary to the principles they claimed they espouse. I believe that's why there was a voter backlash two years ago. This year there could possibly be a voter backlash against the Democrats. However, if the Republicans in both the House and Senate continue the same old policies when they were in charge a few years ago if they're re-elected again, then I predict another huge voter backlash and it probably won't take long. Last year the current Tea Party started holding rallies in Washington, D.C. and different cities across America. Many of them are disgruntled and are very disappointed at the performance of the Republican party when they were in charge for 12 years. The voters wanted some leaders that are genuine patriots that love this counry and will push for "true change" that rebuilds and strengthens America. The Tea Party members along with other Americans desire statesmen that will return this nation back to the roots that our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
The Republicans should stand against the left-wing agenda of President Obama and the socialist Democrats. However, the Republicans need to recall their hypocrisy when they had charge of both Houses of Congress. There needs to be some genuine repentance on the part of Republicans and they need to vow to not allow themselves to be bought off by special interest groups and their party bosses like the Democrats do. They need to make serious attempts to keep their campaign promises once they're elected. It's very serious. The former President Bush and the Republicans in charge for 12 years violated the principles the Republicans stated they believed. They ran up the deficit to unprecedent levels during that time, they voted for a prescription drug coverage in the Medicare bill, they voted for all kinds of wasteful pork barrel spending, they supported CAFTA, which is a trade agreement which will cause numerous manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, and some Republicans along with President Bush supported amnesty for illegal aliens. The distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans has become narrower and narrower. If the Republicans don't take a trip back to memory lane and learn the lessons from where they failed, then they'll repeat the same disaster if they capture the majority in both the House and Senate this November.
President Obama sought to counter his rivals attempt to paint him as a big-spending liberal who only desires to expand the government. He accused the Republicans of portraying his now-stalled healthcare reform effort as a "Bolshevik plot." The truth is that the healthcare bill would raise our taxes around 13% and it would give the government control over one-sixth of our nation's economy. Also, there were many closed-door deals involved in persuading the more moderate Democratic House and senate members to vote for the healthcare bill. President Obama then went on to say that "I am not an ideologue." When one takes a view of the company he keeps as well as the fact he follows after Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it's apparent that he's an idelogue. Take a view of the policies he's tried to promote such as this healthcare bill, cap and trade bill, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would lift the restrictions on homosexuals not being allowed to be open about their sexuality.
Assailing Republicans from trying to obstruct him on everything from economic stimulus to healthcare reform, Obama suggested their motive was to score points with voters during the November Congressional elections. One of the questions that Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling asked was, "Will the new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25% of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President." Obama complained the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign. Georgia Rep. Tom Price charged Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering "no ideas and solutions." Obama exclaimed, "I don't think I said that."
In nine months there will be the November Congressional elections. The Republican Party must outline some type of draft on what principles they uphold as well as what they would attempt to accomplish if they win the November elections. They need to offer a clear vision just as the Republicans under Newt Gingrich in 1994 offered their "Contract With America" before the Congressional elections that fall. The Republicans in Congress today have a much larger problem than the Republicans did in 1994. The Republicans that won power in 1994 didn't have much history for being in charge of Congress for a number of years. The Republicans that won the House in 1994 won it for the first time in 40 years. The Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1986. Therefore, the voters were willing to give them a chance. Unlike the Republicans that captured the House in 1994, most of the Republicans that are in the House and Senate today were in charge for approximately twelve years in both Houses until 2007. (In the U.S. Senate the Republicans were in charge for 10.5 years) Most Americans still remember how pathetic the Republicans were before voting them out. The Republicans that were voted out in 2006 were drunk on power just like the Democrats are today as well as they violated their principles. They ruled the opposite on what they claimed their principles were.
The problem with the Republican party is hypocrisy. They're crooked just like the Democrats are crooked. I was very critical of how the Republicans, including President Bush were running the country given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and a conservative. Even though I'm opposed to the Democratic Party, I can predict how they're going to vote on issues. With the Republicans, you don't know. Many Republicans campaigned as conservatives but wound up going contrary to the principles they claimed they espouse. I believe that's why there was a voter backlash two years ago. This year there could possibly be a voter backlash against the Democrats. However, if the Republicans in both the House and Senate continue the same old policies when they were in charge a few years ago if they're re-elected again, then I predict another huge voter backlash and it probably won't take long. Last year the current Tea Party started holding rallies in Washington, D.C. and different cities across America. Many of them are disgruntled and are very disappointed at the performance of the Republican party when they were in charge for 12 years. The voters wanted some leaders that are genuine patriots that love this counry and will push for "true change" that rebuilds and strengthens America. The Tea Party members along with other Americans desire statesmen that will return this nation back to the roots that our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
The Republicans should stand against the left-wing agenda of President Obama and the socialist Democrats. However, the Republicans need to recall their hypocrisy when they had charge of both Houses of Congress. There needs to be some genuine repentance on the part of Republicans and they need to vow to not allow themselves to be bought off by special interest groups and their party bosses like the Democrats do. They need to make serious attempts to keep their campaign promises once they're elected. It's very serious. The former President Bush and the Republicans in charge for 12 years violated the principles the Republicans stated they believed. They ran up the deficit to unprecedent levels during that time, they voted for a prescription drug coverage in the Medicare bill, they voted for all kinds of wasteful pork barrel spending, they supported CAFTA, which is a trade agreement which will cause numerous manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, and some Republicans along with President Bush supported amnesty for illegal aliens. The distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans has become narrower and narrower. If the Republicans don't take a trip back to memory lane and learn the lessons from where they failed, then they'll repeat the same disaster if they capture the majority in both the House and Senate this November.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Scott Roeder Convicted for the Murder of Dr. George Tiller
On June 7, 2009, I wrote a blogpost about the murder of Dr. George Tiller. I posed the question was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justifiable? The answer to that question is no. I stated just because Dr. Tiller was involved in the murder of untold millions of unborn babies it doesn't give the right for anyone to take the law into their own hands and murder an abortion doctor. That's why we have the authorities. The authorities are the ones that are supposed to handle murder cases. I do recognize our government is corrupt and our laws consequently allow for abortion to be committed. But the average U.S. citizen doesn't have the right to take the law in their own hands. There are a number of methods in which we can handle the abortion situation besides protesting and pressing for the laws to be changed on abortion. I'm for petitioning the government to change the abortion laws, but there's other things we can do as well. The problem we face in America for the most part when it comes to abortion is the age and social status of many of the young women who go to doctors for abortions. Many of the young women that visit these clinics are teenagers and unmarried. Their life is very unstable. They had a relationship with a boyfriend whom they didn't tend to become serious with and on top of that they had no intentions of becoming pregnant. Also, neither the girlfriend nor boyfriend draw any kind of income and it would be difficult for them to provide a stable living for the child that's inside of the mother. Therefore, the young girl feels trapped and she believes the only solution to the problem is to have an abortion. That's not true in all abortion cases but that's true in many of them. That's where the church and right to life organizations can come in. The church and right to life shelters can play a role when it comes to counseling these young women as well as present to them what other options they have besides abortion. Many of these young women who aren't equipped in raising children at their stage of life can opt to give up their child for adoption. There are many childless couples that can't bear children on their own and they would be elated at the opportunity to adopt children. Also, the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be presented to these pregnant women and the Lord could perform a work in their hearts and lives. There's more than one way to settle the abortion issue without having to murder abortion doctors as well as petitioning our legislators to change the laws. What's needed most of all in this country is a strong family unit. We need moms and dads that will live for God and raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Parents need to teach their children sexual purity and to wait until marriage before having children. That would drastically reduce the abortion rate in America. The problem's in the heart as well as the emotional turmoil many young pregnant women face.
I've started this post by digressing why many young women seek abortions, but now I'm going to the heart of the matter. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist who admitted he gunned down Dr. George Tiller, one of America's late-term abortion providers, was convicted of first-degree murder on Friday after he testified he had to stop the doctor from performing more abortions. Roeder, 51, was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault by a Wichita, Kansas jury that deliberated for just over 30 minutes. The case attracted anti-abortion protesters around the nation to support Roeder. Roeder admitted he stalked and shot to death Dr. George Tiller, 67, on May 31, 2009 as Tiller attended church in Wichita, Kansas. Roeder argued in court his actions were necessary to protect unborn babies. "Abortions were being done every day," Roeder testified. "My honest belief was if I didn't do something they would continue to die." Roeder's sentencing was set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston will seek a "hard 50" mandatory life sentence, under which Roeder will have to serve 50 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Dr. Tiller was long a top target of anti-abortion activists and had been shot down and wounded before. Dr. Tiller was one of only a few U.S. physicians willing to perform late-term abortions. There were some anti-abortion activists such as the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, who flocked to Wichita to defend Roeder's actions.
It's a tragedy that some people who claim to be pro-life would defend a U.S. citizen taking the law into their own hands to murder abortion doctors. There's no doubt that what Dr. Tiller did was murder and he will stand before God to answer for the travesties he's committed. However, two wrongs don't make a right. The Lord has established three different spheres of authority in this world. One of them is the home, the other one the church, and the other one the government. It's the responsibility of the judicial system to try those that have committed acts of murder. I know our judicial system is corrupt today, but God doesn't grant us the right to commit murder to wrong other murders. As I've said earlier, there are other methods that can be used in stopping abortion besides murdering abortion doctors.
I've started this post by digressing why many young women seek abortions, but now I'm going to the heart of the matter. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist who admitted he gunned down Dr. George Tiller, one of America's late-term abortion providers, was convicted of first-degree murder on Friday after he testified he had to stop the doctor from performing more abortions. Roeder, 51, was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault by a Wichita, Kansas jury that deliberated for just over 30 minutes. The case attracted anti-abortion protesters around the nation to support Roeder. Roeder admitted he stalked and shot to death Dr. George Tiller, 67, on May 31, 2009 as Tiller attended church in Wichita, Kansas. Roeder argued in court his actions were necessary to protect unborn babies. "Abortions were being done every day," Roeder testified. "My honest belief was if I didn't do something they would continue to die." Roeder's sentencing was set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston will seek a "hard 50" mandatory life sentence, under which Roeder will have to serve 50 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Dr. Tiller was long a top target of anti-abortion activists and had been shot down and wounded before. Dr. Tiller was one of only a few U.S. physicians willing to perform late-term abortions. There were some anti-abortion activists such as the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, who flocked to Wichita to defend Roeder's actions.
It's a tragedy that some people who claim to be pro-life would defend a U.S. citizen taking the law into their own hands to murder abortion doctors. There's no doubt that what Dr. Tiller did was murder and he will stand before God to answer for the travesties he's committed. However, two wrongs don't make a right. The Lord has established three different spheres of authority in this world. One of them is the home, the other one the church, and the other one the government. It's the responsibility of the judicial system to try those that have committed acts of murder. I know our judicial system is corrupt today, but God doesn't grant us the right to commit murder to wrong other murders. As I've said earlier, there are other methods that can be used in stopping abortion besides murdering abortion doctors.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama's State of the Union Address
President Obama presented his State of the Union Address last night before both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the President's cabinet, and some of the military brass such as Admiral Mike Mullen. President Obama pledged to refocus his agenda on the nation's struggling economy. He claimed to make job creation his immediate goal as well as freezing some aspects of spending. The president acknowledged setbacks and missteps during his first year in office. He stated that he still intended to revamp the nation's healthcare system and he even "apologized" for not sufficiently explaining the healthcare overhaul bill to the American people. One thing he didn't say was the bribery and the closed door meetings that took place by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to force the more moderate liberal Democratic Senators to vote for the healthcare overhaul. "I campaigned on the promise of change--'Change we can believe in', the slogan went." "Right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change--or that I can deliver it." The truth is the Obama administration and Congress are delivering change but not the kind of change the American people are looking for when they voted for him in 2008. Efforts are being made to transform America into a socialist nation. The government has already taken over the banking industry, General Motors, etc. and now is trying to seize control of the nation's healthcare system, which is roughly 1/6th of the nation's economy. The government is trying to exert more and more control over the American people.
President Obama has outlined what USA Today said are "modest plans." They are reducing business taxes, rebuilding roads and rail lines, and retrofitting homes. He offered to work with Republicans and even meet with them monthly to build some kind of consensus. Since the U.S. Senate no longer has 60 seats in Democratic hands, he's going to try to make some gesture toward the Republican Party. President Obama was trying to recast himself as President due to the voter angst the last several months with the Tea Party movement and Democratic gubernatorial losses in New Jersey and Virginia as well as a U.S. Senate seat went into Republican hands. President Obama chastised Wall Street for excessive pay and Washington for outsized influence by special interests. President Obama also took aim at the Supreme Court ruling last Thursday which struck down certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill. The Court ruled 5-4 that Congress couldn't establish corporate and labor union spending limits when it comes to supporting political candidates. Supreme Court Justice Alito scowled and was saying to himself, "That's not true," when it came to Obama chastising the Supreme Court's decision. I agree that Wall Street's out of control. However, Wall Street owns our government. The Obama administration last year continued some of the same Bush policies in regards to government bailouts on AIG, Chrysler and General Motors. I have mixed feelings about last Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. I'm not in favor of allowing corporations and labor unions spending unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns for no other reason because our politicians are beholden to them. I don't want our government beholden to Wall Street, corporations, oil companies, the ACLU, or even foreign interests. Our government is to be representing Americans-at-large; not special interests who don't have the country's interest at stake.
President Obama called for a three-year spending freeze on most domestic spending, a requirement that Congress pay for tax cuts or benefit increases, and a bipartisan task force to handle the broader deficit. That sounds fine, but what areas is he going to make cuts? Is he going to reduce spending in some areas and increase it in others? Many times Congress has played that game. They will limit spending in some areas and increase it in others. The deficit as it stands is an estimated 13.5 trillion dollars. President Obama has spent more in one year than President Bush spent in four. President Obama also chastised Republicans for "just saying no to everything" and reminded the Democrats, "The people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." The Republicans were right in saying no to Obama's agenda. President Obama's agenda is socialist and somebody needs to stand against his agenda. However, the Republicans need to create a distinct outline of their own agenda. The Republican Party needs to start immediately and hammer on certain themes when running for the Congressional elections this fall. The Republicans need to draw up an agenda similar to the "Contract with America" in 1994 when Republicans captured both the House and Senate that year. The Republican Party needs to show the American people they have a clear vision in handling these issues. The problem is the Republicans don't have a backbone in them.
One item that President Obama mentioned that I found disturbing was he recalled his intention to repeal the "Don't Ask, don't tell" policy enacted during the Clinton administration. The gay rights groups support Obama and Obama wanted to reassure the homosexual lobby that he supports their cause. That was very pitiful. The gay rights lobby is another interest group that's not good for America. Obama also mentioned about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gasses in the earth's atmosphere. There was a climate change summit in Copenhagen, Demark at the end of last year, but the United States didn't sign any agreement.
President Obama also made the statement that he excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions. Obama may have kicked some lobbyists off advisory boards, but corporate executives can serve on boards. Also, there's numerous lobbyists that lobby Congress and the president to pass legislation on certain causes. I would like to know how many lobbyists were involved in the healthcare debate? I would say there are more lobbyists involved than one can imagine. President Obama is not going to rid Washington of lobbyists. Some of the czars and other personnel that Obama has in his administration are former lobbyists anyway.
President Obama mentioned very little about the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and the earthquake in Haiti. President Obama stressed about the need for job creation in America as well as his desire to pass the healthcare bill. Obama's answer to America's healthcare problems is a massive government bureaucracy. Instead of devoting his time in trying to push healthcare, he needs to give tax incentives and remove cumbersome regulations which make it difficult for small businesses to hire new people. The key to job recovery is the private sector. Government can't grow the economy. I do believe the government should rein in the excesses of Wall Street and break up the monopolies. Otherwise, leave the private sector alone and allow them to function in a competitive environment.
Even though I'm a critic of the Obama administration, I wasn't bent out of shape over his speech he gave last night. I heard Bill O'Reilly analyzing his speech this evening on the Factor. However, Barack Obama is just a puppet. What I'm concerned with are those that prop up Obama and pull his strings. I'm concerned about those czars that President Obama has in his administration as well as the power of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is accountable to nobody. There are some things that President Obama doesn't control. However, President Obama hasn't lived up to his campaign promises about transparency. There was much bribery taking place during the Senate's debate on healthcare. Thee were closed door meetings on the healthcare debate. He criticizes the Republicans for always saying no, but he has a supermajority in both Houses with the Democrats. If all the Democrats were unified in both houses of Congress, he would've achieved the legislative agenda he desired. The only major legislative agenda that was accomplished was the stimulus bill in February, but that was just a huge spending bill which didn't have much effect on stimulating the economy. As of yet, he hasn't been able to persuade Congress to pass a cap and trade bill, which is part of his agenda. Since Scott Brown's election to the Massachusetts Senate seat, there may be some problems with both houses of Congress in trying to pass a final version of the healthcare bill which both the House and Senate approved late last year. However, the problem is there are some liberal Democrats that aren't as progressive and they had problems with some of the legislation that President Obama tried to promote. It wasn't the Republicans who placed a roadblock on Obama's agenda. It was the more "moderate" Democrats that placed a roadblock on his agenda. After Obama's State of the Union address, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response.
President Obama has outlined what USA Today said are "modest plans." They are reducing business taxes, rebuilding roads and rail lines, and retrofitting homes. He offered to work with Republicans and even meet with them monthly to build some kind of consensus. Since the U.S. Senate no longer has 60 seats in Democratic hands, he's going to try to make some gesture toward the Republican Party. President Obama was trying to recast himself as President due to the voter angst the last several months with the Tea Party movement and Democratic gubernatorial losses in New Jersey and Virginia as well as a U.S. Senate seat went into Republican hands. President Obama chastised Wall Street for excessive pay and Washington for outsized influence by special interests. President Obama also took aim at the Supreme Court ruling last Thursday which struck down certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill. The Court ruled 5-4 that Congress couldn't establish corporate and labor union spending limits when it comes to supporting political candidates. Supreme Court Justice Alito scowled and was saying to himself, "That's not true," when it came to Obama chastising the Supreme Court's decision. I agree that Wall Street's out of control. However, Wall Street owns our government. The Obama administration last year continued some of the same Bush policies in regards to government bailouts on AIG, Chrysler and General Motors. I have mixed feelings about last Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. I'm not in favor of allowing corporations and labor unions spending unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns for no other reason because our politicians are beholden to them. I don't want our government beholden to Wall Street, corporations, oil companies, the ACLU, or even foreign interests. Our government is to be representing Americans-at-large; not special interests who don't have the country's interest at stake.
President Obama called for a three-year spending freeze on most domestic spending, a requirement that Congress pay for tax cuts or benefit increases, and a bipartisan task force to handle the broader deficit. That sounds fine, but what areas is he going to make cuts? Is he going to reduce spending in some areas and increase it in others? Many times Congress has played that game. They will limit spending in some areas and increase it in others. The deficit as it stands is an estimated 13.5 trillion dollars. President Obama has spent more in one year than President Bush spent in four. President Obama also chastised Republicans for "just saying no to everything" and reminded the Democrats, "The people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." The Republicans were right in saying no to Obama's agenda. President Obama's agenda is socialist and somebody needs to stand against his agenda. However, the Republicans need to create a distinct outline of their own agenda. The Republican Party needs to start immediately and hammer on certain themes when running for the Congressional elections this fall. The Republicans need to draw up an agenda similar to the "Contract with America" in 1994 when Republicans captured both the House and Senate that year. The Republican Party needs to show the American people they have a clear vision in handling these issues. The problem is the Republicans don't have a backbone in them.
One item that President Obama mentioned that I found disturbing was he recalled his intention to repeal the "Don't Ask, don't tell" policy enacted during the Clinton administration. The gay rights groups support Obama and Obama wanted to reassure the homosexual lobby that he supports their cause. That was very pitiful. The gay rights lobby is another interest group that's not good for America. Obama also mentioned about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gasses in the earth's atmosphere. There was a climate change summit in Copenhagen, Demark at the end of last year, but the United States didn't sign any agreement.
President Obama also made the statement that he excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions. Obama may have kicked some lobbyists off advisory boards, but corporate executives can serve on boards. Also, there's numerous lobbyists that lobby Congress and the president to pass legislation on certain causes. I would like to know how many lobbyists were involved in the healthcare debate? I would say there are more lobbyists involved than one can imagine. President Obama is not going to rid Washington of lobbyists. Some of the czars and other personnel that Obama has in his administration are former lobbyists anyway.
President Obama mentioned very little about the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and the earthquake in Haiti. President Obama stressed about the need for job creation in America as well as his desire to pass the healthcare bill. Obama's answer to America's healthcare problems is a massive government bureaucracy. Instead of devoting his time in trying to push healthcare, he needs to give tax incentives and remove cumbersome regulations which make it difficult for small businesses to hire new people. The key to job recovery is the private sector. Government can't grow the economy. I do believe the government should rein in the excesses of Wall Street and break up the monopolies. Otherwise, leave the private sector alone and allow them to function in a competitive environment.
Even though I'm a critic of the Obama administration, I wasn't bent out of shape over his speech he gave last night. I heard Bill O'Reilly analyzing his speech this evening on the Factor. However, Barack Obama is just a puppet. What I'm concerned with are those that prop up Obama and pull his strings. I'm concerned about those czars that President Obama has in his administration as well as the power of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is accountable to nobody. There are some things that President Obama doesn't control. However, President Obama hasn't lived up to his campaign promises about transparency. There was much bribery taking place during the Senate's debate on healthcare. Thee were closed door meetings on the healthcare debate. He criticizes the Republicans for always saying no, but he has a supermajority in both Houses with the Democrats. If all the Democrats were unified in both houses of Congress, he would've achieved the legislative agenda he desired. The only major legislative agenda that was accomplished was the stimulus bill in February, but that was just a huge spending bill which didn't have much effect on stimulating the economy. As of yet, he hasn't been able to persuade Congress to pass a cap and trade bill, which is part of his agenda. Since Scott Brown's election to the Massachusetts Senate seat, there may be some problems with both houses of Congress in trying to pass a final version of the healthcare bill which both the House and Senate approved late last year. However, the problem is there are some liberal Democrats that aren't as progressive and they had problems with some of the legislation that President Obama tried to promote. It wasn't the Republicans who placed a roadblock on Obama's agenda. It was the more "moderate" Democrats that placed a roadblock on his agenda. After Obama's State of the Union address, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Sermon on the Mount (Part 3)
(Matthew 7:13,14) "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." If you go out and visit someone and ask them if they've been born again, you would be amazed at the number of different answers you would receive. Some would say they are trying to get to Heaven, others would say they hope so, and others would say if person "x" makes it into Heaven, they surely hope they would enter into Heaven themselves. There's so much confusion when it comes to the Bible doctrine of salvation. Satan has this whole world deceived when it comes to the doctrine of Biblical salvation. Even in the land of plenty where the Gospel has been shed abroad, there's a surprising ignorance a number of Americans have today about Bible truths. Many people haven't heard a clear-cut presentation of the Gospel. I say that in spite of the number of Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, and all other kinds of denominations in which you would think they would preach the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even some of the people during Jesus time upon earth didn't know how to be saved. Jesus told Nicodemus that except a man be born again, he can't enter into the kingdom of God.(John 3:3) Nicodemus was surprised and didn't even understand the concept of being born again.
Jesus made it plain that ye must enter at the straight gate. In other words, you will enter into Heaven only God's way: Ye must be born again. There's not twenty, ten, or even four paths to salvation. There's only one way to Heaven and that's to repent of your sins and trust in the shed blood of Jesus to save you. Nobody's saved any other way. There's nothing a man can do to earn salvation. It's totally a work of God. Jesus paid the debt on Calvary's cross. No man can be good or sufficient enough to earn entrance into Heaven. It's all what Jesus did. The Devil doesn't like that and he does everything possible to deceive people. You see that throughout the world with all these man-made religions. The Catholic Church teachers you can earn your way into Heaven. They also teach a man can enter Purgatory when they die and the saints can pray them out of Purgatory into Heaven! That's nonsense! I heard an old Baptist preacher say one time years ago he believes in PURGATORY--Only you must experience Purgatory this side of Heaven. You must be cleansed and PURGED from your sins on this side of the grave. There have been people that have been deceived and led to believe that if you practice certain rituals or if you're good to people that in the end the Lord will allow you into Heaven. No!
I was looking up the words "straight" and "gate" in Webster's Dictionary. Websters defines straight as having the same direction througout its length: not crooked, bent. The word "gate" means Controlling the flow of water; as in a canal. A gateway. A moveable structure controlling passage through an opening in a fence or wall. Jesus said that you must enter at the strait gate. It's a gate which doesn't deviate at all. God's plan for salvation is the same today as it was when he died on Calvary's cross 2000 years ago. There's only one path to Heaven. It's straight. Everybody from the rich and the famous and the humble and the poor must be born again the same way. God doesn't deviate and allow some people to enter into Heaven more than one way. I've heard the question posed concerning those in heathen nations that have never heard the Gospel proclaimed. Wouldn't God allow some people into Heaven that have never had the chance to hear the Gospel once? Wouldn't God be merciful to allow those that have never had the privilege of hearing the blessed Gospel to enter into Heaven? That would be fair wouldn't it? If that be the case, then what's the purpose in Jesus' commandment in Mark 16:15 to go into all the world and preach the Gospel? If some men could enter into Heaven due to ignorance of the Gospel, then there wouldn't be any point in the local churches sending missionaries around the world to preach the Gospel. Also, how could Jesus say to enter in at the straight gate if some people could enter into Heaven another way besides the cross? The truth is no matter what the circumstances might be, nothing short of repenting of your sins and accepting God's free gift will suffice. That's why Jesus placed such a premium on world evangelization. All mankind must be saved and that's only through Jesus' blood. No exceptions! If any man could deviate from the sacrifice that Jesus paid on Calvary's cross, his death would've been in vain. What would have been the purpose in Jesus dying on the cross if some men could be save another way? God shares his glory with no man.
Jesus was abundantly plain about entering in at the strait gate. Either you enter into Heaven through the strait gate or you don't enter into Heaven at all. However, once a man has been born again and redeemed there's a straight path for a Christian to follow. II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man be in Christ, he's a new creature. In other words, he has a new nature. The old worldly, fleshly desires he once possessed he no longer craves. He has a desire to serve the Lord. The Holy Ghost takes abode in his heart. The Holy Ghost leads and guides us into all truth. Also I John 2:15 tells us to love not the world. We aren't to love the world's system. We are to be separated and sanctified. We are a peculiar people. God's paths for the Christian are straight and narrow. In saying that, I'm not insinuating that works saves you or maintains your salvation. A person that's saved is sealed until the day of redemption. You can't merit nor maintain your salvation through works. However, when God changes your life, he also changes your desires and your paths. God says that a saved person is a new creature. The whole purpose of their life is to serve and glorify the Lord. God will lead you into paths of righteousness. The days of wild and reckless living in the flesh are over with. The days of partying and becoming drunk are over with. The days of spewing profanity with your lips are over with. God will lead a Christian on a straight path. The purpose of that straight path is so the Christian can be conformed to the image of Christ and bring glory to God. We can't bring glory to God with sin in our life. We can't be a witness to this lost and dying world if we're filled with carnality. God's people are to be uniquely and distinctly different.
God's path towards salvation is on the straight and narrow path. You must be born again. You must repent of your sins and trust in the shed blood of Jesus to save you. Nobody can deviate from that path. All people regardless of race, religion, creed, level of education, economic background, type of vocation, etc. must be saved through Jesus' shed blood. Once a person is saved, God has a plan for their life. God has a straight path for the child of God to walk. Walking the straight path doesn't save a person nor maintain a Christian's salvation. However, God desires for us to bring glory to Him. That can only be done when we walk the straight path and keep God's commandments.
Jesus made it plain that ye must enter at the straight gate. In other words, you will enter into Heaven only God's way: Ye must be born again. There's not twenty, ten, or even four paths to salvation. There's only one way to Heaven and that's to repent of your sins and trust in the shed blood of Jesus to save you. Nobody's saved any other way. There's nothing a man can do to earn salvation. It's totally a work of God. Jesus paid the debt on Calvary's cross. No man can be good or sufficient enough to earn entrance into Heaven. It's all what Jesus did. The Devil doesn't like that and he does everything possible to deceive people. You see that throughout the world with all these man-made religions. The Catholic Church teachers you can earn your way into Heaven. They also teach a man can enter Purgatory when they die and the saints can pray them out of Purgatory into Heaven! That's nonsense! I heard an old Baptist preacher say one time years ago he believes in PURGATORY--Only you must experience Purgatory this side of Heaven. You must be cleansed and PURGED from your sins on this side of the grave. There have been people that have been deceived and led to believe that if you practice certain rituals or if you're good to people that in the end the Lord will allow you into Heaven. No!
I was looking up the words "straight" and "gate" in Webster's Dictionary. Websters defines straight as having the same direction througout its length: not crooked, bent. The word "gate" means Controlling the flow of water; as in a canal. A gateway. A moveable structure controlling passage through an opening in a fence or wall. Jesus said that you must enter at the strait gate. It's a gate which doesn't deviate at all. God's plan for salvation is the same today as it was when he died on Calvary's cross 2000 years ago. There's only one path to Heaven. It's straight. Everybody from the rich and the famous and the humble and the poor must be born again the same way. God doesn't deviate and allow some people to enter into Heaven more than one way. I've heard the question posed concerning those in heathen nations that have never heard the Gospel proclaimed. Wouldn't God allow some people into Heaven that have never had the chance to hear the Gospel once? Wouldn't God be merciful to allow those that have never had the privilege of hearing the blessed Gospel to enter into Heaven? That would be fair wouldn't it? If that be the case, then what's the purpose in Jesus' commandment in Mark 16:15 to go into all the world and preach the Gospel? If some men could enter into Heaven due to ignorance of the Gospel, then there wouldn't be any point in the local churches sending missionaries around the world to preach the Gospel. Also, how could Jesus say to enter in at the straight gate if some people could enter into Heaven another way besides the cross? The truth is no matter what the circumstances might be, nothing short of repenting of your sins and accepting God's free gift will suffice. That's why Jesus placed such a premium on world evangelization. All mankind must be saved and that's only through Jesus' blood. No exceptions! If any man could deviate from the sacrifice that Jesus paid on Calvary's cross, his death would've been in vain. What would have been the purpose in Jesus dying on the cross if some men could be save another way? God shares his glory with no man.
Jesus was abundantly plain about entering in at the strait gate. Either you enter into Heaven through the strait gate or you don't enter into Heaven at all. However, once a man has been born again and redeemed there's a straight path for a Christian to follow. II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man be in Christ, he's a new creature. In other words, he has a new nature. The old worldly, fleshly desires he once possessed he no longer craves. He has a desire to serve the Lord. The Holy Ghost takes abode in his heart. The Holy Ghost leads and guides us into all truth. Also I John 2:15 tells us to love not the world. We aren't to love the world's system. We are to be separated and sanctified. We are a peculiar people. God's paths for the Christian are straight and narrow. In saying that, I'm not insinuating that works saves you or maintains your salvation. A person that's saved is sealed until the day of redemption. You can't merit nor maintain your salvation through works. However, when God changes your life, he also changes your desires and your paths. God says that a saved person is a new creature. The whole purpose of their life is to serve and glorify the Lord. God will lead you into paths of righteousness. The days of wild and reckless living in the flesh are over with. The days of partying and becoming drunk are over with. The days of spewing profanity with your lips are over with. God will lead a Christian on a straight path. The purpose of that straight path is so the Christian can be conformed to the image of Christ and bring glory to God. We can't bring glory to God with sin in our life. We can't be a witness to this lost and dying world if we're filled with carnality. God's people are to be uniquely and distinctly different.
God's path towards salvation is on the straight and narrow path. You must be born again. You must repent of your sins and trust in the shed blood of Jesus to save you. Nobody can deviate from that path. All people regardless of race, religion, creed, level of education, economic background, type of vocation, etc. must be saved through Jesus' shed blood. Once a person is saved, God has a plan for their life. God has a straight path for the child of God to walk. Walking the straight path doesn't save a person nor maintain a Christian's salvation. However, God desires for us to bring glory to Him. That can only be done when we walk the straight path and keep God's commandments.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Is Scott Brown's Massachusetts Win a Precursor to a GOP Victory in November?
Scott Brown scored a huge victory last Tuesday with his win over Democratic rival Attorney General Martha Coakley. For the first since the 1970's, the Republicans captured a U.S. Senate seat in a blue, Democratic state. Massachussets bleeds as blue as blue can bleed. The seat Brown won was held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy for 47 years. Prior to Senator Kennedy being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962 in a special election, his predecessor was Benjamin A. Smith from 1961-62. Prior to the special election of 1962 in which Edward Kennedy was elected, President John F. Kennedy held that seat from 1953 to 1960. It was in Democratic hands for 57 years. The last Republican that held a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, an African-American from 1967-1979.
Scott Brown's victory was amazing considering how liberal of a state Massachusetts is. It's also a sign that the Democrats may be in huge trouble when it comes to the November elections. Even though the Democrats hold a comfortable lead in both the House and the Senate, Republicans are sure to regain seats this November. There's been speculation by different pollsters on whether there will be another Republican takeover of Congress like there was in 1994. Some speculate that the Republicans will gain seats in the House but they won't be the majority. There's been some speculation that the Republicans might recapture the House. There's also been speculation that the Republican Party could retake the Senate. It's still too premature to predict, but the socialist policies of the Obama administration is definitely hurting the Democrats. I believe the Massachusetts win was a referendum on Obamacare. In November and December both Houses of Congress passed their own versions of a healthcare overhaul. Some of the Senators such as Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu were given bribes by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid so they would vote for the final passage of the healthcare bill. There was a voter backlash in Massachusetts a week ago and I believe that same thing could be repeated in November's general election. The Obama White House and the Congress haven't been sensitive to the needs of the American people. In a time when America is facing economic distress, Congress has been playing their old tricks trying to push a socialist agenda down Americans' throats. They've tried to pass a healthcare bill most Americans don't desire. They also want to pass a cap and trade bill which would stifle business and cost more jobs in an already distressed economy. The Democratic leaders have shown arrogance and contempt for the American people.
The recent Tea Party movement, which began last Spring, has mobilized thousands of Americans to the plight of our country. Americans don't want a radical left-wing agenda which will transform us into another Russia. The Tea Party has played a huge role in wakening Americans to what's taking place in our government. There needs to be a word of caution to the Republican Party: Don't confuse Americans' discontent with the policies of the Obama administration and Congress as a sign that Americans are embracing the Republican Party. In many polls, a number of Americans still don't trust the Republican Party either. The Tea Party isn't partisan. It's not about promoting Republican candidates. It's about restoring America to its traditional roots. The only reason why the Republicans may have a chance to recapture the House and Senate is due to the electorates' mistrust of the Obama administration and Congress. However if the Republicans win and they continue the same foolish policies that caused them to be booted out in 2006 and 2008, then the Republicans will be booted out again. The American people aren't ideologically driven as a whole. More and more people in this day in which we live don't identify themselves by a particular political party like they once did twenty years ago. America has seen too much out of both parties. Both political parties have failed Americans. They're both controlled by their own party bosses. The Republican Party has been nothing but a stand-for-nothing party the last several years. The Republican Party is beholden to special interests just like the Democrats are. There are very few distinctives between both parties today. The Democrats are full of Marxists in their party. The Republicans are Democrat-lites or "the lesser of two evils", which Americans are sick of. We need some men of real character that believe in God and country. We need patriots that are beholden to no foreign or special interests. We need patriots that love God and love this country and will give themselves to making America a great country once again.
I have predicted the first of this month that the Republicans will capture both houses of Congress this November. I serve notice to the Republicans if they take the voters for granted once they regain their majority, then they'll be voted out so quickly they won't know what happened to them!
Scott Brown's victory was amazing considering how liberal of a state Massachusetts is. It's also a sign that the Democrats may be in huge trouble when it comes to the November elections. Even though the Democrats hold a comfortable lead in both the House and the Senate, Republicans are sure to regain seats this November. There's been speculation by different pollsters on whether there will be another Republican takeover of Congress like there was in 1994. Some speculate that the Republicans will gain seats in the House but they won't be the majority. There's been some speculation that the Republicans might recapture the House. There's also been speculation that the Republican Party could retake the Senate. It's still too premature to predict, but the socialist policies of the Obama administration is definitely hurting the Democrats. I believe the Massachusetts win was a referendum on Obamacare. In November and December both Houses of Congress passed their own versions of a healthcare overhaul. Some of the Senators such as Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu were given bribes by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid so they would vote for the final passage of the healthcare bill. There was a voter backlash in Massachusetts a week ago and I believe that same thing could be repeated in November's general election. The Obama White House and the Congress haven't been sensitive to the needs of the American people. In a time when America is facing economic distress, Congress has been playing their old tricks trying to push a socialist agenda down Americans' throats. They've tried to pass a healthcare bill most Americans don't desire. They also want to pass a cap and trade bill which would stifle business and cost more jobs in an already distressed economy. The Democratic leaders have shown arrogance and contempt for the American people.
The recent Tea Party movement, which began last Spring, has mobilized thousands of Americans to the plight of our country. Americans don't want a radical left-wing agenda which will transform us into another Russia. The Tea Party has played a huge role in wakening Americans to what's taking place in our government. There needs to be a word of caution to the Republican Party: Don't confuse Americans' discontent with the policies of the Obama administration and Congress as a sign that Americans are embracing the Republican Party. In many polls, a number of Americans still don't trust the Republican Party either. The Tea Party isn't partisan. It's not about promoting Republican candidates. It's about restoring America to its traditional roots. The only reason why the Republicans may have a chance to recapture the House and Senate is due to the electorates' mistrust of the Obama administration and Congress. However if the Republicans win and they continue the same foolish policies that caused them to be booted out in 2006 and 2008, then the Republicans will be booted out again. The American people aren't ideologically driven as a whole. More and more people in this day in which we live don't identify themselves by a particular political party like they once did twenty years ago. America has seen too much out of both parties. Both political parties have failed Americans. They're both controlled by their own party bosses. The Republican Party has been nothing but a stand-for-nothing party the last several years. The Republican Party is beholden to special interests just like the Democrats are. There are very few distinctives between both parties today. The Democrats are full of Marxists in their party. The Republicans are Democrat-lites or "the lesser of two evils", which Americans are sick of. We need some men of real character that believe in God and country. We need patriots that are beholden to no foreign or special interests. We need patriots that love God and love this country and will give themselves to making America a great country once again.
I have predicted the first of this month that the Republicans will capture both houses of Congress this November. I serve notice to the Republicans if they take the voters for granted once they regain their majority, then they'll be voted out so quickly they won't know what happened to them!
No One Will Enter into Heaven by Luck
(Ephesians 2:8-9) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast." Yesterday evening I heard someone make a statement that was very disturbing. That person was mentioning about going to Heaven and saying that we would be surprised who makes it into Heaven and those who won't. The one statement that I found startling was "A person will be lucky to enter into Heaven." Those weren't the exact words but I'm paraphrasing them. I was contemplating that statement and I recognized the folly of that statement. Entering into Heaven when one dies has nothing to do with luck. A person is saved by grace through faith. You either are saved or you aren't. You will either enter into Heaven as a saved person or you will enter into Hell as a lost person. There's no luck or blind chance involved when it comes to Heaven. There's people that have this belief that they hope that the good will outweigh the bad when it comes to the type of life they've lived on this earth and in the end the Lord will allow them to enter the Pearly Gates. It doesn't happen that way. Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
I was looking up the words luck and lucky in Webster's dictionary and here are the definitions for both words. (1) Luck - The seemingly chance happening of events that affect someone; fortunate; lot. Good fortune. (2) Lucky - Having good luck. Resulting fortunately. Entering into Heaven has nothing to do with luck. God doesn't have a lottery draft board in Heaven in which there's a huge fishbowl with a list of people's names and the Father draws "x" number of names out of it and those that he draws out will enter into Heaven when they die. God doesn't work in that fashion. The Bible says "whosoever will". Some people are confuse over the Bible term "predestination" meaning God chooses for some to enter into Heaven for eternity when they die and God chooses for some to spend Hell in eternity. God has predestined that mankind will be saved. He desires all to be saved. However, only a few will choose to enter the straight path. God will not interfere with man's free will when it comes to salvation. Saying that a person will be lucky if they enter Heaven when they die is likewise saying there's another way to salvation other than the finished work of Christ on the cross. Luck doesn't enter into the equation. That's a trick of the Devil to deceive people into thinking that if they live a good, upright life, then God might be compassionate enough to allow them to enter into Heaven.
The reason why some people utter the statement that people will be lucky if they make it into Heaven is because of the poor testimonies of many people that claim to be saved. However, most of those people that live such worldly lifestyles are more than likely not saved. There's been many people that have made false professions of salvation but they weren't geniune. What's a good way to determine whether or not someone's profession is real? Nobody can really judge a person's salvation to be on the safe side, but there are evidences to know if a person's been saved. One of the evidences is a changed life. They're not the same person they were prior to salvation. They've changed in spite of themselves. Another evidence of salvation is their desires. The desires of a person that's experienced the new birth change. Those that are saved have a desire to attend and be faithful in church, to participate in the things of God, they have a new song to sing, and they want to fellowship and know the Lord. If a person that claims to be saved doesn't have any of the desires I just mentioned above, then they might not be saved. There are some people which you can obviously tell that aren't saved because there's no evidence of fruit growing in their lives. We know those that are atheists, homosexuals, and whoremongers, etc. who aren't saved. There's others that we can be suspicious of, but only God is the final judge. The best thing to do is pray for those people.
Nobody has ever been lucky to enter into Heaven. The only way a person can enter into Heaven is through the new birth. Nevertheless, luck isn't part of the equation. Nobody has ever entered into Heaven by blind chance. A person has either been washed by the blood or they haven't been. It's as simple as black and white. Any person today that enters into Heaven when they die must enter the same way the Apostle Paul, Peter, all those saints in the New Testament, and all those heroes of the faith throughout church history. No exceptions. Jesus paid the debt on Calvary. Salvation is clear-cut. Anybody that proclaims one can die and go to Heaven through luck is deceived.
I was looking up the words luck and lucky in Webster's dictionary and here are the definitions for both words. (1) Luck - The seemingly chance happening of events that affect someone; fortunate; lot. Good fortune. (2) Lucky - Having good luck. Resulting fortunately. Entering into Heaven has nothing to do with luck. God doesn't have a lottery draft board in Heaven in which there's a huge fishbowl with a list of people's names and the Father draws "x" number of names out of it and those that he draws out will enter into Heaven when they die. God doesn't work in that fashion. The Bible says "whosoever will". Some people are confuse over the Bible term "predestination" meaning God chooses for some to enter into Heaven for eternity when they die and God chooses for some to spend Hell in eternity. God has predestined that mankind will be saved. He desires all to be saved. However, only a few will choose to enter the straight path. God will not interfere with man's free will when it comes to salvation. Saying that a person will be lucky if they enter Heaven when they die is likewise saying there's another way to salvation other than the finished work of Christ on the cross. Luck doesn't enter into the equation. That's a trick of the Devil to deceive people into thinking that if they live a good, upright life, then God might be compassionate enough to allow them to enter into Heaven.
The reason why some people utter the statement that people will be lucky if they make it into Heaven is because of the poor testimonies of many people that claim to be saved. However, most of those people that live such worldly lifestyles are more than likely not saved. There's been many people that have made false professions of salvation but they weren't geniune. What's a good way to determine whether or not someone's profession is real? Nobody can really judge a person's salvation to be on the safe side, but there are evidences to know if a person's been saved. One of the evidences is a changed life. They're not the same person they were prior to salvation. They've changed in spite of themselves. Another evidence of salvation is their desires. The desires of a person that's experienced the new birth change. Those that are saved have a desire to attend and be faithful in church, to participate in the things of God, they have a new song to sing, and they want to fellowship and know the Lord. If a person that claims to be saved doesn't have any of the desires I just mentioned above, then they might not be saved. There are some people which you can obviously tell that aren't saved because there's no evidence of fruit growing in their lives. We know those that are atheists, homosexuals, and whoremongers, etc. who aren't saved. There's others that we can be suspicious of, but only God is the final judge. The best thing to do is pray for those people.
Nobody has ever been lucky to enter into Heaven. The only way a person can enter into Heaven is through the new birth. Nevertheless, luck isn't part of the equation. Nobody has ever entered into Heaven by blind chance. A person has either been washed by the blood or they haven't been. It's as simple as black and white. Any person today that enters into Heaven when they die must enter the same way the Apostle Paul, Peter, all those saints in the New Testament, and all those heroes of the faith throughout church history. No exceptions. Jesus paid the debt on Calvary. Salvation is clear-cut. Anybody that proclaims one can die and go to Heaven through luck is deceived.
Monday, January 25, 2010
How to Help the Haitian People
This past weekend, many celebrities have been raising money to help out in the Haitian relief effort in the midst of the 7.0 magnitude earthquake nearly a couple of weeks ago. Also President Obama asked former Presidents Clinton and Bush (43) to organize an endeavor to help with the Haitian relief. It's been very difficult on the Haitian people since the earthquake took place. There's probably been untold thousands of people that have been pinned underneath all that rubble and the death toll is already in the thousands. President Obama also promised aid to the Haitians as well. There's no doubt that America is a very generous country when it comes to helping those that are in need. America has come to the aid of many countries over the years and decades. We helped Sri Lanka and those countries that were affected by the tsunami in 2004. America has been sending aid to Haiti for a number of years but their plight continues to worsen. Haiti is the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere. I believe it's Biblical and proper for America to help the Haitians. However, how much of the money that's been raised for Haitian relief will actually go toward the Haitian people? That's a great question. Many of the millions that we've given in aid to Haiti in years past has went towards their government. The corrupt potentates in Haiti have pocketed that money. Therefore, those that really need help don't receive the help that's needed.
I believe America should help earthquake-stricken Haiti, but we need to be cautious and certain that any money or supplies that's distributed to Haiti goes toward the Haitian people and not the government. I was listening to Bill O'Reilly's talking points this morning as I was headed to work. He was mentioning some different ways in which America can help Haiti. One of the methods he mentioned was for America to rule Haiti. However, he mentioned that wasn't very feasible but basically he was saying that government is too corrupt to rule the Haitians. I agree with that. In listening to O'Reilly's talking points, I came up with a few of my own ideas.
First of all, we need charitable organizations and churches to send aid in the form of money, food, and supplies to begin with. The Haitian people need direct relief when it comes to the physical necessities of life. They need temporary shelter where they're living. The second thing that needs to be done is for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached to them. Hopefully, there's a few Christian missionaries which can preach the gospel to them. Haiti is definitely a harvest field. The most important thing we can give the Haitian people is the gospel. It will make a huge difference there. With the predicament that the Haitian people are in, it would be a great time to preach the gospel there. There's no telling how many people could be saved as a result of this catastrophe. The Haitian people have been in darkness due to the voodoo religion that's been practiced there. The Haitian people have been impoverished as a result of their religion. The Haitians will never receive the help they need as long as they practice voodoo, which is of the Devil.
Another thing that needs to be done is the U.S. government needs to stop sending aid to the government of Haiti. It's the Haitian people who we need to be sending aid toward. The corrupt government shouldn't be given another dime. The government of Haiti has received federal aid for years and they've done nothing but horde it upon themselves. The United States has no business in trying to prop up corrupt governments. It's a shame the U.S. will send aid to Haiti when in reality it's a waste. However, our government is obsessed with throwing U.S. dollars away and they'll throw it at corrupt governments who enslave their people.
I believe the U.S. military needs to assist in relief efforts as well as to try to maintain some sort of civility. I don't believe the U.S. needs to involve itself in nation-building. That's the last thing America needs to be doing. Unless the Haitians turn to God and turn away from their religion, there's nothing that can be done to improve that country. Voodoo is of the devil and the country of Haiti has been impoverished as a result. What will help the most is to see the Haitians forsake their religion and turn to God. Only then can the trend go upward for them!
I believe America should help earthquake-stricken Haiti, but we need to be cautious and certain that any money or supplies that's distributed to Haiti goes toward the Haitian people and not the government. I was listening to Bill O'Reilly's talking points this morning as I was headed to work. He was mentioning some different ways in which America can help Haiti. One of the methods he mentioned was for America to rule Haiti. However, he mentioned that wasn't very feasible but basically he was saying that government is too corrupt to rule the Haitians. I agree with that. In listening to O'Reilly's talking points, I came up with a few of my own ideas.
First of all, we need charitable organizations and churches to send aid in the form of money, food, and supplies to begin with. The Haitian people need direct relief when it comes to the physical necessities of life. They need temporary shelter where they're living. The second thing that needs to be done is for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached to them. Hopefully, there's a few Christian missionaries which can preach the gospel to them. Haiti is definitely a harvest field. The most important thing we can give the Haitian people is the gospel. It will make a huge difference there. With the predicament that the Haitian people are in, it would be a great time to preach the gospel there. There's no telling how many people could be saved as a result of this catastrophe. The Haitian people have been in darkness due to the voodoo religion that's been practiced there. The Haitian people have been impoverished as a result of their religion. The Haitians will never receive the help they need as long as they practice voodoo, which is of the Devil.
Another thing that needs to be done is the U.S. government needs to stop sending aid to the government of Haiti. It's the Haitian people who we need to be sending aid toward. The corrupt government shouldn't be given another dime. The government of Haiti has received federal aid for years and they've done nothing but horde it upon themselves. The United States has no business in trying to prop up corrupt governments. It's a shame the U.S. will send aid to Haiti when in reality it's a waste. However, our government is obsessed with throwing U.S. dollars away and they'll throw it at corrupt governments who enslave their people.
I believe the U.S. military needs to assist in relief efforts as well as to try to maintain some sort of civility. I don't believe the U.S. needs to involve itself in nation-building. That's the last thing America needs to be doing. Unless the Haitians turn to God and turn away from their religion, there's nothing that can be done to improve that country. Voodoo is of the devil and the country of Haiti has been impoverished as a result. What will help the most is to see the Haitians forsake their religion and turn to God. Only then can the trend go upward for them!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Sermon on the Mount (Part 2)
(Matthew 6:5-8) "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into they closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." Jesus was instructing his disciples when it came to the manner of prayer. Jesus told them that when they pray, they should enter into a closet and pray to the Lord in secret and when the Lord seeth what you pray in secret the Lord shall reward thee openly. Why did Jesus mention to his disciples about praying in secret? Jesus knows the heart of man. We as human beings are very proud people. We are proud of ourselves in a number of ways. Along with our pride we have a tendency to display ourselves before the public. In other words we want to "show-off". We love to display our knowledge, humility, our good deeds, and other "positive" attributes before the world. Now the Bible does say that the world should see our good deeds. However, the problem lies in our motives. It's WHY we perform the good deeds before the whole world that counts. The world should see us performing good deeds for the Lord, but we shouldn't allow our hearts to be uplifted with pride when we do perform good deeds. Our motives for performing good deeds shouldn't be so we can be seen of men.
The Pharisees were a very self-righteous religious sect. They were very proud people, they lived to the letter of the law. They followed the law more closely than many Christians in today's society. Consequently, they were ostentatious. Whenever they would pray they would pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets. Their whole purpose for their praying was to be seen of men. It had nothing to do with communicating with the Father. They weren't concerned with God hearing their prayer as much as they desired for the crowds to see them pray. It's difficult to pray and communicate with the Lord when we are doing so in hopes that other people can see us. Honestly speaking, you really can't pray to the Lord if your motive in praying is to be ostentatious with it. When you pray to the Lord, you must concentrate your heart and your thoughts to the Lord. You must have your mind centered on whom you're communicating with. You can't center your heart and mind on the Lord if you're trying to display your prayer before the public. Now that doesn't mean it's wrong to pray a public prayer. In churches and in many community events, you'll hear prayers that's offered to the Lord invoking his blessings upon whatever activities they're participating in. Many times in churches there are a group of people in the congregation offering up prayers together in one accord for particular needs of that congregation. Also, there are times when two or three Christians will gather together and pray together about specific needs. The Bible in Matthew 18:19 says that if two will agree on earth touching anything they shall ask of the Father, he will give it to them. That's something totally different. Public prayers in which we ask for God's blessings upon a particular event is not what Jesus is referring to when he mentions about entering into the closet and offering prayers before the Lord.
The prayer closet is where your serious praying takes places. That's the place where you're engaging in some weighty praying. It's very serious business when you go before the Lord and pray. The word "closet" in Matthew is figurative. You don't have to enter into a literal closet to pray. The word "closet" means "private place" or private room. In other words, when we're engaged in serious praying, we need to find a place where it's just God and us alone and it's he that's only hearing our prayers. When you are before the Lord alone, your tendency for serious, sober praying is much greater than when you're before a group of people. There's not too many people that can focus their mind solely on the Lord praying while with a group of people. When it's just you and the Lord, there's nobody you can show yourself to. There's nobody to impress. The Lord knows that and that's why he instructs us to find a secret closet in which to pray. He knows how we are as human beings. If we are to pray from the heart, we have to do so when nobody's around.
Prayer is a humbling experience. In order for us to be in a state of humility, we need to be alone before God. It places us in a situation where we can be sober and we can spend quiet times with the Lord with our hearts and mind in tune with him. We are then in a position where we can conduct some deep soul searching and bear out our hearts before the Lord. When our focus is solely on communicating with the Lord, then we can pray seriously and expect God to communicate with us and answer our prayers. You can't do this when your mind is on impressing other people. When you go before the Lord, you can't impress him. He knows us. He knows our frame of mind, our thoughts, all the sins we've committed the past day as well as future sins we'll commit. There's no way we can impress the Lord. If we pray before the Lord with the right heart and attitude in secret, he'll reward us openly.
In verse 7 Jesus said for us not to use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. Those kind of prayers won't reach the ceiling. True prayer is heartfelt and it's clothed in humility. When you pray before God in a sober fashion, you're not in the business of trying to impress God, simply because you know you can't. God knows our thoughts and the motives of our thoughts. Also, when you're engaging in serious prayer, you're not so much concerned about the words or phrases you use before the Lord as you are in bearing out your heart to him. Those religious people that use vain repetitions in praying before the Lord are not bearing out their hearts before Him. They're just concerned about using eloquent phrases which will impress others. When you're praying to God, you're not concerned about impressing anybody. You realize you are what you are by the grace of God and without Him you're nothing. You know that you need God and without God you can't make it. We should pray humbly before God and recognize what a privilege it is to pray. Praying to God is serious and most of our serious praying needs to take place in the prayer closet. When we pray with a humble heart in secret before the Lord alone, he'll reward us openly.
The Pharisees were a very self-righteous religious sect. They were very proud people, they lived to the letter of the law. They followed the law more closely than many Christians in today's society. Consequently, they were ostentatious. Whenever they would pray they would pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets. Their whole purpose for their praying was to be seen of men. It had nothing to do with communicating with the Father. They weren't concerned with God hearing their prayer as much as they desired for the crowds to see them pray. It's difficult to pray and communicate with the Lord when we are doing so in hopes that other people can see us. Honestly speaking, you really can't pray to the Lord if your motive in praying is to be ostentatious with it. When you pray to the Lord, you must concentrate your heart and your thoughts to the Lord. You must have your mind centered on whom you're communicating with. You can't center your heart and mind on the Lord if you're trying to display your prayer before the public. Now that doesn't mean it's wrong to pray a public prayer. In churches and in many community events, you'll hear prayers that's offered to the Lord invoking his blessings upon whatever activities they're participating in. Many times in churches there are a group of people in the congregation offering up prayers together in one accord for particular needs of that congregation. Also, there are times when two or three Christians will gather together and pray together about specific needs. The Bible in Matthew 18:19 says that if two will agree on earth touching anything they shall ask of the Father, he will give it to them. That's something totally different. Public prayers in which we ask for God's blessings upon a particular event is not what Jesus is referring to when he mentions about entering into the closet and offering prayers before the Lord.
The prayer closet is where your serious praying takes places. That's the place where you're engaging in some weighty praying. It's very serious business when you go before the Lord and pray. The word "closet" in Matthew is figurative. You don't have to enter into a literal closet to pray. The word "closet" means "private place" or private room. In other words, when we're engaged in serious praying, we need to find a place where it's just God and us alone and it's he that's only hearing our prayers. When you are before the Lord alone, your tendency for serious, sober praying is much greater than when you're before a group of people. There's not too many people that can focus their mind solely on the Lord praying while with a group of people. When it's just you and the Lord, there's nobody you can show yourself to. There's nobody to impress. The Lord knows that and that's why he instructs us to find a secret closet in which to pray. He knows how we are as human beings. If we are to pray from the heart, we have to do so when nobody's around.
Prayer is a humbling experience. In order for us to be in a state of humility, we need to be alone before God. It places us in a situation where we can be sober and we can spend quiet times with the Lord with our hearts and mind in tune with him. We are then in a position where we can conduct some deep soul searching and bear out our hearts before the Lord. When our focus is solely on communicating with the Lord, then we can pray seriously and expect God to communicate with us and answer our prayers. You can't do this when your mind is on impressing other people. When you go before the Lord, you can't impress him. He knows us. He knows our frame of mind, our thoughts, all the sins we've committed the past day as well as future sins we'll commit. There's no way we can impress the Lord. If we pray before the Lord with the right heart and attitude in secret, he'll reward us openly.
In verse 7 Jesus said for us not to use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. Those kind of prayers won't reach the ceiling. True prayer is heartfelt and it's clothed in humility. When you pray before God in a sober fashion, you're not in the business of trying to impress God, simply because you know you can't. God knows our thoughts and the motives of our thoughts. Also, when you're engaging in serious prayer, you're not so much concerned about the words or phrases you use before the Lord as you are in bearing out your heart to him. Those religious people that use vain repetitions in praying before the Lord are not bearing out their hearts before Him. They're just concerned about using eloquent phrases which will impress others. When you're praying to God, you're not concerned about impressing anybody. You realize you are what you are by the grace of God and without Him you're nothing. You know that you need God and without God you can't make it. We should pray humbly before God and recognize what a privilege it is to pray. Praying to God is serious and most of our serious praying needs to take place in the prayer closet. When we pray with a humble heart in secret before the Lord alone, he'll reward us openly.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Corporate Spending Limit
A New York Times report says that on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations. The Court ruled the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidates' elections. The 5-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle--that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters stated that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. I have a tendency to agree with that statement. The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift and it will have major political and practical consequences. The decision will most undoubtedly be felt in the coming mid-term elections. This decision comes at a time where there's popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses. President Obama stated it was a "major victory for big oil, Wall Street Banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." There's numerous corporate interests that support our political candidates besides corporations and labor unions. There are a number of special interest groups that support Democratic candidates such as the ACLU, LA Raza, the abortion rights groups, the NEA, trial lawyers, George Soros, and many other groups and individuals too numerous to mention. I don't like the thought of corporations and labor unions donating to political candidates, but they just scratch the surface.
"If the First Amendment has any force," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included the four members of the court's conservative win, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That act, which is in essence another term for the McCain-Feingold bill in 2002, restricted spending on unions and corporations. McCain-Feingold also banned the broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications "susceptible to reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
The five opinions in Thursday's decision ran to more than 180 pages, with Justice John Paul Stevens sharply dissenting. Justice Stevens, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same that of human beings. The McCain-Feingold law contains an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries, and and editorials. Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements. The case had unlikely origins involving a documentary called,"Hillary: The Movie." The movie was a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by "Citizens United", a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it.
In reading the results of this Supreme Court ruling, I've had mixed emotions about the ruling. The reason why I've had such mixed emotions is because our politicians don't care anything about the interests of the constituents that placed them into power. Instead, they're beholden to those special interests such as corporate, labor unions, the ACLU, La Raza, and the list continues. They contribute huge sums of money to the political campaigns and once the candidates win and take office, the politicians devote their time paying back favors to these interest groups. I'm disturbed by the thought of the court removing limits on corporate spending. However, I'm just as troubled by the influence of those interest groups that donate to the Democrats as well. I've heard that if we impose spending limits on corporations and labor unions on political campaigns, then the average citizen will be limited on the amount of money they can spend on candidates. I don't believe the government should regulate free speech when it comes to political campaigns and advertisements. I'm just sick and tired of our politicians being bought off by special interest groups.
I believe there needs to be a revamping of our campaign finance laws. I haven't yet drafted a plan on how the finance laws should run. I'm still thinking along those lines. In my mind I wish that the only types of groups or people that could contribute to political candidates are average ordinary citizens and local community groups. I wouldn't have a problem with small businesses contributing to political campaigns, either. However, to prohibit various interests from donating to political candidates seems anti-American and not the right way to go. The problem I have is these multi-national corporation and other interest groups holding sway over our politicians. Most of these elitist groups don't have the best interests of America at heart. That's why I would love to prohibit them from donating to political candidates. However, I'm not certain that's constitutional. That's an issue I'll have to muse on.
"If the First Amendment has any force," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included the four members of the court's conservative win, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That act, which is in essence another term for the McCain-Feingold bill in 2002, restricted spending on unions and corporations. McCain-Feingold also banned the broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications "susceptible to reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
The five opinions in Thursday's decision ran to more than 180 pages, with Justice John Paul Stevens sharply dissenting. Justice Stevens, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same that of human beings. The McCain-Feingold law contains an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries, and and editorials. Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements. The case had unlikely origins involving a documentary called,"Hillary: The Movie." The movie was a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by "Citizens United", a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it.
In reading the results of this Supreme Court ruling, I've had mixed emotions about the ruling. The reason why I've had such mixed emotions is because our politicians don't care anything about the interests of the constituents that placed them into power. Instead, they're beholden to those special interests such as corporate, labor unions, the ACLU, La Raza, and the list continues. They contribute huge sums of money to the political campaigns and once the candidates win and take office, the politicians devote their time paying back favors to these interest groups. I'm disturbed by the thought of the court removing limits on corporate spending. However, I'm just as troubled by the influence of those interest groups that donate to the Democrats as well. I've heard that if we impose spending limits on corporations and labor unions on political campaigns, then the average citizen will be limited on the amount of money they can spend on candidates. I don't believe the government should regulate free speech when it comes to political campaigns and advertisements. I'm just sick and tired of our politicians being bought off by special interest groups.
I believe there needs to be a revamping of our campaign finance laws. I haven't yet drafted a plan on how the finance laws should run. I'm still thinking along those lines. In my mind I wish that the only types of groups or people that could contribute to political candidates are average ordinary citizens and local community groups. I wouldn't have a problem with small businesses contributing to political campaigns, either. However, to prohibit various interests from donating to political candidates seems anti-American and not the right way to go. The problem I have is these multi-national corporation and other interest groups holding sway over our politicians. Most of these elitist groups don't have the best interests of America at heart. That's why I would love to prohibit them from donating to political candidates. However, I'm not certain that's constitutional. That's an issue I'll have to muse on.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Remembering the Unborn
Today is the 37th anniversary of the dreadful Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, which was handed down on January 22, 1973. The case centered around a woman called "Jane Roe". Her name is actually Norma McCorvey. The other person involved was District Attorney Henry Wade. In 1971 Norma McCorvey became pregnant and claimed she was pregnant as a result of rape. She later admitted she lied about the rape because rape was the only thing she could use as a means to obtain an illegal abortion. Abortion was illegal in Texas at that time. Any woman that could obtain an abortion could do so if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court under the majority opinion of Harry Blackmum stated a woman had a constitutional right to terminate her unborn children for any reason until the "fetus" becomes viable whether it be at 28 or 24 weeks at that time. There have been efforts to curtail abortion rights since that time and in some states there must be parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion.
Since 1974 numerous Right to Life groups have been holding demonstrations in Washington, D.C. to protest against the slaughter of untold millions of unborn babies since that dreadful ruling. Today there were right to life activists holding a rally at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The abortion rights groups also held their rally in Washington, D.C. as well. Terry O' Neill, president of NOW (National Organization for Women) stated "A fetus is not a life, sorry." With all the modern technology that we have today at our disposal when it comes to ultrasound techniques that can even detect the heartbeat of an unborn child, it's preposterous people like O'Neill have such a gall to make a foolish statement as that. However, according to a couple of scriptures in Psalms, the unborn child is a human being. Psalms 27:3 says, "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." Psalms 139:14 says, "I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." When is the unborn child a human being? The moment conception takes place. Ultrasound tests have proven that a child has a heartbeat several weeks after conception. They also have their limbs and even move in the mother's womb. Pregnant mothers can testify that the unborn child is alive due to them moving and kicking in the womb. Many pro-abortion activists and supporters refer to the unborn as a "fetus" meaning it's just a blob of tissue. However, God says it's a human being. It's dangerous when man plays God and determines the rights of the unborn. The sad fact is it doesn't stop there. This ruling gives the authoritarian elite the right to determine the rights of mankind from conception until death. Given the financial straits America is in today, the government may decide to kill off those that are handicapped, elderly, and those that are no longer useful in society. Why allow them to live? That's the mentality of those that support abortion on demand. They're upholding the theory of moral relativism which says truth is based upon individual circumstances. A few years ago the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress which states partial-birth abortion is illegal. Partial-birth abortion is another term for infanticide. When the Supreme Court ruling came out in 1973, it stated a pregnant woman could obtain an abortion for any reason until the viability of the child. Now our laws are allowing for partial-birth abortion to take place. See the progression?
There are some religious groups such as the Catholics and even conservative Baptists that have went as far to say if a woman takes birth control or contraceptives, that's equivalent to abortion. That's not accurate. Birth control devices help prevent a pregnancy from taking place. That's not abortion. There must be a joining of the sperm and the egg in the mothers womb in order for conception to take place. One conception takes place, it's a human being. That's where it would be wrong for an abortion to be committed. Let's remember all the unborn that's been murdered since 1973. I've heard preachers say we may have murdered future doctors, scientists, teachers, preachers, etc. I've heard some preachers say we may have murdered the doctor who could've invented a cure for cancer. You never know. However, the abortion mentality fits in with Adolf Hitler. He considered the Jewish race a menace in this world. He set out to exterminate them when he was in power. Those that strongly support abortion say that children are unfit and useless to society and women must be the arbitrator in deciding who lives or dies. HOW SCARY!
Since 1974 numerous Right to Life groups have been holding demonstrations in Washington, D.C. to protest against the slaughter of untold millions of unborn babies since that dreadful ruling. Today there were right to life activists holding a rally at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The abortion rights groups also held their rally in Washington, D.C. as well. Terry O' Neill, president of NOW (National Organization for Women) stated "A fetus is not a life, sorry." With all the modern technology that we have today at our disposal when it comes to ultrasound techniques that can even detect the heartbeat of an unborn child, it's preposterous people like O'Neill have such a gall to make a foolish statement as that. However, according to a couple of scriptures in Psalms, the unborn child is a human being. Psalms 27:3 says, "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." Psalms 139:14 says, "I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." When is the unborn child a human being? The moment conception takes place. Ultrasound tests have proven that a child has a heartbeat several weeks after conception. They also have their limbs and even move in the mother's womb. Pregnant mothers can testify that the unborn child is alive due to them moving and kicking in the womb. Many pro-abortion activists and supporters refer to the unborn as a "fetus" meaning it's just a blob of tissue. However, God says it's a human being. It's dangerous when man plays God and determines the rights of the unborn. The sad fact is it doesn't stop there. This ruling gives the authoritarian elite the right to determine the rights of mankind from conception until death. Given the financial straits America is in today, the government may decide to kill off those that are handicapped, elderly, and those that are no longer useful in society. Why allow them to live? That's the mentality of those that support abortion on demand. They're upholding the theory of moral relativism which says truth is based upon individual circumstances. A few years ago the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress which states partial-birth abortion is illegal. Partial-birth abortion is another term for infanticide. When the Supreme Court ruling came out in 1973, it stated a pregnant woman could obtain an abortion for any reason until the viability of the child. Now our laws are allowing for partial-birth abortion to take place. See the progression?
There are some religious groups such as the Catholics and even conservative Baptists that have went as far to say if a woman takes birth control or contraceptives, that's equivalent to abortion. That's not accurate. Birth control devices help prevent a pregnancy from taking place. That's not abortion. There must be a joining of the sperm and the egg in the mothers womb in order for conception to take place. One conception takes place, it's a human being. That's where it would be wrong for an abortion to be committed. Let's remember all the unborn that's been murdered since 1973. I've heard preachers say we may have murdered future doctors, scientists, teachers, preachers, etc. I've heard some preachers say we may have murdered the doctor who could've invented a cure for cancer. You never know. However, the abortion mentality fits in with Adolf Hitler. He considered the Jewish race a menace in this world. He set out to exterminate them when he was in power. Those that strongly support abortion say that children are unfit and useless to society and women must be the arbitrator in deciding who lives or dies. HOW SCARY!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The U.S. Senate Special Election Results in Massassuchsetts
State Senator Scott Brown won a surprising victory over Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley tonight, handing the Republicans a 41st seat in the Senate and endangering healthcare reform by bring an end to the Democrats' 60-seat majority. The Associated Press called the race for Brown as the Republican held a 53-46 edge over Coakley with more than 70% of the precincts reporting. Coakely conceded to Brown in a phone call shortly before the race was called.
Arond 10:30 p.m., Brown addressed a cheering crowd in Boston saying, "They can hear this cheering all the way in Washington, D.C." "I hope they're paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown said holding up a copy of the Boston Herald with the headline, "He did it!" Coakley addressed her supporters before 10:00 p.m. and thanked her supporters for campaigning for her. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said the Republican victory "has made it very clear that the arrogance in Washington is being rejected by the people in Massachusetts and across the country." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell cast Brown's victory as a decisive repudiation of the Democrats' push to pass sweeping healthcare reform legislation. McConnell stated voters in Massachusetts like voters nationwide have made it abundantly clear where they stand on healthcare.
Brown's victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley was amazing considering that Massachusetts is a blue state that votes Democratic. The last Republican that held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, an African-American from 1967-79. The seat that Scott Brown won was held by Edward M. Kennedy for 47 years. Prior to Kennedy winning that seat in a special election in 1962, that seat was held by Benjamin Smith from 1961-62 and Kennedy's brother JFK from 1953-60. The voters in Massachusetts showed their disapproval with Obamacare, which was passed by both the House and Senate in November and December. The Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress have been imposing a very radical socialist agenda on the American people. If the special election today is any indicator, Democrats are going to be in for a long year. I made the prediction that the Republicans will recapture both the House and Senate this November. It's still too premature to predict, but if the Democrats continue with their radical anti-American agenda, then there's a great possibility that many incumbents will be voted out in November.
Arond 10:30 p.m., Brown addressed a cheering crowd in Boston saying, "They can hear this cheering all the way in Washington, D.C." "I hope they're paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown said holding up a copy of the Boston Herald with the headline, "He did it!" Coakley addressed her supporters before 10:00 p.m. and thanked her supporters for campaigning for her. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said the Republican victory "has made it very clear that the arrogance in Washington is being rejected by the people in Massachusetts and across the country." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell cast Brown's victory as a decisive repudiation of the Democrats' push to pass sweeping healthcare reform legislation. McConnell stated voters in Massachusetts like voters nationwide have made it abundantly clear where they stand on healthcare.
Brown's victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley was amazing considering that Massachusetts is a blue state that votes Democratic. The last Republican that held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, an African-American from 1967-79. The seat that Scott Brown won was held by Edward M. Kennedy for 47 years. Prior to Kennedy winning that seat in a special election in 1962, that seat was held by Benjamin Smith from 1961-62 and Kennedy's brother JFK from 1953-60. The voters in Massachusetts showed their disapproval with Obamacare, which was passed by both the House and Senate in November and December. The Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress have been imposing a very radical socialist agenda on the American people. If the special election today is any indicator, Democrats are going to be in for a long year. I made the prediction that the Republicans will recapture both the House and Senate this November. It's still too premature to predict, but if the Democrats continue with their radical anti-American agenda, then there's a great possibility that many incumbents will be voted out in November.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Job Creation Must Come From the Private Sector
According to a Reuter's report, members of the U.S. Congress began 2010 scrambling to reduce the double-digit jobless rate. With supposed 1 in 10 Americans are out of work (percentage is much higher in some states), the highest in 25 years, the Democrats are making job creation their top priority. "Americans have a lot of angst, a lot of anger, a lot of fear" said House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. "Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent, all polls show that jobs are the major issue." The full Senate returns from Christmas break this Wednesday. Last month, the House passed a $155 billion bill to stimulate the job market through infrastructure projects and helping states pay the salaries of public employees. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, along with Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), are expected to offer a jobs package in the coming weeks. However, the subscription the House and Senate have to cure America's ailing economy is to grow the government. None of their proposals will do anything to help the private sector, which is the real engine of job growth. It's understandable that there are some necessary government jobs such as the military, the Congress and the Senate. However, the proposals the Democratic Congress along with President Obama have won't create wealth in this country.
Last month President Obama held a December jobs forum. He didn't have much anything to offer with the jobs forum. With the House and Senate signing a costly healthcare bill along with a growing deficit up to $12.4 trillion, the last thing we need are bills which will further push America in the red. Last February in 2009, President Obama signed an "emergency" $787 billion stimulus bill which extended unemployment benefits, aided cash-strapped states and local governments to help them avoid laying off workers, and spent money (I don't know the percentage) on infrastructure, education, and healthcare. That stimulus bill also helped pay off people that contributed to their political campaigns as well. It was nothing but a pork bill. It didn't do very much to help the ordinary average American.
I wasn't for Congress passing the $787 billion stimulus bill last February. However, if they were going to spend money in passing a stimulus, then they should've given it to small businesses to help rejuvenate them. We need small businesses to hire workers. Instead, the government will take the taxes of ordinary Americans and spend it on minorities, illegal aliens, welfare recipients, and huge corporations that contribute to their political campaigns. Last year the Obama administration gave bailout money to AIG, Chrysler, and General Motors. There are probably other corporations that received bailout money that I'm not aware of. It was money thrown down the drain. Both General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy last year. It doesn't make any difference whether it's Democrat or Republican or the Bush and Obama administrations. Our government will help the super rich that contribute to their campaigns. However, giving money to Goldman Sachs, AIG, or General Motors is a waste of time. These huge corporations aren't going to invest in American jobs. These corporations have exported millions of American jobs overseas. If the government is going to help any business, they should help those businesses that will grow jobs for America. Instead our government is paying back Wall Street.
The key to job growth is for the private sector to create new jobs; primarily through small or medium-sized businesses. The government has stifled the private sector with all kinds of burdensome regulations through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was passed in 2002. The government needs to remove burdensome regulations from American businesses. The government also needs to greatly reduce the tax rate on businesses as well. The more tax money that businesses have to pay, the less money that's available to hire and train workers. Economic recovery isn't going to come through government jobs. The money the government pays to its workers comes through the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer is already cash-strapped with taxes, a high mortgage bill, energy bills, etc. Taxes will rise again this year if Obama's healthcare plan is signed into law. Expanding the size of government will do nothing but bankrupt America. The government needs to leave the private industry alone for the most part (except breaking up monopolies). When the private sector grows jobs, there will be new revenue for the government to collect. America throughout all its history has relied on the private sector to create it's jobs as well as create new inventions.
All of the great inventions that the United States has created throughout the past 233 years has been accomplished through the private sector. The cotton gin, the light bulb, the phonograph, the automobile, the computer, and the list continues were created by entrepreneurs. It wasn't created by the government. When the private sector is allow the opportunity to research and create new inventions, then new demand is created and jobs will grow. When more jobs are created and more Americans are working, then the tax receipts to the government at all levels will grow.
The key to job recovery and economic growth is for the government to allow the private sector to flourish without all the burdensome regulations and the high tax rates. One of the fears many small businesses are worried about is how will the healthcare bill affect them if it's signed into law. I know that there have been abuses in the private sector throughout American history, but the federal government's stifling business from functioning isn't going to grow our economy. The government needs to stay out of the business of entrepreneuralism and allow the market to function in a competitive environment. The only legitimate role the government has when interfering in business is to break up monopolies.
Last month President Obama held a December jobs forum. He didn't have much anything to offer with the jobs forum. With the House and Senate signing a costly healthcare bill along with a growing deficit up to $12.4 trillion, the last thing we need are bills which will further push America in the red. Last February in 2009, President Obama signed an "emergency" $787 billion stimulus bill which extended unemployment benefits, aided cash-strapped states and local governments to help them avoid laying off workers, and spent money (I don't know the percentage) on infrastructure, education, and healthcare. That stimulus bill also helped pay off people that contributed to their political campaigns as well. It was nothing but a pork bill. It didn't do very much to help the ordinary average American.
I wasn't for Congress passing the $787 billion stimulus bill last February. However, if they were going to spend money in passing a stimulus, then they should've given it to small businesses to help rejuvenate them. We need small businesses to hire workers. Instead, the government will take the taxes of ordinary Americans and spend it on minorities, illegal aliens, welfare recipients, and huge corporations that contribute to their political campaigns. Last year the Obama administration gave bailout money to AIG, Chrysler, and General Motors. There are probably other corporations that received bailout money that I'm not aware of. It was money thrown down the drain. Both General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy last year. It doesn't make any difference whether it's Democrat or Republican or the Bush and Obama administrations. Our government will help the super rich that contribute to their campaigns. However, giving money to Goldman Sachs, AIG, or General Motors is a waste of time. These huge corporations aren't going to invest in American jobs. These corporations have exported millions of American jobs overseas. If the government is going to help any business, they should help those businesses that will grow jobs for America. Instead our government is paying back Wall Street.
The key to job growth is for the private sector to create new jobs; primarily through small or medium-sized businesses. The government has stifled the private sector with all kinds of burdensome regulations through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was passed in 2002. The government needs to remove burdensome regulations from American businesses. The government also needs to greatly reduce the tax rate on businesses as well. The more tax money that businesses have to pay, the less money that's available to hire and train workers. Economic recovery isn't going to come through government jobs. The money the government pays to its workers comes through the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer is already cash-strapped with taxes, a high mortgage bill, energy bills, etc. Taxes will rise again this year if Obama's healthcare plan is signed into law. Expanding the size of government will do nothing but bankrupt America. The government needs to leave the private industry alone for the most part (except breaking up monopolies). When the private sector grows jobs, there will be new revenue for the government to collect. America throughout all its history has relied on the private sector to create it's jobs as well as create new inventions.
All of the great inventions that the United States has created throughout the past 233 years has been accomplished through the private sector. The cotton gin, the light bulb, the phonograph, the automobile, the computer, and the list continues were created by entrepreneurs. It wasn't created by the government. When the private sector is allow the opportunity to research and create new inventions, then new demand is created and jobs will grow. When more jobs are created and more Americans are working, then the tax receipts to the government at all levels will grow.
The key to job recovery and economic growth is for the government to allow the private sector to flourish without all the burdensome regulations and the high tax rates. One of the fears many small businesses are worried about is how will the healthcare bill affect them if it's signed into law. I know that there have been abuses in the private sector throughout American history, but the federal government's stifling business from functioning isn't going to grow our economy. The government needs to stay out of the business of entrepreneuralism and allow the market to function in a competitive environment. The only legitimate role the government has when interfering in business is to break up monopolies.
A National Holiday for the Black People
Ten years ago I was studying black history. I was reading some books about black history from the very beginning in 1619 when the negro people were shipped to America for the very first time until the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's. I found it very fascinating. I had intentions of writing a book about civil rights issues involving the black people. I was going to write about the racial struggles between black and white people. As of to date, I haven't even come close to finishing the book. I just barely scratched the surface providing a historical background of the African-American race from 1619 until the early 1920's. Writing a book about black history and issues involving civil rights is a time-consuming ordeal. I had several questions in my mind as I was studying about black history. I was wondering how Americans could justify enslaving people of another race. I was trying to understand the mindset of America during that time. To me, that way of thinking was foreign to me especially since blacks have become more integrated into American society today. I was wondering why did Americans consider blacks to be inferior people. Why would anyone have the mindset that the color of your skin makes you inferior? I had come to the conclusion it wasn't so much the skin color but it was due to the type of country that the African race came from. Africa was totally different in regards to culture and religion compared to America during that time frame. Africa practiced all kinds of different religions. Africa is a tribal country and their philosophy and religion was foreign to America. That's why I believe many Americans had considered Africans to be inferior. I am well aware that most black slaves weren't allowed to read or write so they naturally would be lacking in skills intellectually. However, that wasn't the fault of black slaves because they didn't know how to read or write. They weren't given equal opportunities for education like the whites had.
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. day. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was signed into law by President Reagan in either 1985 or 1986. Americans have celebrated this holiday since 1986. On this day the banks, the schools, public jobs, and even some occupations in the private sector are closed. Many educators, civil rights leaders, and many minorities pay homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. The momentous even for Martin Luther King came when he gave his "I have a Dream" speech in front of Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. I'm not a fan of Martin Luther King, Jr., but I enjoyed some excerpts of his spech, especially the part where he said he had a dream one day when his children could live in a society where man will be judged by the content of his character instead of his skin color. We need to learn to not treat another race as a second class citizen due to his skin color. Any minority that's a CITIZEN of this country deserves the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a minority is successful in business, he/she should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor just like anyone else. They're just as much humans as the white people are.
Ten years ago I came up with an idea that on the day that we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day we should expand that day to not only remember Martin Luther King, Jr. but any black person that's made great contributions to this wonderful country. I used to refer to that day as "NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN DAY", but over the years I've heard some black people didn't enjoy being labeled as "African-American" I used to work with a black man that didn't enjoy the label "African-American". The reason why he didn't was because he likes to be thought of as an American; not a hyphenated American. I was listening to the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News Channel last year and he was speaking with a group of black people and they made the same comment. They don't like to be thought of as a hyphenated American. They just want to be known as an American. They'd rather be called black. I would be in a habit of calling black people "African-Americans" because I heard the media use that term. But I understand their point. America should be one nation regardless of your race and ethnicity, where we should form into a melting pot. We are all Americans, period.
I've been thinking of renaming the title but I don't know of a good title. I've thought of "National Black Day", but I'm not overly crazy about that title. I'm at a loss for words right now. However, there's numerous black people over the course of American history that's achieved great things for America such as George Washington Carter and Booker T. Washington, for example. There's some black people that I greatly admire today such Dr. Thomas Sowell, Ellis Washington, Alan Keyes, Bro. Gerry Griffith, a pastor in Louisville, Kentucky. There are some great preachers that are black. Black people that are genuine Christians don't mind worshipping the Lord. Anyone that's attended a black church that's genuine knows that they are full of life and they worship the Lord. I want to take this time and salute all the black people in this country now and in times past that have made this nation great. Thank you for your contributions!
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. day. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was signed into law by President Reagan in either 1985 or 1986. Americans have celebrated this holiday since 1986. On this day the banks, the schools, public jobs, and even some occupations in the private sector are closed. Many educators, civil rights leaders, and many minorities pay homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. The momentous even for Martin Luther King came when he gave his "I have a Dream" speech in front of Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. I'm not a fan of Martin Luther King, Jr., but I enjoyed some excerpts of his spech, especially the part where he said he had a dream one day when his children could live in a society where man will be judged by the content of his character instead of his skin color. We need to learn to not treat another race as a second class citizen due to his skin color. Any minority that's a CITIZEN of this country deserves the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a minority is successful in business, he/she should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor just like anyone else. They're just as much humans as the white people are.
Ten years ago I came up with an idea that on the day that we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day we should expand that day to not only remember Martin Luther King, Jr. but any black person that's made great contributions to this wonderful country. I used to refer to that day as "NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN DAY", but over the years I've heard some black people didn't enjoy being labeled as "African-American" I used to work with a black man that didn't enjoy the label "African-American". The reason why he didn't was because he likes to be thought of as an American; not a hyphenated American. I was listening to the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News Channel last year and he was speaking with a group of black people and they made the same comment. They don't like to be thought of as a hyphenated American. They just want to be known as an American. They'd rather be called black. I would be in a habit of calling black people "African-Americans" because I heard the media use that term. But I understand their point. America should be one nation regardless of your race and ethnicity, where we should form into a melting pot. We are all Americans, period.
I've been thinking of renaming the title but I don't know of a good title. I've thought of "National Black Day", but I'm not overly crazy about that title. I'm at a loss for words right now. However, there's numerous black people over the course of American history that's achieved great things for America such as George Washington Carter and Booker T. Washington, for example. There's some black people that I greatly admire today such Dr. Thomas Sowell, Ellis Washington, Alan Keyes, Bro. Gerry Griffith, a pastor in Louisville, Kentucky. There are some great preachers that are black. Black people that are genuine Christians don't mind worshipping the Lord. Anyone that's attended a black church that's genuine knows that they are full of life and they worship the Lord. I want to take this time and salute all the black people in this country now and in times past that have made this nation great. Thank you for your contributions!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Excerpts from "I Have a Dream" Speech
Tomorrow America will be celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. day, in honor of the slain civil rights leader. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day has been a national holiday in America since 1986. It's celebrated on the third Monday in January. It's celebrated real close to his birthday. He was an iconic figure in the civil rights movement. During the era he was living there was forced segregation in the Deep South. There were all kinds of civil rights marches where civil rights leaders would lead a group of people to march for the equality of blacks. During that time there was blatant discrimination against black people in the Deep South and even other parts of the nation. Blacks had attended separate schools, they had to drink out of separate water fountains, they could be denied admission to a motel due to their race. Even busses were segregated. Rosa Parks was told she had to sit in the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 but refused to do so and she was arrested. She made headlines as a result of her refusal to sit in the back of the bus. After Martin Luther King, Jr. had settled with his family in Montgomery, he was asked to take part in demonstrations against segregation in Alabama and he participated in them.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a black Baptist minister who was known for his famous speech he gave on August 28, 1963 entitled, "I Have a Dream." He gave that speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. King was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929 to Alberta and Martin Luther King, Sr. He grew up in Atlanta. After high school King earned degrees in Morehouse College in Atlanta and Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. He earned a doctorate in Boston University. He met Coretta Scott in Boston and later they married in 1953. They both settled in Montgomery, Alabama and he was appointed the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. I have a few excerpts of his speech I copied down. Here are a few lines of the speech he gave on that momentous day!
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all God's *children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's *children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the Old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
* According to the scriptures, a person must be born again before they can be a child of God. Everyone on this earth are all part of God's creation, but you must be saved in order to be a child of God.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a black Baptist minister who was known for his famous speech he gave on August 28, 1963 entitled, "I Have a Dream." He gave that speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. King was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929 to Alberta and Martin Luther King, Sr. He grew up in Atlanta. After high school King earned degrees in Morehouse College in Atlanta and Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. He earned a doctorate in Boston University. He met Coretta Scott in Boston and later they married in 1953. They both settled in Montgomery, Alabama and he was appointed the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. I have a few excerpts of his speech I copied down. Here are a few lines of the speech he gave on that momentous day!
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all God's *children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's *children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the Old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
* According to the scriptures, a person must be born again before they can be a child of God. Everyone on this earth are all part of God's creation, but you must be saved in order to be a child of God.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Sermon on the Mount (Part 1)
Starting today I will be writing a series of posts periodically from the Sermon on the Mount. I will randomly take a verse from chapters 5 through 7 which contain the Sermon on the Mount and I will expound upon a thought. The Sermon on the Mount is in the book of Matthew. Jesus had begun his earthly ministry in chapter three in the book of Matthew when he was baptized by John. Jesus had begun his preaching ministry and in chapter four you read where Satan had tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus had also called out his first four disciples as well healed people. Jesus went upon a mountain preaching unto the multitudes. I want to focus on a couple of verses of chapter 7. Matthew 7:1-2 says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: And with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Jesus is instructing his disciples about judging. One of the sins that many people in the church today are guilty of is judging. Before I proceed any further, I must say that the word "judge" has been misconstrued many times in the religious circles. I've heard televangelists in years past use that phrase saying, "Don't judge!" I've heard Charismatic preachers such as Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts use that phrase. However, I don't believe most people regardless whether they're saved or not have a proper understanding of the phrase, "Judge not." That's been subject to so much misinterpretation over the years. I've seen preachers preach from the Bible against sin such as adultery, homosexuality, uncleanness, filth, etc. and there are those from the world and even in the pews that will claim that the preacher is being judgmental. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The Word of God is the final authority and when a man of God or anyone stands upon the truths that's found in the word, they aren't being judgmental. The Bible is a higher authority than man. The preacher is not giving his opinion when he preaches against sin regardless of what it is. He's declaring what God has said in His word. Most of the time whenever sin is exposed or people are caught committing sin, they want to cover their evil deeds by saying the preacher is guilty of judging. That's an excuse to cover up for sin.
I want to quickly give you a definition of the word "judge" from Webster's Dictionary. There are a number of definitions for the term "judge". There is a judicial position in our land which is termed "judge". The judge in that sense has a judicial responsibility to determine what's true and what isn't true in a court of law before a courtroom of witnesses. He's responsible in rendering a judgment on which side is innocent and which side is guilty. The judge also has the responsibility of meting out the punishment on the guilty party. However, that's not the definition I am referring to. The one definition I saw in the dictionary was, "To think or suppose." That's what Jesus was referring to when he says, "Judge not!" Most of us are guilty of thinking or supposing at one time or another in our lives. I've been guilty of that. I will never forget of an incident last year where I was guilty of judging someone. I was corresponding with an individual through email and I had made the false assumption that the reason why that person decided to correspond with me was maybe they wanted my profile so they can put part of it on their Facebook or MySpace page. My imagination was running wild. As it turned out, I was guilty of judging that person and I couldn't have been more wrong. I was embarrassed to say the least. However, that should teach us a lesson when it comes to drawing the wrong conclusions.
To define judging as Jesus has spoken of in Matthew 7:1-2, he was referring to making assertions without proof. That's what judging is. It's drawing conclusions about someone and not knowing the facts behind the situation. I need to define that a litle further. If I was in a store and I saw someone stealing a candy bar from a shelf and I said he was a thief, I wouldn't be guilty of judging him because it's obvious and out in the open. Stating the obvious is not judging. Jesus was warning us to be cautious when it comes to judging the motives of someone's heart. There are situations in which it can be appear to be one way but in reality that not be the case. Suppose a pastor in a particular church is married and he was engaging in a conversation with a woman in the church and I happen to notice him speaking to the woman. I could easily draw the wrong conclusions if my my mind would allow me to. Just because the pastor is in a conversation with a woman doesn't mean they're in an adulterous affair together. That's one example. Sometimes people can view things and interpret them wrongly. That's what Jesus was warning us about. If it's not obvious, then we better not judge. The Bible says we will be judged for it. Whatever measures we mete out to someone, it will be meted out to us. You've heard the old saying, "What goes around, comes around." There are people whose lives are miserable and in turmoil for no other reason than the fact they've been guilty of judging others. It's dangerous to do so.
I Thessalonians 4:11 says that we should study to be quiet and mind our own business. There are a number of people in the church that are nothing more than busybodies and all they want to devote their time in doing is to judge other people and gossip. It will place you in a lot of trouble. I assume that's part of the reason why the Apostle Paul penned that verse. If we will study to be quiet and mind our own business, we won't be spending as much time in judging other people. Many people that are guilty of playing the role of judge in other people's lives don't have anything better to do themselves. They spend all their time trying to pry in other people's affairs and determine how they should live and respond to situations. They spend all their time worrying about the problems their brother has, but they don't take time to look themselves in the mirror through the Word of God. Jesus said that we're hypocritical for trying to remove the moat from our brother's eyes and fail to remove the beam from our own eye. (Matthew 7:3-5) Judging is serious in God's eyes. God is the only one that can discern the thoughts of the hearts of man. We don't have the ability to do such. That's where we'll be judged when we judge somebody.
Before one makes an assertion about somebody, they better be sure they know what they're saying. Otherwise, they're guilty of judging. As I've said earlier, if something is obvious for people to see, that's not judging. It's also not judging when we stand against sin because the Bible is the final authority. But when it comes to determining the motives of someone's heart or trying to add things together and drawing a certain conclusion; WE BETTER BEWARE! I don't want God to mete out judgment on me because I judged my brother and didn't have any proof to back what I said. In a court of law, if you make an accusation against someone, you must have proof to back your claim. If we can't prove what we believe about someone is true, we better keep our mouths shut. God will judge us for it.
Jesus is instructing his disciples about judging. One of the sins that many people in the church today are guilty of is judging. Before I proceed any further, I must say that the word "judge" has been misconstrued many times in the religious circles. I've heard televangelists in years past use that phrase saying, "Don't judge!" I've heard Charismatic preachers such as Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts use that phrase. However, I don't believe most people regardless whether they're saved or not have a proper understanding of the phrase, "Judge not." That's been subject to so much misinterpretation over the years. I've seen preachers preach from the Bible against sin such as adultery, homosexuality, uncleanness, filth, etc. and there are those from the world and even in the pews that will claim that the preacher is being judgmental. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The Word of God is the final authority and when a man of God or anyone stands upon the truths that's found in the word, they aren't being judgmental. The Bible is a higher authority than man. The preacher is not giving his opinion when he preaches against sin regardless of what it is. He's declaring what God has said in His word. Most of the time whenever sin is exposed or people are caught committing sin, they want to cover their evil deeds by saying the preacher is guilty of judging. That's an excuse to cover up for sin.
I want to quickly give you a definition of the word "judge" from Webster's Dictionary. There are a number of definitions for the term "judge". There is a judicial position in our land which is termed "judge". The judge in that sense has a judicial responsibility to determine what's true and what isn't true in a court of law before a courtroom of witnesses. He's responsible in rendering a judgment on which side is innocent and which side is guilty. The judge also has the responsibility of meting out the punishment on the guilty party. However, that's not the definition I am referring to. The one definition I saw in the dictionary was, "To think or suppose." That's what Jesus was referring to when he says, "Judge not!" Most of us are guilty of thinking or supposing at one time or another in our lives. I've been guilty of that. I will never forget of an incident last year where I was guilty of judging someone. I was corresponding with an individual through email and I had made the false assumption that the reason why that person decided to correspond with me was maybe they wanted my profile so they can put part of it on their Facebook or MySpace page. My imagination was running wild. As it turned out, I was guilty of judging that person and I couldn't have been more wrong. I was embarrassed to say the least. However, that should teach us a lesson when it comes to drawing the wrong conclusions.
To define judging as Jesus has spoken of in Matthew 7:1-2, he was referring to making assertions without proof. That's what judging is. It's drawing conclusions about someone and not knowing the facts behind the situation. I need to define that a litle further. If I was in a store and I saw someone stealing a candy bar from a shelf and I said he was a thief, I wouldn't be guilty of judging him because it's obvious and out in the open. Stating the obvious is not judging. Jesus was warning us to be cautious when it comes to judging the motives of someone's heart. There are situations in which it can be appear to be one way but in reality that not be the case. Suppose a pastor in a particular church is married and he was engaging in a conversation with a woman in the church and I happen to notice him speaking to the woman. I could easily draw the wrong conclusions if my my mind would allow me to. Just because the pastor is in a conversation with a woman doesn't mean they're in an adulterous affair together. That's one example. Sometimes people can view things and interpret them wrongly. That's what Jesus was warning us about. If it's not obvious, then we better not judge. The Bible says we will be judged for it. Whatever measures we mete out to someone, it will be meted out to us. You've heard the old saying, "What goes around, comes around." There are people whose lives are miserable and in turmoil for no other reason than the fact they've been guilty of judging others. It's dangerous to do so.
I Thessalonians 4:11 says that we should study to be quiet and mind our own business. There are a number of people in the church that are nothing more than busybodies and all they want to devote their time in doing is to judge other people and gossip. It will place you in a lot of trouble. I assume that's part of the reason why the Apostle Paul penned that verse. If we will study to be quiet and mind our own business, we won't be spending as much time in judging other people. Many people that are guilty of playing the role of judge in other people's lives don't have anything better to do themselves. They spend all their time trying to pry in other people's affairs and determine how they should live and respond to situations. They spend all their time worrying about the problems their brother has, but they don't take time to look themselves in the mirror through the Word of God. Jesus said that we're hypocritical for trying to remove the moat from our brother's eyes and fail to remove the beam from our own eye. (Matthew 7:3-5) Judging is serious in God's eyes. God is the only one that can discern the thoughts of the hearts of man. We don't have the ability to do such. That's where we'll be judged when we judge somebody.
Before one makes an assertion about somebody, they better be sure they know what they're saying. Otherwise, they're guilty of judging. As I've said earlier, if something is obvious for people to see, that's not judging. It's also not judging when we stand against sin because the Bible is the final authority. But when it comes to determining the motives of someone's heart or trying to add things together and drawing a certain conclusion; WE BETTER BEWARE! I don't want God to mete out judgment on me because I judged my brother and didn't have any proof to back what I said. In a court of law, if you make an accusation against someone, you must have proof to back your claim. If we can't prove what we believe about someone is true, we better keep our mouths shut. God will judge us for it.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Earthquake in Haiti
A strong earthquake with the magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale struck Tuesday near Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince, blocking roads, collapsing buildings, and leaving bodies scattered in the streets. The quake struck at 2153 GMT Tuesday, some 15 km. southwest of the capital Port-au-Prince at a depth of 10 km. Two aftershocks registering 5.9 and 5.5 on the Richter scale followed within the hour, with more tremblors later. A CNN producer who was born in Haiti said she had spoken to a family member and a friend in Haiti, both of whom described the bodies in the streets. Ian Rogers, a "Save the Children" worker in Haiti told CNN that all roads were blocked and the only vehicles capable of moving around were motorcycles. He said the roads were "slipping off the sides of mountains." "It's dark and people are trapped. People are in a great deal of distress," he told CNN. The quake triggered a small tsunami of about 12 cm., which washed across Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti. There was a tsunami warning in effect for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands but was cancelled in Haiti, the Bahamas, and the Dominican Republic.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) analyst Dale Grant told the Associated Press that Tuesday's tremblor is "the largest quake recorded in this area." The earthquake had a depth of five miles, and the USGS said damage and casualties could be substantial. Losses could wreak havoc on Haiti, which is the Western Hemisphere's poorest country, with 70% of the population living on less than $2 a day.
I want to focus on a couple of statements that CBN televangelist Pat Robertson and actor Danny Glover made in regards to the cause of Tuesday's earthquake. Pat Robertson stated that Haiti's "Pact to the Devil brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Officials have feared more than 100,000 people have die from the quake. Robertson also said that the Haitians "were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon II and whatever," He blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it." "And they swore a pact to the Devil." They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French. "You know the Haitian's revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they've been cursed by one thing after the other." I want to examine the first part of the statement when Robertson made the statement that "Haiti's pact with the Devil brought on the earthquake." Jesus said in Matthew 24 in speaking of the last days that earthquakes and diverse famines will take place (Matthew 24:7). Earthquakes are a sign of the last days and that Jesus is coming soon. I can't say for sure whether this specific earthquake in Haiti is a result of Haiti's pact with the Devil. I've been trying to dissect Robertson's statements and the question I had in my mind was when did voodoo first come to Haiti? I'm assuming Robertson was speaking of voodoo pervading the land. According to what I've read on History.com, Haiti is 80% Catholic, 16% Protestant, and 100% Voodoo. The Haitians combine both elements of Roman Catholicism and Voodoo together. Voodoo came with the African slaves that were imported to Haiti in the 17th century. Voodoo originated from Benin in West Africa. From what few sources I've read on some websites, I believe the Haitian slaves might have practiced it privately, but after the Haitians revolted from the French around 1804, Voodoo was practiced openly. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been thinking.
Haiti was once a prosperous country over 200 years ago. Since that time Haiti has been under despotic governments and has practiced Voodoo. That religion is Satanic because it involves itself with sacrifices and spirits. That's dangerous. There's no doubt that Haiti has been cursed because of that religion. As a result, Haiti is the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere today. Every time we've sent aid to Haiti, the government takes that money and pockets it. That place is under darkness today. Their only hope is the gospel.
Danny Glover made a spurious statement about the cause of Tuesday's earthquake and he attributed it to global warning. These frauds are blaming natural disasters on global warming. Here's what Glover said. "Haiti's earthquake was caused by global warming and climate change." "What happened in Haiti could happen anywhere in the Carribean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming." "When we see what we did at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?" I've never heard such preposterous statements from these frauds. Why doesn't Danny Glover take time to explain why we've had such a cold winter so far in the U.S. and why the summer of '09 was cooler than usual? The Copenhagen Summit had nothing to do with Haiti's earthquake. Earthquakes are the results of the fault lines shifting, cold or hot. I'm in more agreement with what Pat Robertson stated than Danny Glover. Danny Glover's statements are totally false.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) analyst Dale Grant told the Associated Press that Tuesday's tremblor is "the largest quake recorded in this area." The earthquake had a depth of five miles, and the USGS said damage and casualties could be substantial. Losses could wreak havoc on Haiti, which is the Western Hemisphere's poorest country, with 70% of the population living on less than $2 a day.
I want to focus on a couple of statements that CBN televangelist Pat Robertson and actor Danny Glover made in regards to the cause of Tuesday's earthquake. Pat Robertson stated that Haiti's "Pact to the Devil brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Officials have feared more than 100,000 people have die from the quake. Robertson also said that the Haitians "were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon II and whatever," He blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it." "And they swore a pact to the Devil." They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French. "You know the Haitian's revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they've been cursed by one thing after the other." I want to examine the first part of the statement when Robertson made the statement that "Haiti's pact with the Devil brought on the earthquake." Jesus said in Matthew 24 in speaking of the last days that earthquakes and diverse famines will take place (Matthew 24:7). Earthquakes are a sign of the last days and that Jesus is coming soon. I can't say for sure whether this specific earthquake in Haiti is a result of Haiti's pact with the Devil. I've been trying to dissect Robertson's statements and the question I had in my mind was when did voodoo first come to Haiti? I'm assuming Robertson was speaking of voodoo pervading the land. According to what I've read on History.com, Haiti is 80% Catholic, 16% Protestant, and 100% Voodoo. The Haitians combine both elements of Roman Catholicism and Voodoo together. Voodoo came with the African slaves that were imported to Haiti in the 17th century. Voodoo originated from Benin in West Africa. From what few sources I've read on some websites, I believe the Haitian slaves might have practiced it privately, but after the Haitians revolted from the French around 1804, Voodoo was practiced openly. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been thinking.
Haiti was once a prosperous country over 200 years ago. Since that time Haiti has been under despotic governments and has practiced Voodoo. That religion is Satanic because it involves itself with sacrifices and spirits. That's dangerous. There's no doubt that Haiti has been cursed because of that religion. As a result, Haiti is the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere today. Every time we've sent aid to Haiti, the government takes that money and pockets it. That place is under darkness today. Their only hope is the gospel.
Danny Glover made a spurious statement about the cause of Tuesday's earthquake and he attributed it to global warning. These frauds are blaming natural disasters on global warming. Here's what Glover said. "Haiti's earthquake was caused by global warming and climate change." "What happened in Haiti could happen anywhere in the Carribean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming." "When we see what we did at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?" I've never heard such preposterous statements from these frauds. Why doesn't Danny Glover take time to explain why we've had such a cold winter so far in the U.S. and why the summer of '09 was cooler than usual? The Copenhagen Summit had nothing to do with Haiti's earthquake. Earthquakes are the results of the fault lines shifting, cold or hot. I'm in more agreement with what Pat Robertson stated than Danny Glover. Danny Glover's statements are totally false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)