The Shirley Sherrod Controversy

(USA Today) Last week Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fired a black woman named Shirley Sherrod by jumping to the conclusion she made a racist remark.  Last Wednesday Vilsack apologized for ousting Sherrod and offered her a new job.  Vilsack claims that there wasn't any pressure from the White House to fire her.  He claimed he made that decision in haste.  Why?  Is this some sort of setup?  Andrew Breitbart on his website had posted a video clip of a portion of a speech Sherrod gave in March at a local NAACP event.  In the clip, she admitted that she failed to help a white farmer as much as she might have 24 years ago, when she was working for a farmers' aid group.  In the context of the speech, however, the anecdote was told to illustrate Sherrod's change of heart and how she realized that people of all races need help.  The farmer said this week that he was grateful to Sherrod for helping him keep his farm.  After viewing the clip, not the entire 45-inute speech, the NAACP also had called for her removal--a position the group quickly abandoned after the context of Sherrod's remarks became clear. 

The Sherrod conflagration had two familiar accelerants: a media culture in which half-truths can spread like a virus online, to be instantly and endlessly chewed over on cable TV; and a continued preoccupation with race that has smashed hopes that President Obama's election portended a post-racial society.  What is interesting, according to USA Today, what was remarkable this week was how they combined to create a climate in which two venerable institutions--the USDA and the NAACP--could rush so disastrously to judgment. 

In the clip posted on biggovernment.com, Sherrod described the first time a white farmer came to her for help.  The farmer was Roger Spooner.  It was in 1986 when she was working for a non-profit rural farm aid group, not the government.  She said the farmer came in acting "superior" to her and she debated how much help to give him.  Sherrod continued, "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people has lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land.  At first, she said, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do," only enough help keep his case moving through the aid system.  Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" to the idea that whites were struggling just as blacks were, and that helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor vs. those who have."  Sherrod claimed in interviews last week that she tried to explain that to Agriculture Department officials, to no avail.  She said she was traveling Monday when USDA Deputy Undersecretary of Rural Development Cheryl Cook called her and told her to pull over and submit her resignation on her BlackBerry because the White House wanted her out--an apparent contradiction of Vilsack's version.  "It hurts me that they didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care," Sherrod said.  "I'm not a racist. . . Anyone who knows me knows that I'm for fairness."  Spooner, said on USA Today last Wednesday that Sherrod did everything she could to help him when he was weeks ago from losing his farm at a government auction.  He claimed Sherrod took him to a black lawyer, who didn't help.  Then she drove him and his wife 40 miles north to see a white lawyer who did. 

Spooner stated that Sherrod told him that her father was killed by a white farmer in 1965.  This whole situation was blown out of proportion.  Why did Vilsack fire her?  Is to prove that the Obama administration isn't racist to whites but are fair to everyone?  This is foolish.  Vilsack didn't have any reason to fire her.  She shouldn't have been fire over the comments she made in that clip.  It was blown out of proportion.  Spooner admitted that she helped him.  She shouldn't have been crucified over the comment she made to the NAACP.  I can understand her feelings.  She made the point that it wasn't so much about race but about the "poor vs. those who have."  Also, her father was killed by a white farmer years ago and that can stir up feelings of resentment toward a race.  She even admitted she had a change of heart and recognize that people of all races needed help.  What was the point being made by airing this video clip?  She apologized and that should be sufficient.  What amazes me is the Obama administration fired her for her comments at an NAACP meeting but the Department of Justice had dropped an investigation into complaints that members of the New Black Panther Party threatened white voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008. What she said pales in comparison compared to what a couple of Black Panthers did at the polling place in Philadelphia.

The question that's on my mind is why did Breitbart air that clip?  What was his purpose?  Was it for purposes of race baiting?  He claimed the presentation of that 38-second clip is evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in condoning racism.  The statement that Sherrod made in March about helping a white farmer wasn't anything significant to make a case out of.  The Left uses race baiting whenever their agenda is opposed.  There are conservatives that like to play that game as well.  There was no purpose in Breitbart in airing that clip.  Sherrod wasn't being racist.  No doubt she may have struggled with her feelings about white people due to her father's murder, but she didn't display any signs of racism.  It's pitiful that somebody can make a statement that may somehow "hint" at racism and as a result they're terminated from their job.  Race baiting does nothing but polarize the American people and distracts them from the issues that are crucial in this nation.  President Obama and the Democratic Congress are imposing a socialist agenda down our throats.  They use race baiting to distract the American people.  Conservatives have no business playing that game.  Breitbart was out of line in airing that clip, as far as I'm concerned.

The Republican Party Needs to Offer Solutions; not Just Being the Party of No

Former Vermont governor and Democratic National Party Chairman Howard Dean and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich both made appearances on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.  They were speaking about the racial controversy over Shirley Sherrod last week.  Aside from last week's controversy, Dean stated that the Republican Party was a party of  "no" and devoid of ideas.  All the Republican Party does was say "no" to President Obama's agenda and doesn't offer solutions of their own, according to Dean.  Dean was making a comment about Newt Gingrich running for president.  He stated that even though he didn't agree with many of Newt's ideas, he think he would be a good candidate to run for president because he does offer ideas, unlike many already in the Republican Party.  One thing Dean's right about is that Newt does offer ideas.  Even though I don't feel Gingrich is the man we need for president, he is a very brilliant man and does offer some solutions.  Not too long ago he started the "American Solutions for Winning the Future" and holds some of those conferences across the country.

Over the last year and a half, the Republican Party has been known as the "party of no" because of their objection to President Obama's agenda concerning the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and the financial regulatory bill, to name a few.  There have been many that have said the Republicans aren't offering anything much in the way of solutions to solve our country's problems.  I remember reading an article posted on "World Net Daily" probably last year from columnist Star Parker who said the Republicans need to offer solutions and not just be known as the "party of no".  I concur with her wholeheartedly.  It's not difficult to say no when you disagree with something.  However, to offer a solution that would be an alternative to the current solutions being proposed is a totally different matter.  First of all, the Republicans should say "no" whenever President Obama or the Democratic Congress propose a bill that's unconstitutional.  The Republicans should be the opposition party whenever the Democrats try to push forward legislation that will lead our country into socialism.  I also believe vice-versa as well.  If the Republicans are the majority in Congress and they push forward bills that's terrible for the country, then the Democrats should oppose them.  Both parties should be a check on each other, especially when one party holds the majority in Congress.  That doesn't happen that much.  Both parties are working towards the same goals, except one party is pushing us toward socialism much quicker than the other one.  There must be opposition when the majority party is wrong.  We will have a dictatorial government when both parties are seemingly working together.  I'm not opposed to the Republicans nor the Democrats saying no if the party in power is wrong. 

I'm not criticizing the Republican Party for saying "no" to President Obama's socialist agenda.  What concerns me is there's no strong leader that's emerged for the Republicans that's taken a stand for right and wrong.  We don't have any Republicans running for national office that possess great speaking and leadership abilities that can comprise a document similar to the "Contract With America" to articulate what the Republicans stand for.  We need a candidate to emerge that can be a spokesman for the Republican Party.  We need Republicans that possess great leadership skills and is great in public speaking.  We need candidates to articulate their vision for America and what needs to be done to stop President Obama and the Democrats' socialist agenda.  We need Republican candidates that can offer solutions to the problems that Congress and the president have created for the last several decades.  The Republican candidates need to make much of the U.S. Constitution and stand for its principles.  They need to stand against the agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and offer their own vision and solutions to the political problems in America.  They need to understand that the private sector is the source of job growth and we need to renegotiate on these treaties that have resulted in the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs over the last sixteen years.  They need to recognize that America needs a strong manufacturing base if it's going to recover economically.  They also need to recognize that you don't impose tax increases during a recession.  We need to reduce taxes on businesses and eliminate foolish regulations that inhibit job creation.  We also need Republicans that will stand for the federal enforcement of our immigration laws and stop the tide of illegal immigrants into America.  We also need some Republicans that will have the backbone to try to repeal the recently passed healthcare bill, which is unconstitutional and will make it more difficult for small businesses to hire people because of the high costs that will be associated with the recently passed healthcare bill.

The most important thing we need in a candidate is we need for a candidate that understands American history and knows the foundation that built America.  They need to have a respect for the Judeo Christian foundation that built America.  The Bible says that any nation that forgets God will be turned into hell.  Yes, we need for the Republicans to say no when the opposition wants to destroy our national sovereignty and turn us into a socialist country.  The problem is we only hear bits and pieces from various Republican politicians on solutions to America's problems.  That gets lost in the wind.  We need a candidate that can speak for the Republican Party that can offer and articulate solutions that's necessary to turn America back to its roots.  Saying "no" alone won't accomplish the task.  We need genuine solutions to accompany those "no's". 

U.S. District Judge Blocks Critical Element of the Arizona Immigration Law

(USA Today) U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Bill Clinton appointee, on Wednesday placed on hold its most contentious element of the Arizona immigration law: a provision that requires police to check suspects' immigration status during routine stops if there is a reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.  The decision, which is a temporary action until the full legal dispute is aired, also blocks part of the law that ban illegal immigrants from seeking work and require documented immigrants to apply for or carry registration papers.  Bolton noted the state's concerns about illegal immigration but said enforcement of the provisions "would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy."  The much-anticipated ruling is a "victory" for those advocates that are opposed to the new Arizona immigration law that the Arizona state legislature passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed.  Governor Brewer promised an "expedited" appeal of the initial ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while opponents of the law said they would continue their fight to strike it down permanently.  Once the Appeals Court rules, the dispute could head to the U.S. Supreme Court.  "The fight is far from over," exclaimed Brewer.  The Obama Justice Department, which filed one of seven challenges to the law, had argued that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility.  "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement," said Justice spokeswoman Hannah August.    However, the federal government isn't fulfilling its role in securing the borders.

Bolton's ruling came as supporters and opponents of the law gathered for demonstrations in Phoenix and as officials in nine states--from Florida to South Dakota--had offered their support to Brewer.  "Today's ruling is a slap in the face to citizens who are trying ot exercise their sovereignty," said Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican candidate for governor. 

I knew somewhere along the way a federal judge was going to attack either the entire law itself or at least some provision of it.  The element that was blocked by Judge Bolton will hamper the efforts of Arizona police to crack down on illegal immigrants in the state.  The new law that was passed in April doesn't grant the police the right to stop someone and ask them for their immigration status unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they might be an illegal immigrant.  If they're pulled over for drunk driving, driving recklessly, or possess illegal drugs in their vehicle, it would be appropriate for the police to ask for proof of citizenship.  There's much drug smuggling that takes place across the border.  La Raza and those groups that are opposed to the new law try to make it a racial issue.  They are insinuating that it would be racial profiling if the police pulls someone over that may be Hispanic and ask the person that's pulled over proof of citizenship.  If a suspect has done something that's illegal, then it would be appropriate for police to pose that question.  It's not a racial issue.  However, opponents will utilize race baiting as a means of marginalizing their opponents.  Those that desire to see this law struck down will propagate the lie that it's a race issue.  It's ridiculous.

Governor Jan Brewer was right to sign this bill into law.  Arizona faces issues with drug smuggling across the border.  There have been Arizona residents that have been murdered by illegal aliens.  Arizona has the right to protect themselves.  The new law mirrors that of the federal law concerning immigration.  The federal government has deliberately abdicated their responsibility in protecting the borders and the integrity of our country.  It's a travesty.  This has been happening the last few decades.  The federal government has failed us regardless whether a Democrat or a Republican has occupied the Oval Office.  Enough is enough.  I applaud Jan Brewer on her courageous stand on trying to enforce this law and upholding the rights of Arizona citizens.

Wiki Leaks Publicizes Nearly 77,000 Reports on Afghanistan

(USA Today) On Monday there was an unauthorized release of more than 90,000 documents to WikiLeaks from six years of the war in Afghanistan.  The debate over America's longest war was fuled Monday by history's most massive leak of classified documents.  The Pentagon launched a damage assessment of the repercussions from the unauthorized publication on a website called WikiLeaks of nearly 77,000 reports tracking six years of the war in Afghanistan, a posting the White House said could imperil U.S. intelligence-gathering.  Pakistani officials denied allegations in the files of complicity between their military spy service and Taliban insurgents.  Critics of the conflict cited the huge data dump--with its portrait of U.S. forces straining to battle a resilient enemy while trying to bolster unreliable Afghan and Pakistani allies--as evidence of why the United States should extricate itself from a war they call unwinnable. 

The reports from January 2004 through December 2009, whose authenticity the administration neither confirmed nor disputed, chronicle the tedium of patrol and the terror of attack.  Included in these reports are accounts of top officials from Pakistan's military spy service attending insurgent strategy sessions where suicide attacks are planned, of Afghan police soliciting bribes from their fellow citizens at checkpoints, of deadly improvised bombs exploding as U.S. troops patrolled.  While the contents of the documents may not have been surprising, the quantity of the disclosure was unprecedented--a huge and instantaneous release made possible in the age of the Internet.  Unlike the explosive Pentagon Papers published in the New York Times in 1971, the files don't show top U.S. officials misleading the public about the war's course. The question this time is whether the harsh spotlight and the weight of detail will crystallize growing public unease about the war.  The documents were posted Sunday on WikiLeaks.org and detailed in reports in the New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, and the German magazine Der Spiegel, which were given embargoed access to the files several weeks ago. 

Supporters of the war expressed outrage over the leak.  The publication "is deeply troubling and a serious breach of national security," said Arizona Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  "The source of this harmful within the U.S. government should face the full penalties of the law." 

In the cyber world we're living in today, the era of privacy is vastly disappearing.  It doesn't make any difference whether those files are classified or not, there are ways for such websites as WikiLeaks to discover that information.  Did someone from from the Pentagon or the State Department divulge those documents to WikiLeaks?  I don't know.  Whomever did that (if that's the case) deserves to be prosecuted.  There are some things during wartime that don't need to be leaked to the general public for security reasons.  Consequently, those documents show that neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration had a plan for victory in Afghanistan.  Why are our troops still in Afghanistan?  Somebody's making money off our troops fighting in Afghanistan.  Anytime a war is taking place, there's a money trail that follows it.  With the war enduring nine years with no purpose, there's some group that's profiting from this war.  This whole situation is a joke. 

CEO Tony Hayward Resigning from BP

(USA Today) It is now official: BP CEO Tony Hayward has resigned.  Hayward was the face of BP's flailing efforts to contain the Gulf oil spill following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig on April 20, 2010.  He will resign in October.  He will be offered a job with the company's joint venture in Russia, TNK-BP, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.  BP executive Robert Dudley, an American who has been overseeing the spill recovery efforts, is most likely to be Hayward's successor.  Hayward had left the board meeting without speaking to the reporters.  BP owns half of TNK, which is Russia's third-largest oil company.  TNK was once run by Dudley. 

Hayward has been the CEO of BP since May 2007.  Hayward had received much scrutiny since the massive oil spill took place following the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20.  Hayward testified before Congress back in June and he made statements such as he wants his old life back and describing the spill as "relatively tiny".  He also went on a vacation sailing in his yacht following his testimony before Congress.  Hayward appeared to be unconcerned about the plight of the Americans who lived along the Gulf Coast.  The massive oil spill has caused considerable damage to marine life, the ecosystem, and the fishing economy along the Gulf Coast.  There were many fisherman who made their livelihood fishing for shrimp and other seafood along the Gulf Coast.  The fishing economy along the Gulf Coast could be disrupted for a long time.  What really disturbed me about this whole matter was the lack of seriousness I perceived to cap off the damaged well and clean up the mess.  Thankfully, the damaged oil well had a cap placed on it and as of right now, everything appears to be okay until the relief wells are completed.  Several million gallons of oil have been gushed into the ocean and it's a huge mess.  When the Deepwater Horizon exploded, crews from BP, along with certain agencies of the Federal government, should've been at the site immediately utilizing methods to contain and clean up the massive oil spill.  I felt that the Federal government wanted to allow this oil spill to continue for a certain length of time so as to give excuse for President Obama and Congress to pass a cap and trade bill.  The government thrives on a crisis.  White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made the statement last year that we can't allow a good crisis go to waste.  This whole situation is corrupt.  This will also give the government an excuse to nationalize the oil companies and control what takes place in terms of business.

I believe it's time for Tony Hayward to resign.  He's part of the problem.  Not only should Hayward resign, but the Chairman of BP should resign as well.  The company needs leadership that will be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to dealing with emergencies.  Safety needs to be emphasized when drilling for oil.  The events that took place prior to the explosion are inexcusable.  Drilling for oil is a dangerous occupation and all safeguards need to be in place to prevent a massive leak such as this one.  A huge oil spill can be disastrous if not stopped and contained quickly.  You don't allow spills such as this to get out of control.  The ramifications of this spill could be felt for years to come.

Howard Dean Labels Fox News Channel as Racist over the Handling of the Shirley Sherrod Controversy

YouTube - Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich on 'FNS'

(Politico) On Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace had as his guests on his show former Vermont governor and National Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Wallace was covering the controversy over Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack firing Shirley Sherrod over statements she made about helping out a white farmer 20+ years ago.  Howard Dean said that the Fox News handling of the Shirley Sherrod controversy "was absolutely racist."  Dean, who ran for president in 2004 and is a hero of liberals, asserted Fox News failed to vet video footage of a speech misleadingly excerpted to make it appear that Sherrod was boasting of using her post as an Agriculture Department official to discriminate against a white farmer. 

"I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist, and I don't think you're a racist," Dean said to Fox News host Chris Wallace.  "But Fox News did something that was absolutely racist.  They took a---they had an obligation to find out what was really in the clip.  They had been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panter "story" and this business and this Sotomayor and all this other stuff."  Here's where Wallace comes in:  Wallace pointed out to Dean that Fox News didn't air the excerpted Sherrod footage until after the Obama administration had fired her based on it.  It wasn't until after 8:00 p.m. EST when the clip was shown.  Bill O'Reilly was the first host to mention about the Shirley Sherrod controversy.  Dean shot back and said, "It was about to go on Glenn Beck, which is what the administration was afraid of."  Beck pointed out that he didn't cover that story when it first broke out that evening.  It was alleged that Sherrod was supposed to be on the Glenn Beck program on Fox News, however Beck said that she wasn't scheduled to be on his program.

Dean mildly rebuked the Obama administration, as well, saying, "We've got to stop being afraid of Glenn Beck and the racist fringe of the Republican Party.  But Fox News was not blameless during this.  You played it up."  Dean dismissed Wallace's point about timing, asserting, "you didn't do your job," and charging that Fox News has helped the Republican Party foster racism by focusing on allegations of reverse racism. 

"The tea party called out their racist fringe and I think the Republican Party's got to stop appealing to its racist fringe.  And Fox News is what did that.  You put that on," Dean said.  "Continuing to cater to this theme of minority racism and stressing comments like this--some of which are taken out of context--does not help the country knit itself together."

The truth is the Fox News website didn't post the Breitbart clip before the administration fired Sherrod.  Andrew Breitbart was the man responsible for airing this clip.  No evening program for Fox News starting covering this story until Bill O'Reilly covered it from the O'Reilly Factor, which was after 8:00 p.m. EST.  Howard Dean and all these liberals are engaged in race baiting to marginalize those that opposed President Obama's agenda.  They also want to discredit Fox News and make them out to be an extension of the Republican Party.  I do admit that was a foolish mistake for the Obama adminstration to fire Sherrod, considering that she had apologized at one time with the comments she made that at one time she wouldn't have been as likely to have helped white farmers.  It was foolish.  I don't doubt she's liberal in her politics, but let's not make a race issue out of what she said around 28 years ago.  I believe this whole scenario was a setup.  Ever since president Obama's been elected, there's been charges of racism in one form or the other.  President Obama claimed that he desires a post-racial presidency.  Who's he fooling?  The media and the phony civil rights leaders are trying to bring up allegations of racism any chance they can to polarize the American people.

The issue about the Black Panther Party's racism is a legitimate story.  That's not false racism.  The situation with Shirley Sherrod is false racism.  She shouldn't have been fired over the comments she made about helping a white farmer several years ago.  I don't understand what purpose Andrew Breitbart had in showing that clip. Is Breitbart trying to engage in race baiting?  The Left is guilty when it comes to race baiting.  We don't need conservatives engaging in that same tactic.  STOP THE RACE BAITING!  America is in flames right now and the last thing we need is false charges of racism.  There is racism from both sides of the aisle.  I believe the Left likes to spring charges of racism more than the other side does.  Regardless which side engages in race baiting the most, it needs to stop NOW!

Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself

(Galatians 5:13-16) "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.  For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh."  The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the church at Galatia is saying to the Galatians that if you want to know what the law is, it's summed up in one word:  That is to love thy neighbor.  There is no greater commandment than to love one another.  Jesus said in the Gospels the two greatest commandments are to love thy God with all thy heart and to love thy neighbor as thyself.  The biggest problem today's contemporary church faces is a lack of love amongst its members. That's why there's so much strife, contention, jealousy, gossip, and the list continues.  That's why it says in Galatians 5:16 to walk in the Spirit so we won't fulfill the lust of the flesh.  If we walk in the Spirit, we'll be more like Jesus.  The Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth.  If we fall in love with Jesus, everything else will fall into place.

In Matthew 22:35-40, one of the Pharisees, which was a lawyer was asking Jesus which is the greatest commandment.  Here's what Jesus tells them:  "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  The most important commandment is to love the Lord with all thy heart, mind and soul.  The second great commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself.  What does it mean to love thy neighbor as thyself?  We as humans naturally think of ourselves when it comes to our needs, desires, and desiring the best things of life.  We should equally desire that for our neighbor, if not more.  In other words, we should be thoughtful toward the needs and interest of our neighbor like we naturally would towards ourself.  People have a tendency to think about themselves but ignore the needs of others.  However, Jesus is saying we should love our neighbor as thyself.  In order for that to be possible, then we need to fall in love with Jesus.  How do we fall in love with Jesus.  We fall in love with Jesus through the new birth.  When we become born again, God c;hanges us and gives us a new nature.  As a result our desires are different.  We develop an interest to love and please the Lord.  We develop the desire to walk with the Lord and follow his commandments.  If we love Jesus, then we'll love other people.  That's why the first great commandment is to Love the Lord with all thy heart, mind, and soul.  There's no way we can love the Lord with all thy heart, mind, and soul and not love thy neighbor as thyself.  You can't love the Lord and hate the brethren or your neighbor.  I John bears that out. 

I John 3:14 points out that we know we have passed from death unto life if we love the brethren.  When God gives us a new nature, he'll put a love in our heart for the bretgreb.  It says if we don't love our brother, we abide in darkness.  That's very serious.  We struggle with the flesh as much as we do in life because we haven't followed the first two commandments just mentioned.  If we get a hold on those two commandments, then everything else will fall into place.  Love compels us to live for God.  When we love God, it will cause us to love the brethren and to love those that are without Christ.

I Corinthians chapter 13 is considered the love chapter.  In the King James the word used is "charity", which is the fullest expression of love.  It's benevolence that's extended toward other people.  This type of love results in giving.  I Corinthians 13:4-6 says, "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.  Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth"  Charity thinks about others.  It's not self-seeking.  If we as God's people would practice charity towards one another and towards the world, then we can make a mark for God in this world.  We can devote all our time handing out gospel tracts door to door witnessing to people about Jesus.  However, if they seek a lack of love towards them, then all our witnessing is in vain.  We can't reach the world for Christ without charity.  The reason why our churches are in the mess they're in is because we don't practice charity.  The brethren in this day fail to practice charity towards another, much less towards our neighbor.  Even I have to plead guilty to this.  One of the fruit of the Spirit is love.  If we don't possess love in our heart towards one another, we aren't walking in the Spirit.  The Bible says if we walk in the Spirit, then the fruit of the Spirit will be made manifest.  As a result, we'll love our neighbor like the Bible says.

The statement Jesus made towards the Pharisee in Matthew 22 is very true.  The two greatest commandments are to love the Lord thy God with all they heart, mind, and soul.  The other commandment like unto it is to love thy neighbor as thyself.   On both of these commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  If we are saved by the grace of God, he'll change us and put a love in our heart--first toward God and then the brethren and our neighbor.  If our love is as it should be, then we'll follow the commandments of God.  You don't have to spend time reminding someone to follow God's commandments when they're in love with him.  When you're in love, there's the natural desire to please and make happy.  When we love God, our desires will be to please God and make him happy.  We'll have a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ.  Most of the problems that we face with our flesh will be resolved if we will love the Lord like we should. 

The 9/12 Project

Tonight on the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News, Beck was featuring different guests that played a role in the 9/12 project.  The focus of this evening's blog is what is the 9/12 project?  When did it begin?  I'm seriously considering signing up to become a part of the 9/12 project.  We as citizens of the United States need to participate in the political process.  I'm thankful for the rise of the Tea Parties and other patriotic groups in America.  We have the right as citizens in the First Amendment for the freedom of speech. I'm thankful we can protest when our government is going in a direction that's contrary to the Judeo Christian values that our Founding Fathers built this nation upon.  Before we proceed any further I am going to mention about the upcoming Restoring Honor Rally at our nation's capital.  On August 28, 2010, Glenn Beck along with several of America's 9/12 project groups will be headed to the capital on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to honor the heroes that have made America great, such as Abraham Lincoln, for example.  It will be a time for Americans to make their voices heard at the nation's capital.  Call and make reservvations for this momentous event if you're able to attend.

What is the 9/12 project?  The 9/12 Project was created as a result of Glenn Beck's "We Surround Them" campaign, a series of segments and specials on Beck's television program in early 2009 which aimed to bring back government accountability.  It's a personal responsibility group that was officially launched on Friday March 13, 2009 on an episode of Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel.  A website was launched to promote  the group, the 912 Project.com, and several local 912 groups formed soon after in cities throughout the United States.  Beck stated the purpose of the project is "to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. . . we were not obsessed with red states, blue states or political parties.  We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created.  9/12 represents the date following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as nine principles and 12 values that Beck believes represent the principles and values shared by the Founding Fathers of the United States.  The 9/12 Project activists don't identify with any major political party, but rather chooses to focus on education, as a pro-limited government movement that favors honesty, hope, humility, hard work, personal responsibility, gratitude, etc.  Viewers of Beck's program were asked to incorporate these values first in their personal lives, then expect them of those they elected to office and holding the elected accountable.  At one point during the campaign, viewers were asked to submit pictures if they believed at least seven of the nine founding principles and felt they were alone in believing these principles.  Many of the pictures were used to form a collage that once lined one of the walls in Glenn Beck's Fox News Channel studio. 

Many liberal blogs and political pundits allege that the 9/12 Project incites hatred and divisiveness, is advocating for theocracy, and exploits the September 11 terrorist attacks for political gain.  During a phone call in late January 2009, Beck had a caller named Edd who expressed his frustration with the fact that he felt powerless in the face of an ever-powerful government that refused to listen to the will of the people.  Glenn told him that he would figure a way to prove to Ed that he isn't alone, and that "they", the powers that be, don't surround us, but rather, "We Surround Them!"  Following the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009, Glenn Beck introduced a campaign for the 9/12 project called "Re-found America".  The campaign aims to find 56 Re-Founders, who are Congressional politicians who agree to stand against corruption and abuses of power, and become whistle blowers, exposing any evidence of corruption.

I'm going to list the twelve values and nine principles of the 9/12 Project in closing.  These values and principles define the 9/12 Project. 

Nine Principles

1.  America is good. 
2.  I believe in God and He is the center of my life.
3.  I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4.  The family is sacred.  My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.  (God is the ultimate authority, not man) This principle is the only one I disagree with somewhat.
5.  If you break the law you pay the penalty.  Justice is blind and no one is above it. 
6.  I have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results. 
7.  I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to.  Government cannot force me to be charitable. 
8.  It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion. 
9.  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me. 

Twelve Values

 1. Honesty
 2.  Reverence
 3.  Hope
 4. Thrift
 5. Humility
 6. Charity
 7. Sincerity
 8. Moderation
 9. Hard Work
10. Courage
11.  Personal Responsibility
12. Gratitude (originally Friendship)

The Federal Government Can't Continually Dole out Jobless Benefits

(USA Today) The U.S. Senate cleared the way for 2.5 million out-of-work Americans to start receiving unemployment checks again, breaking a Republican roadblock minutes after swearing in a new senator.  Senators voted 60-40 Tuesday to overcome a Republican filibuster, setting the stage for a final vote today to restore benefits that began running out at the end of May.  Two Republican Senators--Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, broke with the GOP to support the jobless benefits extension.  One Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, broke ranks with the Democrats to support the GOP.  After a Republican minority blocked this critical aid to America's families three separate times, the Senate moved forward on restoring benefits to the 2.5 million Americans.  Democrats were able to secure the 60th vote when Carte Goodwin was sworn in to replace Robert Byrd (D-WV), who died June 28.  The legislation would extend benefits through November and retroactively cover those whose benefits had expired.  The House could pass the bill as early as today and send it to President Obama for his signature.  Republicans claimed they wanted to help the jobless, but only if the bill's $33.9 billion price tag could be offset with budget cuts elsewhere.  The extension would add $826 billion to the country's debt over the next 10 years, according to the Treasury Department figures analyzed by the liberal center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Since the economy tipped into a recession supposedly around December 2007, Congress has extended unemployment benefits for up to as long as 99 weeks.  There have been arguments that continuing unemployment benefits will discourage jobless workers from finding employment.  Unemployment benefits is becoming the new entitlement in America.  I recognize there are Americans that live in states that are economically depressed.  I understand there are those that need help due to the fact it would be difficult to secure a job in some portions of this country.  However, unemployment benefits is becoming a trend.  It's an unhealthy trend.  America can't continually dole out jobless benefits.  It's going to continually swell the national debt.  The problem is the federal government is hindering the private sector by passing such bills as the healthcare bill passed in March which would increase the costs of small businesses.  The policies of the federal government are stifling the private sector.  The long-term answer isn't to extend jobless benefits.  The federal government needs to leave the private sector alone for the most part and allow them to make their own business decisions.  There are numerous government regulations which have made it difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to hire new employees.  Job growth comes through the private sector alone, not the federal nor state government.  Government has no business micromanaging the private sector. 

I do happen to agree that extending jobless benefits will discourage some Americans for seeking employment, especially those that lack a work ethic.  Many of the problems that America's economy faces is due to intrusion of the federal government into the private sector.  Another problem as well is the federal government signed two trade agreements--NAFTA in 1994--CAFTA in 2005, which have resulted in numerous manufacturing jobs leaving America for Mexico, China, India, and other countries.  Our elected elite need to renege on these treaties that have placed American at a competitive disadvantage.  America can't flourish economically without a manufacturing base.  Instead of the both political parties fighting over whether to extend jobless benefits to the unemployed Americans, it's time the government stop making it impossible for the private sector to grow.  New job growth is the long-term solution--not unemployment benefits. 

Newt Gingrich Hints at Running for President

(On Deadline) Lately former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been dropping hints that he might run for President in 2012.  Gingrich stated that the groundwork will have to be laid to run for the presidency by either February or March.  Both Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel have seriously posed that questioned to Gingrich.  Gingrich has stated that he'll talk it over with his family and he'll know by February or March for sure whether or not he'll run for president. 

Joseph Farh, the editor of the "World Net Daily", posted an article on the website on May 24, 2010 entitled, "Newt is not the Answer."  Farah was making the point that when Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1995, he was the politician instead of the revolutionary.  That is correct.   The problem with Newt Gingrich isn't his intellect capability nor does he not have solutions to answer the political problems plaguing America.  Gingrich is a brilliant intellectual and he does well at the group which he founded recently entitled, "Solutions for Winning the Future."  He's held "solutions" conferences across the country.  I have no qualms with him there.  Consequently, he can't handle power.  He was great in articulating the case in 1994 about the changes that were needed in America.  He and a few other fellow Republicans wrote a document entitled, "Contract With America."  That helped enable the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. That year the Republicans swept both Houses of Congress.  That was the first time the Republicans gained control of the House since 1954. 

Following the Republican Revolution of 1994, Gingrich was a politician more interested in posing with the president on Air Force One that trying to derail President Clinton's agenda.  There was an instance in late 1995 when the Contract with America was stalled when certain portions of the Federal Government were shut down due to a disagreement between Congressional Republicans and President Clinton on the annual budget.  There were approved appropriations that were set to expire and they did because no budget agreement was worked out.  The Congressional Republicans were trying to slow the growth of government spending.  It was said that Gingrich took the hard line stance he did because he was snubbed by the President when he was on the airplane heading to former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's funeral.  That really did some damage to Gingrich's reputation along with some allegations concerning Gingrich over the college course that he taught and he took a tax-exempt status for it.  He served as Speaker for over four years and resigned in 1999. 

There's no qualms about the brilliance of Newt Gingrich.  Everything he's said about the Obama administration is correct.  He can offer some solutions on paper what needs to be accomplished in Congress and the White House.  However, Gingrich won't stand up to his principles when he's in power.  He didn't then and he certainly won't today.  We need someone who will stand up to those in opposition in Congress and stand for the Constitution.  Gingrich is an establishment Republican.  He will compromise and bend to whichever way the wind blows.  It wasn't too long ago that he made a commercial with current Speaker Nancy Pelosi over climate change, which was phony.  Last year he supported RINO Dede Scozzafava for New York's 23rd Congressional Seat over a more conservative third party candidate Doug Hoffman.  Gingrich has proven that he's not always steady.  Given the state our government is in today, we need a rock solid candidate that won't bend to political correctness and compromise when it comes to the Constitution.  I appreciate the work Newt currently does and he needs to continue doing that.  He's been in the political arena long enough.

Sowing to the Flesh/Sowing to the Spirit

(Galatians 6:7-9) "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."  One of the universal principles of the Bible that nobody will escape--saved or lost--is the principle of sowing and reaping.  Galatians warns us to not be deceived for God is not mocked.  Whatever we soweth, we shall also reap.  If we sow to our own flesh, then we'll reap corruption of our own flesh.  If we sow to the Spirit, we'll reap life everlasting.  Nobody will escape that principle.  Everyday in our lives we are sowing something.  What does it mean to sow? Sowing means to plant.  We are planting seeds of whatever sort they are.  One of these days we'll reap from what we've sown whether it be positive or negative; of life everlasting, or we'll reap corruption.  Allow me to cite an example.  Students in school have a responsibility to study their homework.  They are given assignments on a daily basis by their teachers.  The students are expected to read their material and to follow directions.  There will come a time when the students will be tested on the material they've been required to study.  If they diligently put in time and focus on their material, then the chances they will score a high grade on their test is very probable.  However, if they don't read or study their material, by the time they take their test, their chances of passing their test is nil.  What's the difference.  One will diligently prepare by sowing their time to studying their material.  The othe person is lazy and decides not to study.  As a result, the one who doesn't study and prepare scores a lower grade than the one that studies.  I've heard teachers say you won't get anything out of the class unless you're participating.  That same principle applies to the farmer.  If a farmer doesn't sow his crops earlier in the year and devote his time to pruning his crops during the spring and summer, he won't reap a harvest.  However, if the farmer plants his crops on time in additon to diligently caring for his crops, then the probability of him reaping a harvest is great provided it rains adequately during the spring and summer.

Parents who have young children have the responsibility to plant good seed when raising their children.  If they desire for their children to grow up to love and serve the Lord, then they must start training them as soon as they're born until they're an adult.  They must diligently teach their children the truths of God's word and discipline them.  Parents also must shield their children from worldly influences.  If parents fail to shield their children from worldly influences of entertainment, then there's a probability their children will stray and not serve the Lord.  Training children is very difficult and cumbersome.  Parents must sow good seeds in their children.  Many Christian parents today are very slothful in raising their children.  Many parents wonder when their children are grown where they went astray in raising their children.  It's because the seed they've sown was choked by the bad seeds that have been planted when they've allowed their children to participate in worldly things.  You can plant all the good seeds you so desire in your children.  However, if you allow your children to engage in amusements which counter the seeds you've been sowing, then everything you've taught them has been for naught.   You can't plant both good and bad seed and expect to reap a harvest.  For example, you can't teach your children the Bible, send them to church, and then in turn allow them to watch all the filth from Hollywood.  The filth from Hollywood will choke out all the good seed that you've sown in your children.

The first part of verse eight says that he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.  What are some of the things you can sow to the flesh?  Proverbs 6:14 says, "Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord."  There are many church members (both men and women) that are guilty of sowing discord.  God says he hates sowing discord among the brethren.  It causes division and strife in the church.  There are church members who use their tongue to ridicule the man of God in the church.  They run their mouth about anybody and everybody in the church.  The church is in an uproar due to discord.  God will judge those that sow discord.  I've heard of people dying terrible deaths as a result of raising their hand against the man of God.  Sowing discord destroys relationships.  It hinders the work of God.  Discord has torn homes asunder.  You'll reap destruction if you devote your time being a busybody sowing discord.  There are those that sow iniquity and mischief.  There are people whose feet are swift to mischief.  They are always looking for an opportunity to commit mischief.  There are those that involve themselves with substance abuse.  They start out smoking one joint and then before you know it, they're hooked.  Then the seed they've planted has grown into a tall plant which has its hooks into you.  It's something you no longer can control if you ever could.  Then before you know it, they'll go to jail due to substance abuse.  There are those that abuse themselves with alcohol.  What started out was one drink and before you know it they're drinking liquor on a daily basis.  They become drunkards.  The alcohol impairs their brain and mental faculties.  They are abusive when they're drunk.  They've beaten their wives, left their families, spent all their paycheck just to have another drink.  Drunkards have even been guilty of manslaughter when they kill someone due to drunken driving--which is against the law.  Their lives are shipwrecked.  There are other seeds you can sow to the flesh such as bitterness.  There can be a number of incidents that cause bitterness such as death of a child or a spouse, the loss of a job, the inability for a young married woman to become pregnant, or a prayer request that God hasn't answered.  It can be a number of things.  Bitterness can grow and become deeply rooted in your heart.  People who are bitter are mean, hateful, cantankerous, and they are backbiters.  They hate life.  Bitter people are some of the most miserable people on earth.  Sowing to the flesh will lead to corruption. 

What are some of the things you can sow to the Spirit?  Psalms 126:5 says that they that sow in tears shall reap in joy.  When the passage mentions tears, it's not referring to tears of madness or tears of not getting your way.  It's talking about those saints who weep for the lost or weep for those saints that are experiencing trials.  God says if we sow in tears we'll reap in joy. When you sow in tears, you are displaying that the things that matter to God matter to you.  You're humbling yourself in desperation desiring to see God move in an individual situation.  Christians are to go forth weeping and bearing precious seed.  We are to weep for the lost.  We are to weep over the eternal destination of their souls.  That kind of seed is precious to God.  It's precious because that's near to the heart of God.  God loves sinners and we're to have a burden for sinners.  We're to be moved with compassion over sinners.  Tears are a reflection of the burden we have for sinners.  Hosea 10:12 says we're to sow to ourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy, break up the fallow ground, for it's time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.  Christians are to sow seeds of faithfulness.  It's faithfulness to our families, the House of God, prayer, and our relationship with the Lord.  We're to sow seeds in righteousness.  We're to hide the Word of God in our hearts so we won't sin against Him.  We're also to allow the fruit of the Spirit to reign in our mortal lives.  If the fruit of the Spirit is manifested in our lives, then we'll sow seeds of righteouness, mercy, and tears.   If our heart is right with the Lord, then we'll sow unto the Spirit.  A Christian whose heart is right with God won't use their liberty to sow seeds to the flesh.

I've given examples of sowing to the flesh and sowing to the Spirit.  If you sow to the Spirit, you'll reap life everlasting.  If you sow to the flesh, then you'll of the flesh reap corruption.  What's suprising is the attitudes of church people about sin.  They think they can play around with sin and sow to the flesh and not reap destruction as a result.  It doesn't work that way.  You can't live to the flesh and expect to reap life everlasting.  The same principle goes with someone who's building a house.  If you don't exert some labor to build the house, then nothing will be accomplished.  If you expect to spiritually reap a harvest, then you must sow to the Spirit or you won't reap a harvest.  God doesn't contradict his word.  God's not mocked.  You won't escape the principle of sowing and reaping.

The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 1:16-20) (Revelation 2:1-29 & 3:1-22)

(Revelation 1:16-20) "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

(Revelation 2:1-29) "Unto the angel of the church at Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored , and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who tought Balak to cast a stumbling block before he children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fie, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(Revelation 3:1-22) "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found they works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of Heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Black Liberation Theology

YouTube - A Conversation with James Cone

What is black liberation theology?  Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America suddenly discovered Trinity United Church of Christ.  In order to understand what the thinking behind Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory preaching, a clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil rights movement.  The article that I'm deriving the information from comes from Anthony B. Bradley who wrote an article entitled, "The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology" on April 2, 2008. 

Black theology is a theology of black liberation.  It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity.  Black theology is a theology of "blackness' which liberates black people from white racism.  In the 1960's, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination in particularly urban areas.  The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression at the hands of "rich white people."  Black liberation theology believes capitalism is evil and has been used to enslave the black people.  The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression. 

James Cone is the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology.  He wrote a book in 1970 entitled, "A Black Theology of Liberation."  It develops black theology as a system.  In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation--"a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.  One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks.  For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation.  Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims "the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors).  In Cones context, writing in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.  American white theology, which Cone has never defined, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation.  Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society. 

Black liberation theology sees whites as the oppressors.  Cone believes in this theory that whites consider blacks animals, outside the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness.  Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power.  God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence.  In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective, but subjective.  Cone's theology teaches that "rich white people" are the oppressing class and are incapable of understanding oppression.  However, Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people."  While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are influenced by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of black "victims".

I will continue this thought in another post explaining that Black Liberation Theology is the same as Marxist victimology.

The New Black Panther Party

Last week Fox news commentator Glenn Beck and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly covered the story of the incident at a Philadelphia polling place where the New Black Panther Party members were standing outside the polling place. New Black panther Party member King Samir Shabazz was brandishing a billy club. Voters were complaining about feeling intimidated by Shabazz holding that nightstick at the polling place. Police eventually escorted Shabazz away from the polling place. On January 7, 2009, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the incident at the polling place in Philadelphia. The suit accused members King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of being outside a polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Shabazz repeated brandished a police-style baton weapon. The suit sought an injunction preventing further violations of the Voting Rights Act. After the defendants didn't appear for court, a default judgment was entered. On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors order the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department didn't want to protect the civil rights of white people.

What is this New Black Panther Party? The formal name for this party is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. It's just now called The New Black Panther Party. It's a U.S.-based organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. It's not an official successor to the original Black Panther Party in the 60's and 70's. Members of the original Black Panther Party such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale contend this new party is illegitimate. They have blatantly stated that there is "no new Black Panther Party." The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have branded this party as a hate group. The New Black Panther Party attracted many breakaway members of the Nation of Islam when former Nation of Islam minister Khalid Abdul Muhammad became the national chairman of the group from the late 1990's until his death in 2001. The current chairman of the NBBP is led by Malik Zulu Shabazz. Khalid Abdul Muhammad is considered the de facto father of their movement.

What are the origins of the New Black Panther Party? In 1987 an alderman in Milwaukee threatened to disrupt white events throughout the city unless more jobs were created for black people. A "state of the inner city" press conference in 1990 at city hall brought this situation to a head as the alderman, Michael McGee, announced the created of the Black Panther Militia, which inspired Aaron Michaels, a community activist and radio producer, to establish the New Black Panther Party. Michaels rose to widespread attention for the first time when he called on blacks to use shotguns and rifles to protest against the chairman of a school board who had been taped calling black students, "little niggers." In 1998 Khalid Abdul Muhammad brought the organization into the national spotlight when he led the group to intervene in response to the murder of James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, Texas. He also made the NBPP well-known for their school board disruptions and public appearances.

The New Black Panther Party self-identifies itself with the original Black Panther Pary and claims to uphold its legacy. However, the new party is seen by the general public and the original members of the old party as illegitimate. The party sees capitalism as the fundamental problem with the world and "revolution" as the solution. However, the new party doesn't draw its influences from Marxism and Maoism as the original party did. In a careful, roundabout form of ethnic nationalism, they say Karl Marx based his ideology and teachings on indigenous African cultures. This group is starkly anti-white and they are anti-Semitic. Some of the ideology of the NBPP are black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, black supremacy, and they are anti-capitalists, to name a few. I'm going to start posting some philosophical beliefs of the NBPP. This will give the blog readers an idea some of the beliefs of groups such as the NBPP. I'm going to start introducing tomorrow one of the major philosophical beliefs of black separatists, and that is liberation theology. You don't want to miss this.

There have been some recent controversies concerning the New Black Panther Party. Following the September 11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., the party promoted the 9/11 conspiracy theory that 4000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were warned ahead of time by Israel and called in sick the day of the attack. It was a theory propounded by Amiri Baraka in his poem, "Somebody Blew Up America." The party also participated in reparations for blacks marches on Washington, D.C. in 2002 that drew hundreds of African-Americans. In 2006 the New Black Panthers were in the spotlight again when they interposed themselves in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, organizing marches outside of Duke University and made numerous media appearances where they demanded the jury organized by Disrict Attorney Mike Nifong convict the accused lacrosse players. Of course, the Duke players were eventually exonerated. Malik Zulu Shabazz appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and stated that he wouldn't apologize for his actions in the leadup to the Duke University lacrosse rape scandal. He stated that he believed the rich, white families of Duke had placed political pressure on the investigation and forced the charges to be dropped. When he was questioned by guest host Michelle Malkin, he labeled her a "political prostitue" and "mouthpiece for that racist Bill O'Reilly." Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March" , a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers calling for the extermination of whites in South Africa. Former Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party member, King Samir Shabazz, had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, advocating racial separation and making incendiary racial statements while promoting anti-police messages in the media and on the streets of Philadelphia.

The New Black Panther Party is very racist indeed. I don't care whether it's white against black, black against white, or any race, it's all racist. Racism needs to be condemned. There's no excuse for it. God created the races. Any type of organization that promotes hate of another race should be condemned and exposed regardless whether it's this party or the Ku Klux Klan, or any other racist organization. This is an abomination.

NAACP Resolution Condemns Racism in Tea Party

(Yahoo) Leaders of the country's largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists on Tuesday of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement. The resolution was adopted during the annual convention in Kansas City of the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People spookesman Chris Fleming said. Local Tea Party organizers disputed claims of racism and called on the NAACP to withdraw the resolution. The resolution called for the NAACP to "educate its membership and the community that this is not just about higher taxes and limited government. It suggested that something could evolve and become more dangerous for that small percentage of people that really think our country has been taken away from them." "We felt the time had come to stand up and say, "It's time for the Tea Party to be responsible members of democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members." That's what NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said ahead of the debate. Tea Party activist Alex Poulter, who co-founded a Kansas City-area group called Political Chips, disputed the allegations. He said the movement is made up of a "diverse group of folks who are upset with what is going on with this country."

Almost a couple of years ago one of the members of the New Black Panther Party was outside a polling place on election day in November 2008. He was outside brandishing a billy club. Many voters that day had felt intimidated by his presence. He was finally escorted out by the police. The New Black Panther Party, not to be confused with the original Black Panther Party of the late 60's and early 70's, is labeled as a hate group by the Anti-defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Samir Shabazz made racist comments and called white people crackers. He went even further than that. He said that they need to go out and kill some white crackers and their babies. That kind of statement can incite violence. However, we don't hear anything from the NAACP condemning racism from this hate group. Why? Because the New Black Panther Party isn't a threat to the NAACP's liberal agenda. The NAACP claims they are the champion of civil rights and they supposedly are opposed to any form of racism and bigotry. Whose racism? Is it only racism where a white says something derogatory about a black person? Or is it supposedly anything that could give a hint that a white is being racist toward a black person? I know the New Black Panthers are just a minority in number and probably an anomaly, but their comments are racist. Shabazz was very profound in his racist comments. Racism is racism.

There's been allegations that there are some in the Tea Party movement that are racists. There was an incident supposedly cited where a Tea Party member shouted racial epithets at a Georgia Congressman. Whether that member yelled racial slurs at the Georgia Congressman, I don't know. However, any movement as diverse as the Tea Party movement is bound to have some members that are racists. That doesn't define the Tea Party movement as a whole. There are all kinds of organizations that are opposed to racism that have individual members that are racist. I would venture to say that the NAACP probably has racists in its organization. I wouldn't be surprised there are probably some NAACP members that are racist towards whites or other races. Would it be fair for someone to characterize the NAACP as a racist organization because there could be some individual members in its organization that are racist? No it wouldn't. Racism is a condition of the heart. Racism is a result of sin in man's heart. One of the sins in the Bible that God despises is pride. Racism is the result of pride in man's heart toward another race. There are people that believe that some races are inferior and they believe that some races are more superior than others. That's the result of pride. As wrong as that may be, that's how man is. I'm not condoning that. It's not realistic to think we're going to live in a world where racism will be totally eradicated. As long as man is sinful, there will be racism. And racism isn't just limited to white against black. There are all sorts of ethnic groups in this world that are racist towards one another.

I'm a believer in condemning overt racism (or racism that's obvious), in any organization, especially if it's an organization or business that's open to the public. It's not right to define a group by just a few individuals that are racist. There are always going to be racists in all walks of life. There are doctors that are racist, more than likely. Does that mean we should brand all doctors as racist? Of course not. From what I've witnessed thus far, I don't believe the Tea Party movement is racist. No doubt there are some individuals that probably are racist that are a part of the movement. However, the that doesn't mean the Tea Party as a whole is racist. It happens to be that the goals and views the Tea Party promotes runs counter to the views of the NAACP. That's why the NAACP wants to brand the Tea Party as racist.

Homeschooling is a Liberty that Requires Diligence, Dedication, and Responsibility (Part 2)

Before I proceed any further I need to state from the outset that I've never been homeschooled in my life nor have I ever homeschooled children. I'm not even an expert on homeschooling. My goal isn't to establish myself as an expert. Like anyone else, I make observations. I engage in critical thinking. I'm a concerned citizen that cares about education. I've known a number of people that have homeschooled. Some have been very successful in that endeavor, some haven't. I've spoken at length with people over the years that have homeschooled. I've asked questions on their method of homeschooling and the types of curriculum they used. The purpose of this post is not to say whether or not homeschooling is for those parents that may be in the process of considering that for their children. That's a decision that Mom and Dad have to decide for themselves. Starting a couple of weeks ago, I was writing posts from chapter 5 in the book of Galatians that dealt with the word "liberty." This past weekend I was thinking about homeschooling and the fact that it's one of the liberties that American parents have in this country. It's an option that they can choose. It's not the only option. I will say up front some parents aren't fit to homeschool. Homeschooling is very taxing. It's demanding. It requires a lot of work. It's not recreational. It's not teaching a Sunday school lesson. The future of your children are hanging in the balance. You don't want to attempt to homeschool if you and your husband aren't willing to dedicate yourselves to it. Both have to agree that's the best option for their children. Once they agree upon that, then they need to utilize their time and resources to make homeschooling successful. Now I'm going to conclude this post and go straight to the heart of the matter.

For those parents that are leaning towards homeschooling their children, the question that needs to be asked is what is your motivation for leaning towards homeschooling? I believe that's very important. Whatever lies behind your motivation to homeschool could have an impact upon the success of it. In some religious circles, including some fundamental Independent Baptists, homeschooling has become a fad in some of those churches. I know because I attend an Independent Baptist church. At our church we have a Christian school so most of the families send their children to the Christian school. The mentality of the circle of Independent Baptists I know of is "There's no way we're going to send our children to a godless public school system, so therefore, the only choice we have is to homeschool." In some of these churches, it's a socially acceptable thing for families to homeschool. It's the expected thing. That's not necessarily a good thing. Many times whenever a person does something because it's a socially acceptable practice, there's a tendency to be complacent and for them not to invest their time and resources to make certain that what you're attempting to accomplish is successful. That's what I've observed with some of the homeschooling that's taken place in some Independent Baptist churches. Many of those parents don't follow a rigid schedule with their children. As a result, their children are deficient in certain subjects. Also, there tends to be disciplinary problems that arise when there's not a rigid schedule that's required of the student. A student doesn't possess a reality about life and therefore will have a difficult time when it comes to applying for a job when they're adults. They think life is laid back and you can do whatever you desire at your own time, which is not how life works. I'm not insinuating all parents in Independent Baptist churches where homeschooling is a fad is slothful with it. But many parents are slothful when it comes to educating their children when homeschooling is socially acceptable in those churches. I've witnessed that.

Most of the success stories about homeschooling you read about in some magazines are represented in homes where homeschooling is not the socially acceptable thing in their church. I've known of families that homeschool and they were the only family in their church that homeschooled. The rest of the children in their church attended public schools. In those particular situations, the parents that chose to homeschool did so by conviction. That's very important. If both parents choose to homeschool due to a conviction they have that they can provide a more quality education to their child than the public school system, then chances are they're more likely to be succesful with it. When you make a choice out of conviction, you'll live by that conviction. Everything you do is motivated because you believe that's best for your child. When your motivation is based on a pure conviction, you're not concerned whether or not all the other families in your church are homeschooling. You are doing what you believe is best for your child. Therefore, the tendency to be slothful is greatly minimized. You're homeschooling because it's a heartfelt conviction; not because it socially acceptable.

Homeschooling is one of the great liberties parents have when it comes to educating their children. Nevertheless, there's a price to be paid for homeschooling. Homeschooling is very demanding, taxing, and time-consuming. Those parents that are educating their children are preparing them for the future. They are trying to prepare them not only to serve God but also to find a vocation which matches their talents to make a living. Those parents that make a choice to homeschool their children have to prepare long before they actually begin the process. They, first of all have to determine what kind of curriculum to teach their children. There are various kinds. In Christian education, some of the different types of curriculum are Pace, Abeka, and Bob Jones, to name a few. The degree of difficulty in some of them is different. Parents have to determine what type of curriculum is best for their children. They have to know what their educational needs are. Then once the parents begin educating their children, they need to establish a strict schedule with them every day. The children need to head to bed at a decent hour, arise at an early hour, then start homeschool the same time every morning. Maintaining a schedule is very crucial. It helps children learn about the importance of time.

Parents have to be diligent with homeschooling. I've known of mothers who would stay up late at night preparing lesson plans for her children the next day. Parents have to stay on top of what their children are doing. They need to be up-to-date with everything. Parents have to periodically evaluate their children through testing to determine their progress. Parents need to be able to teach their children hard core subjects in high school such as science and math. Even though I know of homeschooling mothers that don't possess a teaching degree, I believe it's a benefit if a mother or father obtains a teaching degree, for no other reason in case a state makes it mandatory that homeschooling parents obtain a teaching degreee. If homeschooling is administered properly, parents will be very busy. Homeschooling is very time consuming if parents are serious about their responsibilities in educating their children. Your children are the future of our country. Their education is in your hands. Slothfulness in homeschooling can impair them and make it very difficult for them when the time comes they graduate and have to apply for a job. Homeschooling is no Sunday school class. It requires hours of work, review, lesson plans, and preparation. Homeschooling requires a team effort. It requires dedication from the mother, father, and the children. Parents have to see to it their children are learning and mastering the subjects they are being taught.

In closing, I need to say it's important also that children who are homeschooled have proper social skills. Requiring your children to give speeches is very important. It's important they know how to speak before the public. They may be required to do that someday in their adult life. They need to know correct grammar and basic public speaking skills. Children also need to communicate with other people outside the four walls of your home. As true as it is you don't want your children to spend their time with people that will influence them negatively doesn't mean that they don't need people to spend time with. They need to know how to communicate with people across a broad spectrum. They need to know how to communicate with people of all age groups. It's good that they know how to socialize with people in their local church and other places. Taking your children on field trips can be helpful in that area. Social skills are important. Your children need friends to have a relationship with. A lack of social skills could impact them negatively when they become adults. The reason why more parents don't homeschool is because they know homeschooling is demanding and it's a difficult job. It's troubling when parents in religious circles are lackadaiscal when it comes to educating their children at home. You don't homeschool your children because it's the socially acceptable thing at your church. If that's the attitude of the parents, then there's a great likelihood they will be slothful with it. That's reprehensible. That's one God-given liberty parents can't afford to abuse. The government is looking for an excuse to clamp down on parents that educate their children at home. When parents are slothful and don't invest their time and resources into homeschooling, they are in essence giving the government an excuse to outlaw homeschooling. I'm not for the government clamping down on parent's liberty to homeschool. However, what's going to happen in a couple of decades if the best and brightest we send out into the work force can't write or spell their name? To me homeschooling is sacred. When we abuse liberty, when we are irresponsible with liberty, we will lose it. One of these days parents will lose their right to homeschool simply because of the slothfulness of some parents that don't understood the necessity that their child receive a proper education. We must not take our liberties for granted.

Homeschooling is a Liberty that Requires Diligence, Dedication, and Responsibility (Part 1)

(Galatians 5:13) "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." A couple of weeks ago I used this verse to write a few posts about liberty. First of all, liberty must be accompanied by responsibility. Liberty will be of no value if we're careless with it. We'll wind up losing it if we're irresponsible with that freedom. Many people in our society today complain about the state our political system is in. The reason for that is several generations ago Americans became apathetic about the political system and they didn't involve themselves in the voting process like they should. Another problem was many people voted for a politician on the basis of what they could give them instead of passing laws that are good for the country as a whole. You have to be vigilant when it comes to liberty. Liberty can be lost. We must be vigilant to maintain that liberty. In order for liberty to endure, we must work to preserve it. We cannot forget God and the founding principles of our nation. People from generations past knew liberty wasn't an excuse for license. They were grateful and cautious with their liberty. They were responsible with their liberty. Neighbors helped each other. They didn't depend upon the government to take care of them. Today people want to use liberty as a license for pleasure, sin, etc. We must be vigilant with our liberties.

Today I want to spend a little time mentioning about the liberty of homeschooling. Homeschooling is a liberty or an option parents have when it comes to educating their children. I thought about this topic yesterday and I felt it would fit well concerning the liberty posts that's been written the last couple of weeks. I don't dispute the fact that the Bible tells parents to train up their child in the way they should go. Education is the first responsibility of the parents. Parents have the responsibility in choosing the type of education they desire to use upon their children whether it be the public school, private or charter schools, Christian, parochial, or homeschooling. Homeschooling, of course, is not a new phenemon. Homeschooling was the first type of education that was used by parents during the first colonial settlement in Jamestown. It was not a matter of choice. Homeschooling at that time was a necessity. Of course, the materials that parents had to educate their children were meager but they used what they had to educate their children with. The Bible was the only book many families had at their home at that time, so it became the textbook used by the children. Even when the children were finished with their lessons for the day, they had other chores to accomplish such as farming, milking the cows, splitting wood, and the list continues. Eventually that changed when America grew as a nation and other educational options became available. However, for the sake of time, I'm not going to chronicle the progression of America's educational system.

The recent homeschooling movement as we know it today probably began around 35 years ago. The reasons for the growth of the modern day homeschooling movement vary. Some of it is due to the negative influences of the public school system, some of it is for religious reasons, and other reasons are some families feel they can offer their children a better education that what the public school can offer. As said, before, homeschooling is a liberty that parents have. It's a liberty that's not to be taken for granted. It's a liberty that requires dedication, responsibility, and diligence. I'll speak on those particular aspects tomorrow. There have been many successes in the homeschooling movement. Many of the children that have been homeschooled have excelled beyond imagination and were accepted into some of America's elite universities. Some have won the spelling bee and the national geography quiz. There have been numerous examples where parents were successful in educating their children at home. However, just as there are successes to the homeschooling movement, there are also problems with it as well. With liberty you have a choice: use it wisely and accomplish something with it or waste and abuse it. The latter is what some parents have done with homeschooling.

Last year somebody through email mentioned to me that they were opposed to homeschooling. The reasons were varied but that individual cited two reasons why they opposed it. One reason for their opposition was there parents didn't set them on a strict schedule. The second reason was their children lacked social skills. I shared both of those sentiments with the individual that stated that to me. I stated that I approve of homeschooling as long as it's administered properly. That's the key: Administered properly. Homeschooling without a strict schedule or any type of structure is doomed to failure. Parents can't homeschool properly if they don't organize a schedule and enforce it upon their children. Children should be made to go to bed at a decent hour every night, they should wake up early every morning, dress themselves in proper attire, and start school at a certain hour. Failure to do so will inhibit their children in the future. There will come a day when they graduate they'll have to arise at a certain hour to head to work every morning. The time for children to learn that concept is when they are in school. Homeschooling shouldn't be treated differently because it's not in a public school facility. Homeschool students should be placed on a strict schedule or it will be destined for failure.

I have never been homeschooled in my life nor do I have children. I've never been involved in the process of homeschooling children. However, there are numerous families that I know of that have homeschooled and their success was due to maintaining a strict schedule as well as knowing how to teach the material. I've also seen some families who were a failure at homeschooling and the reason was partially because of the lack of a set schedule. Another problem that arises as well is some parents, especially when their children are in high school, may have some difficulty in teaching their children some of the hard core subjects in Algebra and the hard sciences. It's important for those parents that are involved in homeschooling their children to know the material that they teach their children. Tomorrow I'll conclude this post.