(USA Today) Prominent megachurch pastor Eddie Long vowed Sunday to fight accusations that he had sex with four church members. However, he stopped short of denying the allegations, saying he was following his lawyer's advice to avoid commenting directly on the charges. "I want you to know that I am not a perfect man, but this thing I intend to fight," Long declared to a supportive congregation in a televised service at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, Georgia. Long pledged in three separate events Sunday to fight the charges--speaking twice in church services and once in a statement to reporters. The first service and his statement were broadcast on television. The second service was shown on the church's website. Long avoided speaking about the charges. "I want this to be dealt with in a court of justice, not by public opinion," he said. He gave no indication whatsoever that he planned to step down and promised to be back in the pulpit next week.
Church members greeted Long with standing ovations Sunday. Many voiced their support after their services. Church member Anne Wilkerson stated, "It was amazing. It just brought chills over my body. He made it clear that this thing is not him." Long is one of the nation's best-known black ministers, heading a 25,000-member church that includes politicians, entertainers, and pro athletes. He led a march against gay marriage in 2004 and his church counsels gay men and lesbians to become heterosexual. This past year, Long opened a new $50 million-cathedral, including a 10,000-seat sanctuary, on a 240-acre campus. On Sunday, Long was preceded to the pulpit by Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. It was his first public appearance since the four men filed lawsuits last week in state court accusing him of coercing them into sex when they were 17 and 18 years old. The men, now 20 and 23, say Long seduced them with trips, money, cars, and other gifts.
Long doesn't face criminal charges because the men say they were older than 16--which was the age of consent in Georgia--when the sexual acts allegedly occurred. Long is 57 years old and married with four children.
The question that's on my mind and undoubtedbly many other peoples' minds are "Was he guilty of the charges?" I was disturbed over the answer he gave. The issue of him not being a perfect man is preposterous. Is he guilty or not? We're not wondering whether he's a perfect man. Nobody's perfect. It makes me believe that since he fell short of denying the allegations makes me think he's guilty of having sex with them. If that's the case, then he's a sodomite. Is this the state our churches are in today? A so-called preacher like that shouldn't be behind the pulpit preaching. As far as I'm concerned, he's disqualified himself from preaching. I Timothy chapter 3 gives the qualifications of a bishop. One qualification is he must rule his home well (I Timothy 3:5). Messing around with teenage boys isn't ruling his home well. That's perversion! It's ridiculous that his congregation can be supportive of him with those kind of charges. If he wasn't guilty I believe he would've said so. I'm not trying to set myself up as a judge, but he should've answered that question. If he's guilty he should immediately step down from the pulpit. He's permanently disqualified himself from preaching if the allegations are true. The truth of the matter is he isn't concerned about what the Bible says. Instead, he's interested in maintaining his position in the "church".
I can remember back in 1987 when Jim Bakker resigned from PTL in the midst of the revelation of the sexual tryst he had with Jessica Hahn around 1980. I can remember Bakker's supporters such as Richard Dortch and Howard and Vestel Goodman sidestepping the issue and using "forgiveness" as an issue that it's okay for them to eventually return to the ministry. I believe in forgiveness. The Bible says we should forgive fallen preachers. Forgiveness is one issue--restoration is another. Once a preacher has disgraced his testimony by engaging in sexual sin, he's disqualified himself from preaching forever. One of the qualifications of a preacher is that he have a good report from the outside. If he doesn't have a good report from those that are without, he can't preach. Who can have confidence in a preacher if he can't possess his vessel?
I don't care how great of an orator a particular preacher may be. If he's committed sexual sin, he's disqualified regardless of the knowledge he has of the Bible. Just because he can preach a great message doesn't qualify him to retain his position in the ministry. Anyone that has a knowledge of the Bible can put a few points together and preach a message. But that doesn't qualify them to preach. I'm not a preacher nor am I called to preach. However, I could take some points from the Bible and probably preach a sermon myself. The problem is I'm not called to preach. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to mount the pulpit and preach when God hasn't placed that calling on my life. There are certain Biblical qualifications a preacher must abide by if he's going to preach. That's not popular in this hour but it's still the truth. Nothing's going to change that. If a pastor or an evangelist violate the qualifications set aside in I Timothy 3, he is to step down from the pulpit and look for a vocation to make a living.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Amazing Grace
YouTube - Inspirations- Amazing Grace
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound,
That Saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.
Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils, and snares
I have already come;
Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we first begun
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound,
That Saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.
Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils, and snares
I have already come;
Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we first begun
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Story Behind Amazing Grace
YouTube - Restoring Honor Rally: Amazing Grace (with bagpipes)
(101 Hymn Stories) One of the most famous hymns in American churches is "Amazing Grace". There's not a song that's probably more eloquently written as that song. The man that penned that song was John Newton. Newton was born in 1725 and died in 1807. Newton's mother, a Godly woman, died when he was seven years of age. When his father remarried and after several years of formal education away from home; John left school and joined his father's ship, at the age of eleven, to begin life as a seaman. His early years were one continuous round of rebellion and debauchery. After serving on several ships as well as working for a period of time on the islands and mainland of the West African coast collecting slaves for sale to vising traders. Newton eventually became a captain of his own slave ship. He was involved with the selling and transportation of black slaves to the plantations in the West Indies and America.
On March 10, 1748, while returning to England from Africa during a particular stormy voyage when it appeared that all would be lost, Newton began reading Thomas a Kempis's book "Imitation of Christ." Kempis was a Dutch monk who belonged to an order called the Brethren of Common Life. The message of the book and the frightening experience at sea were used by God to sow the seeds of Newton's eventual conversion and personal acceptance of Christ as his Savior. For the next several years he continued to work as a slave ship captain, trying to justify his work by seeking to improve conditions as much as possible, even holding public worship services for hardened crew of thirty each Sunday. Eventually, following his conversion, he was convicted of the inhuman aspects of slavery and became a strong and effective crusader against slavery. Newton returned to England, married his youthful sweetheart, Mary Catlett, and became a clerk at the Port of Liverpool for the next nine years. During this time he felt the call to preach the gospel and then began to study diligently for the ministry. He was greatly aided and influenced by Evangelist George Whitefield as well as the Wesley brothers.
Even after his call to preach, he decided to stay within the established Anglican Church rather than join forces with these Dissenters. At the age of 39, John Newton was ordained by the Anglican Church and began his first pastorate at the little village of Olney, near Cambridge, England. His work for the next fifteen years (1764-1779) was a most fruitful and influential ministry. Especially effective was the use of the story of his early life and conversion experience, which he often told. In addition to preaching for the stated services in his own church, Newton would hold services regularly in any large building he could secure in the surrounding area. This was an unheard of practice for an Anglican clergyman of that day. Wherever he preached, large crowds gathered to hear the "Old Converted Sea Captain." Another of Newton's extremist practices at the Olney Church was the singing of hymns that expressed the simple, heartfelt faith of his preaching rather than the staid singing of the Psalms from the "Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter", which was practiced in other Anglican churches. When Newton couldn't find enough available hymns for this purpose, he began writing his own. He enlisted the aid of his friend and neighbor, William Cowper, to assist him in this effort. Cowper was a well-known writer of classic literature of this period. In 1779 their combined efforts produced the famous "Olney Hymns' hymnal, one of the most important single contributions made to the field of evangelical hymnody.
The most representative expression of John Newton's life is his appealing hymn, "Amazing Grace." The hymn, originally consisted of six stanzas and entitled, "Faith's Review and Expectation," was based on I Chronicles 17:16, 17. "Amazing Grace" was also based upon many New Testament verses as well. Until the time of his death at age 82, John Newton never ceased to marvel at God's mercy and grace that had some dramatically changed his life. This was the dominant theme of his preaching and writing. Shortly before his death, a spokesman for the church suggested that he consider retirement due to his failing health, eyesight, and memory. Newton replied, "What, shall the old Africa blasphemer stop while proclaiming with a loud voice during a message, "My memory is gone, but I remember two things: 'That I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great Savior.
In a small cemetery of a parish churchyard in Olney, England, stands a granite tombstone with the following inscription:
"John Newton, clerk, once an infidel and Libertine, a servant of slavers in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the Faith he had labored to destroy."
This fitting testimonial, written by Newton himself prior to his death, describes aptly the unusual and colorful life of this man, one of the great evangelical preachers of the eighteenth century.
(101 Hymn Stories) One of the most famous hymns in American churches is "Amazing Grace". There's not a song that's probably more eloquently written as that song. The man that penned that song was John Newton. Newton was born in 1725 and died in 1807. Newton's mother, a Godly woman, died when he was seven years of age. When his father remarried and after several years of formal education away from home; John left school and joined his father's ship, at the age of eleven, to begin life as a seaman. His early years were one continuous round of rebellion and debauchery. After serving on several ships as well as working for a period of time on the islands and mainland of the West African coast collecting slaves for sale to vising traders. Newton eventually became a captain of his own slave ship. He was involved with the selling and transportation of black slaves to the plantations in the West Indies and America.
On March 10, 1748, while returning to England from Africa during a particular stormy voyage when it appeared that all would be lost, Newton began reading Thomas a Kempis's book "Imitation of Christ." Kempis was a Dutch monk who belonged to an order called the Brethren of Common Life. The message of the book and the frightening experience at sea were used by God to sow the seeds of Newton's eventual conversion and personal acceptance of Christ as his Savior. For the next several years he continued to work as a slave ship captain, trying to justify his work by seeking to improve conditions as much as possible, even holding public worship services for hardened crew of thirty each Sunday. Eventually, following his conversion, he was convicted of the inhuman aspects of slavery and became a strong and effective crusader against slavery. Newton returned to England, married his youthful sweetheart, Mary Catlett, and became a clerk at the Port of Liverpool for the next nine years. During this time he felt the call to preach the gospel and then began to study diligently for the ministry. He was greatly aided and influenced by Evangelist George Whitefield as well as the Wesley brothers.
Even after his call to preach, he decided to stay within the established Anglican Church rather than join forces with these Dissenters. At the age of 39, John Newton was ordained by the Anglican Church and began his first pastorate at the little village of Olney, near Cambridge, England. His work for the next fifteen years (1764-1779) was a most fruitful and influential ministry. Especially effective was the use of the story of his early life and conversion experience, which he often told. In addition to preaching for the stated services in his own church, Newton would hold services regularly in any large building he could secure in the surrounding area. This was an unheard of practice for an Anglican clergyman of that day. Wherever he preached, large crowds gathered to hear the "Old Converted Sea Captain." Another of Newton's extremist practices at the Olney Church was the singing of hymns that expressed the simple, heartfelt faith of his preaching rather than the staid singing of the Psalms from the "Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter", which was practiced in other Anglican churches. When Newton couldn't find enough available hymns for this purpose, he began writing his own. He enlisted the aid of his friend and neighbor, William Cowper, to assist him in this effort. Cowper was a well-known writer of classic literature of this period. In 1779 their combined efforts produced the famous "Olney Hymns' hymnal, one of the most important single contributions made to the field of evangelical hymnody.
The most representative expression of John Newton's life is his appealing hymn, "Amazing Grace." The hymn, originally consisted of six stanzas and entitled, "Faith's Review and Expectation," was based on I Chronicles 17:16, 17. "Amazing Grace" was also based upon many New Testament verses as well. Until the time of his death at age 82, John Newton never ceased to marvel at God's mercy and grace that had some dramatically changed his life. This was the dominant theme of his preaching and writing. Shortly before his death, a spokesman for the church suggested that he consider retirement due to his failing health, eyesight, and memory. Newton replied, "What, shall the old Africa blasphemer stop while proclaiming with a loud voice during a message, "My memory is gone, but I remember two things: 'That I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great Savior.
In a small cemetery of a parish churchyard in Olney, England, stands a granite tombstone with the following inscription:
"John Newton, clerk, once an infidel and Libertine, a servant of slavers in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the Faith he had labored to destroy."
This fitting testimonial, written by Newton himself prior to his death, describes aptly the unusual and colorful life of this man, one of the great evangelical preachers of the eighteenth century.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Alan Grayson Labels Opponent as "Taliban Dan Webster"
YouTube - AD: "Taliban Dan Webster"
I was reading the post that Jared Law wrote concerning Congressman Alan Grayson's (D-FL) ad equating Republican candidate Daniel Webster as "Taliban Dan. This was a low for Alan Grayson. Alan Grayson is a despicable human being. He'll go to the lowest level to smear his opposition. He tried to make the "Restoring Honor" rally in which Glenn Beck headed up as some type of racist rally. During the House floor debates over the healthcare bill that was passed in March, Grayson was trying to depict Republicans as wanting people to die in trying to explain the Republican opposition towards the healthcare bill several months ago. Alan Grayson is being opposed in Florida's 12th district by former Florida legislator Daniel Webster. Grayson aired an ad that totally twisted the comments that Webster made about wives being submissive to their husbands.
Grayson aired an ad which equates Daniel Webster to the Taliban. He depicted Webster as a radical fundamentalist who wants to shove his views on Florida residents. Grayson shows where Webster cited the passage about wives being submissive to their own husbands. Webster says that was in the Bible. Four times you would see Webster making the statement "Submit to me." The ad made allegations that Webster wants to deny healthcare coverage to battered women and to force raped women to bear the rapist's child. The allegations that Grayson made about Webster were totally out of context. The statements that were written on the screen had nothing to do with those "submit to me" comments.
Here's the full context of Daniel Webster's comments:
"So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, 'She should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, 'love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it' as opposed to 'wives submit to your own husbands.' She can pray that, if she wants to, but don't pray it."
The full statement that Webster made concerning wives submitting to their own husbands rips apart the twisted lies Grayson made about Webster in that attack ad. Grayson depicted Webster as a husband with a bullwhip making that kind of statement. He tried to depict husbands as being abusive in misquoting the statement Webster made. He never mentioned the part where Webster stated that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That changes the equation entirely.
Voters who live in the 12th Congressional District in Florida need to vote out Grayson on November 2nd. Radio talk show host Jim Sumpter labels people like Grayson as "punks". That's my opinion of Grayson. He's a punk. He devotes his time doing nothing but smearing those he's opposed to. As far as I'm concerned he's the worst member of Congress when it comes to smear tactics. If Floridians in the 12th District don't vote out Grayson, then they'll "get the government they deserve". We always complain about how our government isn't responsive to the needs of the voter. However, if we continue voting in these crooked incumbents, then we deserve the government we get. We're not going to be able to change government if we continue re-electing the same old incumbents. My message to voters on November 2nd is "Vote out the incumbents in droves."
I was reading the post that Jared Law wrote concerning Congressman Alan Grayson's (D-FL) ad equating Republican candidate Daniel Webster as "Taliban Dan. This was a low for Alan Grayson. Alan Grayson is a despicable human being. He'll go to the lowest level to smear his opposition. He tried to make the "Restoring Honor" rally in which Glenn Beck headed up as some type of racist rally. During the House floor debates over the healthcare bill that was passed in March, Grayson was trying to depict Republicans as wanting people to die in trying to explain the Republican opposition towards the healthcare bill several months ago. Alan Grayson is being opposed in Florida's 12th district by former Florida legislator Daniel Webster. Grayson aired an ad that totally twisted the comments that Webster made about wives being submissive to their husbands.
Grayson aired an ad which equates Daniel Webster to the Taliban. He depicted Webster as a radical fundamentalist who wants to shove his views on Florida residents. Grayson shows where Webster cited the passage about wives being submissive to their own husbands. Webster says that was in the Bible. Four times you would see Webster making the statement "Submit to me." The ad made allegations that Webster wants to deny healthcare coverage to battered women and to force raped women to bear the rapist's child. The allegations that Grayson made about Webster were totally out of context. The statements that were written on the screen had nothing to do with those "submit to me" comments.
Here's the full context of Daniel Webster's comments:
"So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, 'She should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, 'love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it' as opposed to 'wives submit to your own husbands.' She can pray that, if she wants to, but don't pray it."
The full statement that Webster made concerning wives submitting to their own husbands rips apart the twisted lies Grayson made about Webster in that attack ad. Grayson depicted Webster as a husband with a bullwhip making that kind of statement. He tried to depict husbands as being abusive in misquoting the statement Webster made. He never mentioned the part where Webster stated that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That changes the equation entirely.
Voters who live in the 12th Congressional District in Florida need to vote out Grayson on November 2nd. Radio talk show host Jim Sumpter labels people like Grayson as "punks". That's my opinion of Grayson. He's a punk. He devotes his time doing nothing but smearing those he's opposed to. As far as I'm concerned he's the worst member of Congress when it comes to smear tactics. If Floridians in the 12th District don't vote out Grayson, then they'll "get the government they deserve". We always complain about how our government isn't responsive to the needs of the voter. However, if we continue voting in these crooked incumbents, then we deserve the government we get. We're not going to be able to change government if we continue re-electing the same old incumbents. My message to voters on November 2nd is "Vote out the incumbents in droves."
Monday, September 27, 2010
The GOP's "A Pledge to America"
YouTube - Republican Whip Eric Cantor Goes "On The Record" To Discuss GOP's "Pledge to America"
On Friday July 30, 2010, I wrote a post entitled, "The Republican Party Needs to Offer Solutions; not Just Being the Party of No." I stated that the Republican Party needs an agenda which they would push for if they were to regain control of Congress once again. I also mentioned the Republican Party needs a leader to articulate a vision for America. So far, there hasn't been a leader in the Republican Party to emerge that can articulate a strong vision for America. The Republicans did unveil their draft of their "A Pledge to America" last week. Consequently, that document does leave a lot to be desired. Those that were involved in the drafting of the document are some of the same Republican holdovers who were in the majority party in Congress during the Bush administration. I guarantee you the Republican incumbents aren't going to go very far with this pledge. One reason is if they regain the majority in Congress, President Obama will veto any bill they try to pass in Congress. President Obama is very socialistic in his thinking and I can't see him compromising with the Republicans like former president Bill Clinton did in some areas back during the 1990's. Also, there are many Republicans who are nothing but RINO's in Congress. There will only be very few that will attempt to stand for constitutional principles. The only Congressmen most likely to do that will be those who represent the Tea Party, even if that. I don't trust the Republicans in Washington any more than the Democrats. They're the minority party right now and they're playing the role of the loyal opposition. The primary thing the Republicans have on their mind right now is to regain the majority in Congress so they can once again be at the seat of power.
The GOP's "A Pledge to America" consists of 21 pages. According to an article in the USA Today, the House Republican leaders vowed to reverse the course of Washington and "realign our country's compass" in a wide-ranging agenda unveiled six weeks before the fall elections. The document was released at a Virginia hardware and lumber store. It focused largely on government spending, the economy and ways to roll back ideas proposed by President Obama, including the new healthcare law. First of all, they need to wage a campaign in Congress to repeal Obamacare. What's troubling is the Republicans didn't attempt to filibuster this new healthcare bill that was passed in March. I know the Republicans didn't have the votes to stop the passage of healthcare, but they've could've held a filibuster. They didn't do that. I don't see the Republicans mounting a strong attempt to repeal Obamacare if they were to regain the House and Senate. Even if Congress passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, it would automatically be vetoed by President Obama.
One of the obvious problems with this pledge is the new spending proposals. They desire to roll back government spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels. They want to roll spending back to the 2008 pre-TARP level. The problem was spending levels were ridiculously high prior to the TARP bailout program. Washington's spending levels are now on steroids. As Glenn Beck stated on his Fox News program last Thursday, this spending proposal "stinks on ice." The Republicans have to be serious about reining in excessive spending. The Republicans have no desire to do so because the Republican Congressmen want to spend money on programs for pet projects in their districts. Some of them are also supportive of earmarks, which need to be eliminated. When House Minority Leader John Boehner was the House Majority leader for several months in 2006, he didn't make any attempt to rein in ridiculous amounts of government spending. I don't expect this current group of Republicans to do much differently. For the 12 years Republicans held power in Congress, they didn't exercise restraint in spending for the most part, esp. not under the Bush administration. It's all cheap talk.
Some of the programs the Republicans need to tackle is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicare is already broke. Social Security will eventually go bankrupt unless some dramatic course of action is taken in the next few years. Former president George W. Bush made some attempt to privatize Social Security during the first few months of his second term in 2005, but it didn't go anywhere. We need to remove these programs from the government. I need to point out something. We can't overnight just make the decision to halt Social Security immediately. For example, there are millions of Americans (including seniors) that have payed into Social Security. There must be a transitional process involved in which federal social security will be phased out over a gradual process. We don't want to leave those retirees that have paid into this program to be left high and dry. Some common sense has to be used when attempting to phase out these government programs. But they must eventually be phased out because they comprise about twenty plus something percent of the economy. The percentage will continue to grow as the Baby Boom generation retires in large droves in the next several years. Who's going to be audacious enough to stand up to recommend that we eliminate these entitlement programs? Nobody!
Some of the other provisions of this pledge is to cancel the TARP bailout program, which needs to be done. The problem is most of the Republicans who are in office now supported the TARP bailout in 2008. Am I to believe they are going to end the TARP bailout program after supporting it in October 2008 to bail out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, to name a few? They also want to cancel the "unspent" stimulus funds past last year. Good luck with that. I wonder if there's any stimulus money leftover. Congress spends money as quickly as they place their hands on it. The pledge also calls for allowing the American people to purchase health coverage across state lines to make prices more competitive. I believe that's a good proposal. We need to allow interstate competition concerning these healthcare companies so the consumer has more choices in which to decide which kind of coverage they desire. Consequently, the Republicans several months ago didn't attempt to filibuster the healthcare overhaul bill that the Democrats jammed down the throats of the American people.
Other things they needed to suggest was to build a border fence to secure our borders. Were they going to do that? No. Some of the corporations that support their campaigns want illegal aliens to work for them so they can pay the illegals cheaper wages. Therefore, the borders will still remain open. The Republican leadership also didn't include any provisions concerning energy independence. We still import oil from the Middle East. We need to do everything possible to marginalize the U.S.'s need to depend on the U.S. for their products. Why won't the Republicans suggest we make the Middle East irrelevant to our national interests? Because those lobbyists who contribute to their campaign coffers have business interests in the Middle East.
This whole "Pledge to America" is just a dog-and-pony show by the Republican Party. They're just using it as a means to give the impression they're a different Republican Party. They're the same old Republican holdovers who held power when Bush was president. They haven't changed. They're just jockeying to regain the majority in Congress so they can regain their seat of power once again. They need an agenda to return to constitutional principles but this "Pledge to America" falls short in a number of areas. Some of the crucial areas they've should've addressed wasn't covered. This pledge will never move anywhere with the same old incumbent Republicans in charge. This pledge isn't sufficient in addressing the vast problems facing America today.
On Friday July 30, 2010, I wrote a post entitled, "The Republican Party Needs to Offer Solutions; not Just Being the Party of No." I stated that the Republican Party needs an agenda which they would push for if they were to regain control of Congress once again. I also mentioned the Republican Party needs a leader to articulate a vision for America. So far, there hasn't been a leader in the Republican Party to emerge that can articulate a strong vision for America. The Republicans did unveil their draft of their "A Pledge to America" last week. Consequently, that document does leave a lot to be desired. Those that were involved in the drafting of the document are some of the same Republican holdovers who were in the majority party in Congress during the Bush administration. I guarantee you the Republican incumbents aren't going to go very far with this pledge. One reason is if they regain the majority in Congress, President Obama will veto any bill they try to pass in Congress. President Obama is very socialistic in his thinking and I can't see him compromising with the Republicans like former president Bill Clinton did in some areas back during the 1990's. Also, there are many Republicans who are nothing but RINO's in Congress. There will only be very few that will attempt to stand for constitutional principles. The only Congressmen most likely to do that will be those who represent the Tea Party, even if that. I don't trust the Republicans in Washington any more than the Democrats. They're the minority party right now and they're playing the role of the loyal opposition. The primary thing the Republicans have on their mind right now is to regain the majority in Congress so they can once again be at the seat of power.
The GOP's "A Pledge to America" consists of 21 pages. According to an article in the USA Today, the House Republican leaders vowed to reverse the course of Washington and "realign our country's compass" in a wide-ranging agenda unveiled six weeks before the fall elections. The document was released at a Virginia hardware and lumber store. It focused largely on government spending, the economy and ways to roll back ideas proposed by President Obama, including the new healthcare law. First of all, they need to wage a campaign in Congress to repeal Obamacare. What's troubling is the Republicans didn't attempt to filibuster this new healthcare bill that was passed in March. I know the Republicans didn't have the votes to stop the passage of healthcare, but they've could've held a filibuster. They didn't do that. I don't see the Republicans mounting a strong attempt to repeal Obamacare if they were to regain the House and Senate. Even if Congress passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, it would automatically be vetoed by President Obama.
One of the obvious problems with this pledge is the new spending proposals. They desire to roll back government spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels. They want to roll spending back to the 2008 pre-TARP level. The problem was spending levels were ridiculously high prior to the TARP bailout program. Washington's spending levels are now on steroids. As Glenn Beck stated on his Fox News program last Thursday, this spending proposal "stinks on ice." The Republicans have to be serious about reining in excessive spending. The Republicans have no desire to do so because the Republican Congressmen want to spend money on programs for pet projects in their districts. Some of them are also supportive of earmarks, which need to be eliminated. When House Minority Leader John Boehner was the House Majority leader for several months in 2006, he didn't make any attempt to rein in ridiculous amounts of government spending. I don't expect this current group of Republicans to do much differently. For the 12 years Republicans held power in Congress, they didn't exercise restraint in spending for the most part, esp. not under the Bush administration. It's all cheap talk.
Some of the programs the Republicans need to tackle is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicare is already broke. Social Security will eventually go bankrupt unless some dramatic course of action is taken in the next few years. Former president George W. Bush made some attempt to privatize Social Security during the first few months of his second term in 2005, but it didn't go anywhere. We need to remove these programs from the government. I need to point out something. We can't overnight just make the decision to halt Social Security immediately. For example, there are millions of Americans (including seniors) that have payed into Social Security. There must be a transitional process involved in which federal social security will be phased out over a gradual process. We don't want to leave those retirees that have paid into this program to be left high and dry. Some common sense has to be used when attempting to phase out these government programs. But they must eventually be phased out because they comprise about twenty plus something percent of the economy. The percentage will continue to grow as the Baby Boom generation retires in large droves in the next several years. Who's going to be audacious enough to stand up to recommend that we eliminate these entitlement programs? Nobody!
Some of the other provisions of this pledge is to cancel the TARP bailout program, which needs to be done. The problem is most of the Republicans who are in office now supported the TARP bailout in 2008. Am I to believe they are going to end the TARP bailout program after supporting it in October 2008 to bail out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, to name a few? They also want to cancel the "unspent" stimulus funds past last year. Good luck with that. I wonder if there's any stimulus money leftover. Congress spends money as quickly as they place their hands on it. The pledge also calls for allowing the American people to purchase health coverage across state lines to make prices more competitive. I believe that's a good proposal. We need to allow interstate competition concerning these healthcare companies so the consumer has more choices in which to decide which kind of coverage they desire. Consequently, the Republicans several months ago didn't attempt to filibuster the healthcare overhaul bill that the Democrats jammed down the throats of the American people.
Other things they needed to suggest was to build a border fence to secure our borders. Were they going to do that? No. Some of the corporations that support their campaigns want illegal aliens to work for them so they can pay the illegals cheaper wages. Therefore, the borders will still remain open. The Republican leadership also didn't include any provisions concerning energy independence. We still import oil from the Middle East. We need to do everything possible to marginalize the U.S.'s need to depend on the U.S. for their products. Why won't the Republicans suggest we make the Middle East irrelevant to our national interests? Because those lobbyists who contribute to their campaign coffers have business interests in the Middle East.
This whole "Pledge to America" is just a dog-and-pony show by the Republican Party. They're just using it as a means to give the impression they're a different Republican Party. They're the same old Republican holdovers who held power when Bush was president. They haven't changed. They're just jockeying to regain the majority in Congress so they can regain their seat of power once again. They need an agenda to return to constitutional principles but this "Pledge to America" falls short in a number of areas. Some of the crucial areas they've should've addressed wasn't covered. This pledge will never move anywhere with the same old incumbent Republicans in charge. This pledge isn't sufficient in addressing the vast problems facing America today.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
There's Nothing My God Can't Do
YouTube - Singing the Song, "NOTHING MY GOD CAN'T DO"
This song was penned by the late singer/songwriter Dottie Rambo probably around the late 1950's. The Happy Goodmans and the late evangelist Billy Kelly used to sing that song. One time during the early 1960's then Governor Jimmy Davis attended a gospel concert in which the Happy Goodmans performed. One of the songs Governor Davis heard them sing was "There's Nothing My God Can't Do." Davis inquired who wrote that particular song. The Goodmans told them that it was a young woman from Kentucky named Dotie Rambo. It was from there that Gov. Davis had arranged for Dottie Rambo to meet him and the rest is history concerning Dottie's singing/songwriting ministry. Dottie's rise in the gospel music industry was due to that momentous moment.
Years ago probably back in the late '60's there was a Baptist preacher named Dr. Harold B. Sightler who preached a message entitled, "Can God?" The Lord moved in that service when he preached that message. There was shouting and one of the assistant pastors and eventually future pastors of that church ran the aisle. The text of that message is from Psalms 78:19. It says, "Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can god furnish a table in the wilderness?" The Psalmist in this chapter was speaking of God's wrath against the incredulous and the disobedient. He was speaking about the children of Ephraim, (one of the tribes) that turned back in the day of battle. They didn't keep the covenant of God and forgot His works. They were questioning could God furnish a table in the wilderness. I'll answer that question real quickly. Psalms 37:25 says, "I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsken, nor his seed begging bread." That should answer the question "Can God?" Read the words to the song that was posted yesterday on this blog. God measured the sea by the span of his hand. Mountains he placed at his command. He's so great He even holds the world in the palm of His hand. He's so small he can live in the heart of man. It's a mystery of mysteries but all so true. There's nothing my God can't do. Even in your darkest hour, God's capable of pulling through.
Have you ever had trouble believing God can? Did you feel it was impossible for God to pull through and meet the need of the request that you've petitioned unto him? Many times Christians face doubt that God will. I don't think many times we question God's ability to change things even though that can happen as well. The problem is we question whether or not God will. Last week I mentioned Romans 8:26 where the passage says the Spirit makes intercession for us because we often don't know how to pray. He makes intercession for us according to the will of God. I'm very thankful that the Spirit does make intercession for us. Sometimes we're in a state of emotional turmoil that we don't know how to pray or what to pray for. But I'm thankful the Spirit of God knows what we need and that he makes intercession for us. Many times we'll face trials and afflictions that appear to be overwhelming. We think there's no way we can ever place that situation past us. We feel there are times when we can't travel an extra mile. However, I'm thankful that in the midst of our weakness He's made strong. I'm thankful that even when the world says its hopeless, all things are possible through Christ.
It's not very difficult for us to say we believe God can do anything or we can trust God when we're not the ones that are being afflicted. It's very easy to quote Philippians 4:13 or Philippians 4:19 when it's somebody else we're trying to encourage. Many times when we're the ones facing trials, tribulations, or afflictions, we seem to forget that there's nothing that God can't do. We're so overwhelmed by our afflictions we feel the sun will never shine again in our own personal lives. We feel beside ourselves. However, in the midst of those times God can prove himself real when we're in the midst of those trials; and God does prove himself real. The Apostle Paul was afflicted with a thorn in the flesh and he had asked God to remove it. What the thorn was I don't know but we could probably speculate it had something to do with his sight. God told him that His grace was sufficient. The Apostle Paul experienced God's sufficient grace. We read about all the persecution Paul suffered for the cause of Christ. However, the Apostle Paul was faithful in his relationship and walk with God. God proved himself very real in Paul's life. He gave Paul the strength to continue serving Him.
This morning during Sunday school assembly, the theme was about patience in the book of James. One of the points that was made was that one of the problems we struggle with is patience. We struggle when God delays answering prayers. Sometimes some prayers need some time to be worked out. God's answers aren't always for today or maybe tomorrow. God's answer to a specific prayer may come a few years down the road. We don't enjoy that. That's something that Abraham and Sarah had to experience. God promised them that they would be blessed with a child. (Genesis 17:15-19). Abraham fell down on his face and laughed because he was a hundred years old. He couldn't envsion God giving them a child because of their age. However, God's answer doesn't always come when we think it should come. In a few chapters later in Genesis 21 we read about the birth of Isaac. God did answer that prayer. He proved that He was able even when physical circumstances would deem it impossible. How many couples who are in their seventies in this day would believe God if He told them that they were going to conceive and bring forth a child. They would laugh themselves to scorn. Humanly speaking having a child in your seventies is an impossibility, but with God all things are possible. In I Kings 17:10-24 we read about a widow woman in Zarephath who was gathering sticks and was preparing to fix the last meal for she and her son. The prophet Elijah told her to bring him a morsel of bread. All she had was a handful of meal in a barrel and a little oil in a cruse. That was all they had. However, Elijah told her to fix him a little cake and bring it unto him and then make it for her and her son. She did what Elijah told her to do. Verse 14 declares that the barrel of meal didn't waste nor the cruse of oil until the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth. In the midst of what appeared to be an impossible situation, God allowed the barrel of meal to continue producing. God's ways are higher than man's. You just can't figure out God. We could continue with other examples such as Jesus feeding the 5000. God's not out of resources. God's not powerless. He's still capable of doing today what he did yesterday. He's all powerful. He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God's bigger than all our trials that we face.
We serve a God that's real and that's capable of meeting our needs. Even though our situation may appear hopeless, God can still pull through at the last minute. He's pulled through at the last minute numerous times. God's not bound by man's time nor man's limitations. He's not limited by medical science. He's not limited by the geographical boundaries of this world. He's not limited by President Obama or our political system. When the doctors say it's hopeless, God hasn't spoken yet. It's not over with until God declares it's over. God's always right on time. As the songwriter eloquently points out, "There's Nothing My God Can't Do."
This song was penned by the late singer/songwriter Dottie Rambo probably around the late 1950's. The Happy Goodmans and the late evangelist Billy Kelly used to sing that song. One time during the early 1960's then Governor Jimmy Davis attended a gospel concert in which the Happy Goodmans performed. One of the songs Governor Davis heard them sing was "There's Nothing My God Can't Do." Davis inquired who wrote that particular song. The Goodmans told them that it was a young woman from Kentucky named Dotie Rambo. It was from there that Gov. Davis had arranged for Dottie Rambo to meet him and the rest is history concerning Dottie's singing/songwriting ministry. Dottie's rise in the gospel music industry was due to that momentous moment.
Years ago probably back in the late '60's there was a Baptist preacher named Dr. Harold B. Sightler who preached a message entitled, "Can God?" The Lord moved in that service when he preached that message. There was shouting and one of the assistant pastors and eventually future pastors of that church ran the aisle. The text of that message is from Psalms 78:19. It says, "Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can god furnish a table in the wilderness?" The Psalmist in this chapter was speaking of God's wrath against the incredulous and the disobedient. He was speaking about the children of Ephraim, (one of the tribes) that turned back in the day of battle. They didn't keep the covenant of God and forgot His works. They were questioning could God furnish a table in the wilderness. I'll answer that question real quickly. Psalms 37:25 says, "I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsken, nor his seed begging bread." That should answer the question "Can God?" Read the words to the song that was posted yesterday on this blog. God measured the sea by the span of his hand. Mountains he placed at his command. He's so great He even holds the world in the palm of His hand. He's so small he can live in the heart of man. It's a mystery of mysteries but all so true. There's nothing my God can't do. Even in your darkest hour, God's capable of pulling through.
Have you ever had trouble believing God can? Did you feel it was impossible for God to pull through and meet the need of the request that you've petitioned unto him? Many times Christians face doubt that God will. I don't think many times we question God's ability to change things even though that can happen as well. The problem is we question whether or not God will. Last week I mentioned Romans 8:26 where the passage says the Spirit makes intercession for us because we often don't know how to pray. He makes intercession for us according to the will of God. I'm very thankful that the Spirit does make intercession for us. Sometimes we're in a state of emotional turmoil that we don't know how to pray or what to pray for. But I'm thankful the Spirit of God knows what we need and that he makes intercession for us. Many times we'll face trials and afflictions that appear to be overwhelming. We think there's no way we can ever place that situation past us. We feel there are times when we can't travel an extra mile. However, I'm thankful that in the midst of our weakness He's made strong. I'm thankful that even when the world says its hopeless, all things are possible through Christ.
It's not very difficult for us to say we believe God can do anything or we can trust God when we're not the ones that are being afflicted. It's very easy to quote Philippians 4:13 or Philippians 4:19 when it's somebody else we're trying to encourage. Many times when we're the ones facing trials, tribulations, or afflictions, we seem to forget that there's nothing that God can't do. We're so overwhelmed by our afflictions we feel the sun will never shine again in our own personal lives. We feel beside ourselves. However, in the midst of those times God can prove himself real when we're in the midst of those trials; and God does prove himself real. The Apostle Paul was afflicted with a thorn in the flesh and he had asked God to remove it. What the thorn was I don't know but we could probably speculate it had something to do with his sight. God told him that His grace was sufficient. The Apostle Paul experienced God's sufficient grace. We read about all the persecution Paul suffered for the cause of Christ. However, the Apostle Paul was faithful in his relationship and walk with God. God proved himself very real in Paul's life. He gave Paul the strength to continue serving Him.
This morning during Sunday school assembly, the theme was about patience in the book of James. One of the points that was made was that one of the problems we struggle with is patience. We struggle when God delays answering prayers. Sometimes some prayers need some time to be worked out. God's answers aren't always for today or maybe tomorrow. God's answer to a specific prayer may come a few years down the road. We don't enjoy that. That's something that Abraham and Sarah had to experience. God promised them that they would be blessed with a child. (Genesis 17:15-19). Abraham fell down on his face and laughed because he was a hundred years old. He couldn't envsion God giving them a child because of their age. However, God's answer doesn't always come when we think it should come. In a few chapters later in Genesis 21 we read about the birth of Isaac. God did answer that prayer. He proved that He was able even when physical circumstances would deem it impossible. How many couples who are in their seventies in this day would believe God if He told them that they were going to conceive and bring forth a child. They would laugh themselves to scorn. Humanly speaking having a child in your seventies is an impossibility, but with God all things are possible. In I Kings 17:10-24 we read about a widow woman in Zarephath who was gathering sticks and was preparing to fix the last meal for she and her son. The prophet Elijah told her to bring him a morsel of bread. All she had was a handful of meal in a barrel and a little oil in a cruse. That was all they had. However, Elijah told her to fix him a little cake and bring it unto him and then make it for her and her son. She did what Elijah told her to do. Verse 14 declares that the barrel of meal didn't waste nor the cruse of oil until the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth. In the midst of what appeared to be an impossible situation, God allowed the barrel of meal to continue producing. God's ways are higher than man's. You just can't figure out God. We could continue with other examples such as Jesus feeding the 5000. God's not out of resources. God's not powerless. He's still capable of doing today what he did yesterday. He's all powerful. He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God's bigger than all our trials that we face.
We serve a God that's real and that's capable of meeting our needs. Even though our situation may appear hopeless, God can still pull through at the last minute. He's pulled through at the last minute numerous times. God's not bound by man's time nor man's limitations. He's not limited by medical science. He's not limited by the geographical boundaries of this world. He's not limited by President Obama or our political system. When the doctors say it's hopeless, God hasn't spoken yet. It's not over with until God declares it's over. God's always right on time. As the songwriter eloquently points out, "There's Nothing My God Can't Do."
The Church at Laodicea
Today we'll be looking at the seventh and final church of the "Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor." Today we'll be taking a look at the Church at Laodicea. I hope you've enjoyed the series. It's been enjoyable in studying about each of the seven churches.
(Revelation 3:14-22) "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 spue 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 rainment, 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 overcome, 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."
The city of Laodicea was founded in 250 B.C. by Antiochus II of Syria. The city was named after his wife Laodice who later poisoned him. The city was located on the main route between Ephesus and Syria. It was renowned for being a commercial and financial ceter, as well as being a great manufacturing center. Laodicea was probably most noted for its great medical school: famous for the ointments which were used for eyes and ears. They took great pride in these ointments. Paul struggled to help this church (Colossians 2:1), and told the church in Colosse (the epistle to the Colossians) to specifically make sure the letter he wrote to the Colossians be shared with the church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). What was written to Colossians also applied to Laodicea. God is very disgusted with this church. He says they're "lukewarm,". In other words the Lord is saying they're guilty of apathy, complacency, and indifference. They needed a revival, and a renewal of their relationship with God. God makes reference to the eyesalve the city was famous for and tells them they need "to play salve on their eyes" so they could see spiritually. This is the only church out of the seven churches God didn't have anything positive to say about it.
This particular church age is described as the "lukewarm church". It was neither hot nor cold. Which is something God was displeased with. The Lord said he would've rather they either be hot or be cold; but not lukewarm. The Apostle Paul told Timothy that in the last days, churches and believers would be characterized as "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power therof" and ot stay away from such (II Timothy 3:5). The letter claims this church is self-deluded. The church views itself as rich and in need of nothing. They may have had what they needed as far as the goods of the world was concerned, but spiritually they were poor and wretched. This church was diametrically opposed to the church in Smyrna which was poor in the world but had a zeal and fervor to serve the Lord.
The Laodicean church age applies to the contemporary church today. Today we're taking our ease in Zion and we're asleep. The world is growing darker and darker. We're content with all the goods of this world. However, we've lost sight of the fact that we're cold on God and our relationship with him isn't what it ought to be. Today we've traded church programs such as festivals, carnivals, seminars, contemporary Christian music, etc. in place of preaching, praying, singing, and shouting. We're utilizing worldly methods in trying to reach sinners today. Once we drag them in to church we persuade them to repeat a prayer to appease their conscience which in essence doesn't save them. Then you won't see them again. Churches today are in the the numbers and dollars business. We want to drag sinners into church so we can publish in one of the church journals that church attendance stands at a few thousand and we've had "x" amount of people saved and baptized. God's not pleased with that. We are to reach sinners with the gospel and persuade them to come to church, but we won't convert them with worldly business techniques. If the preaching of the gospel won't save them, then nothing will save them.
I'm thankful that the Lord is standing at the door and knocking. He says if anyone hears his voice and opens the door, he will come in and sup with them. We can have fellowship with the Lord if we will open the door and let him in. God's plea to the callous, complacement, and indifferent Laodicean church today is to open the door. He desires to commune with us. It's up to God's people to recognize that we're not we should be with the Lord. God wants to commune with those who want to worship and follow him. It's our responsibility to open the door. He's not going to force the door open. If we don't desire the presence of God in our churches, he's not going to force himself in. That's the state of many of our churches in America in these last hours. We have a choice. Are we going to open the door and allow him to come in and sup with us or are we going to refuse?
(Revelation 3:14-22) "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 spue 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 rainment, 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 overcome, 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."
The city of Laodicea was founded in 250 B.C. by Antiochus II of Syria. The city was named after his wife Laodice who later poisoned him. The city was located on the main route between Ephesus and Syria. It was renowned for being a commercial and financial ceter, as well as being a great manufacturing center. Laodicea was probably most noted for its great medical school: famous for the ointments which were used for eyes and ears. They took great pride in these ointments. Paul struggled to help this church (Colossians 2:1), and told the church in Colosse (the epistle to the Colossians) to specifically make sure the letter he wrote to the Colossians be shared with the church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). What was written to Colossians also applied to Laodicea. God is very disgusted with this church. He says they're "lukewarm,". In other words the Lord is saying they're guilty of apathy, complacency, and indifference. They needed a revival, and a renewal of their relationship with God. God makes reference to the eyesalve the city was famous for and tells them they need "to play salve on their eyes" so they could see spiritually. This is the only church out of the seven churches God didn't have anything positive to say about it.
This particular church age is described as the "lukewarm church". It was neither hot nor cold. Which is something God was displeased with. The Lord said he would've rather they either be hot or be cold; but not lukewarm. The Apostle Paul told Timothy that in the last days, churches and believers would be characterized as "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power therof" and ot stay away from such (II Timothy 3:5). The letter claims this church is self-deluded. The church views itself as rich and in need of nothing. They may have had what they needed as far as the goods of the world was concerned, but spiritually they were poor and wretched. This church was diametrically opposed to the church in Smyrna which was poor in the world but had a zeal and fervor to serve the Lord.
The Laodicean church age applies to the contemporary church today. Today we're taking our ease in Zion and we're asleep. The world is growing darker and darker. We're content with all the goods of this world. However, we've lost sight of the fact that we're cold on God and our relationship with him isn't what it ought to be. Today we've traded church programs such as festivals, carnivals, seminars, contemporary Christian music, etc. in place of preaching, praying, singing, and shouting. We're utilizing worldly methods in trying to reach sinners today. Once we drag them in to church we persuade them to repeat a prayer to appease their conscience which in essence doesn't save them. Then you won't see them again. Churches today are in the the numbers and dollars business. We want to drag sinners into church so we can publish in one of the church journals that church attendance stands at a few thousand and we've had "x" amount of people saved and baptized. God's not pleased with that. We are to reach sinners with the gospel and persuade them to come to church, but we won't convert them with worldly business techniques. If the preaching of the gospel won't save them, then nothing will save them.
I'm thankful that the Lord is standing at the door and knocking. He says if anyone hears his voice and opens the door, he will come in and sup with them. We can have fellowship with the Lord if we will open the door and let him in. God's plea to the callous, complacement, and indifferent Laodicean church today is to open the door. He desires to commune with us. It's up to God's people to recognize that we're not we should be with the Lord. God wants to commune with those who want to worship and follow him. It's our responsibility to open the door. He's not going to force the door open. If we don't desire the presence of God in our churches, he's not going to force himself in. That's the state of many of our churches in America in these last hours. We have a choice. Are we going to open the door and allow him to come in and sup with us or are we going to refuse?
Saturday, September 25, 2010
It was for Me--Pleasant View Baptist Church Youth Choir at State Competition
YouTube - Senior High Choral Group Performing It Was For Me
This song was performed by the Pleasant View Baptist Church Youth Choir from McQuady, Kentucky. I believe they were performing at a State Competition in Louisville. I hope you enjoy the song. (Isaiah 53:5-6) "For he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Why leave a heavn'ly mansion?
Why choose a simple stall?
Why wander poor and hopeless,
The king and Lord of all?
Why heal a lonely beggar?
Why cause the blind to see?
The light of all creation,
Shining there for me?
Chorus:
It was for me he cried, for me he died,
For me he shed his blood upon the tree.
It was for me he came, for me his shame;
For me, oh praise His name, it was for me.
Why stay in Olive's Garden?
Why spend the night in prayer?
Why suffer such betrayal
In anguish kneeling there?
Why leave his mother crying?
Why set Barabbas free?
The spotless lamb of Heaven
Given there for me.
Why climb that dreadful moutain?
Why suffer agony?
Why give his blood a fountain,
Spilled and broken, flowing free?
When he walked the road to Calv'ry
Gave His life so willingly,
Broken there, the rose of Sharon died for me.
Chorus:
The king who came from Heaven,
To the cry, "There is no room,"
Now must lay his weary body
In a cold and borrowed tomb.
But the grave, it would not hold Him;
Death lost its victory.
The risen Lord of glory
is living now for me.
It was for me he cried, for me he died,
For me he shed his blood upon the tree.
It was for me He came, for me His shame;
For me, oh praise His name, it was for me.
Dave Bolling
This song was performed by the Pleasant View Baptist Church Youth Choir from McQuady, Kentucky. I believe they were performing at a State Competition in Louisville. I hope you enjoy the song. (Isaiah 53:5-6) "For he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Why leave a heavn'ly mansion?
Why choose a simple stall?
Why wander poor and hopeless,
The king and Lord of all?
Why heal a lonely beggar?
Why cause the blind to see?
The light of all creation,
Shining there for me?
Chorus:
It was for me he cried, for me he died,
For me he shed his blood upon the tree.
It was for me he came, for me his shame;
For me, oh praise His name, it was for me.
Why stay in Olive's Garden?
Why spend the night in prayer?
Why suffer such betrayal
In anguish kneeling there?
Why leave his mother crying?
Why set Barabbas free?
The spotless lamb of Heaven
Given there for me.
Why climb that dreadful moutain?
Why suffer agony?
Why give his blood a fountain,
Spilled and broken, flowing free?
When he walked the road to Calv'ry
Gave His life so willingly,
Broken there, the rose of Sharon died for me.
Chorus:
The king who came from Heaven,
To the cry, "There is no room,"
Now must lay his weary body
In a cold and borrowed tomb.
But the grave, it would not hold Him;
Death lost its victory.
The risen Lord of glory
is living now for me.
It was for me he cried, for me he died,
For me he shed his blood upon the tree.
It was for me He came, for me His shame;
For me, oh praise His name, it was for me.
Dave Bolling
There's Nothing My God Can't Do--Dottie Rambo
YouTube - There's Nothing My God Can't Do
He measured the sea in the span of his hand.
Mountains were placed at His command.
And at the sound of his voice the sun shines through,
And there's nothing, no nothing, that my God can't do.
Chorus:
There's nothing, no nothing, there's nothing
That my God can't do.
Miracles and wonders, and there's nothing,
No nothing, that my God can't do.
He's so great, He holds the world in the palm of His hand
He's so small that He can live within the heart of a man.
He's the mystery of great mysteries, but, oh so true
And there's nothing, no nothing, that my God can't do.
Chorus:
There's nothing, no nothing, there's nothing
That my God can't do.
Miracles and wonders, and there's nothing,
No nothing, that my God can't do.
He measured the sea in the span of his hand.
Mountains were placed at His command.
And at the sound of his voice the sun shines through,
And there's nothing, no nothing, that my God can't do.
Chorus:
There's nothing, no nothing, there's nothing
That my God can't do.
Miracles and wonders, and there's nothing,
No nothing, that my God can't do.
He's so great, He holds the world in the palm of His hand
He's so small that He can live within the heart of a man.
He's the mystery of great mysteries, but, oh so true
And there's nothing, no nothing, that my God can't do.
Chorus:
There's nothing, no nothing, there's nothing
That my God can't do.
Miracles and wonders, and there's nothing,
No nothing, that my God can't do.
Friday, September 24, 2010
President Obama Defends His Economic Policies at Town-hall Meeting
YouTube - Woman at Town Hall Meeting Tired of Defending President Obama
President Barack Obama was in a town-hall style meeting sponsored by CNBC, the financial news network. President Obama spent an hour answering questions from plaintive audience members at a Newseum studio who bemoaned a loss of hope and the direction being taken by his administration. He urged the nation Monday to stick with his policies as the economy tends to mend and challenged the Tea Party movement to offer solutions instead of just training its opposition on his administration.
One of the comments President Obama used to defend the present state of the U.S. economy was the poor economic conditions that existed prior to his taking office. Many times when traveling across the country, the President cites how things were under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "The hole was so deep that a lot of people out there are still hurting," Obama said. "So the question then becomes, what can we now put in place to make sure that the trend lines continue in a positive direction, as opposed to going back in the negative direction?" First of all, we are well aware what happened the last few months of the George W. Bush administration. We remember the revelation of the mortgage meltdown and the TARP bailout. Things were in a mess in America. There's no doubt Obama had inherited a mess. However, he's not the only president that's inherited messes. The last several outgoing presidents have handed down problems to the incoming president. That's nothing new. I do recognize the scope of the financial mess we're in today is the worst in a few decades. However, President Obama has been in office for the last eighteen months. He's continued some of the same policies as his predecessor. He continued the TARP bailout when he became president last year. He's still continuing the same military policies in Iraq and Afghanistan that his predecessor began. President Obama has done nothing but contribute to the mess. He's just using this as a political ploy because the November election is just 40+ days away.
A woman who said she was the chief financial officer for a veterans' service organization told Obama: "I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now." "The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family...Is this my new reality?" she asked. President Obama responded by saying that he wasn't out to convince everybody everything is what it needs to be. But everything's "headed in the right direction." There was a man who described himself as a 30-year old law school graduate struggling with student loans asked: "Is the American Dream dead for me?" Obama replied that it wasn't. He was defending his efforts to revamp the student-loan program and to offer businesses tax credits to boost research and development. The president expressed confidence that the American Dream will continue and denied he was anti-business or anti-Wall Street with his plans.
He offered a mixed verdict on the growing Tea Party movement which expressed skepticism of government. Obama claimed the challenge for the Tea Party movement would be to state "what they would do?" to help turn around the economy and produce jobs. "It's not enough just to say, 'Get control of government.' I think it's important for you to say, 'You know, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or (pension) benefits' or I'm willing to see these taxes go up." Obama claims that the government cannot cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans "and magically think things are going to work out," he said. I have some news for Obama: raising taxes on the wealthiest isn't going to magically turn our country around economically. Many Americans who make $250,000 and more own small businesses. If we raise taxes on those with $250,000 or more, then we're not going to see an increase in job creation, which is what we need to bring this economy around.
President Obama's policies aren't going to lift this wobbling economy. What will lift up the wobbling economy is for the Bush tax cuts to be extended to everyone; including the wealthy. That's not the only thing. Another thing that needs to be done is to repeal Obamacare and any type of needless regulation which will hinder businesses from hiring new employees. Another thing that needs to be done is our national leaders need to re-negotiate these trade agreements which would place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. There was a time in American history when we placed tariffs on foreign goods to protect America's industry. Today those who advocate terrorists are called "protectionists". The problem is President Obama and the Democratic Party are socialist-minded and they want to seize control of the private sector. The direction of our economy is going the way they desire for it go. That's why it's so important that we vote these incumbent frauds out of Congress this year which includes both Democrats and Republicans. Our economy will recover if the politicians will keep their hands off the private sector for the most part.
President Barack Obama was in a town-hall style meeting sponsored by CNBC, the financial news network. President Obama spent an hour answering questions from plaintive audience members at a Newseum studio who bemoaned a loss of hope and the direction being taken by his administration. He urged the nation Monday to stick with his policies as the economy tends to mend and challenged the Tea Party movement to offer solutions instead of just training its opposition on his administration.
One of the comments President Obama used to defend the present state of the U.S. economy was the poor economic conditions that existed prior to his taking office. Many times when traveling across the country, the President cites how things were under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "The hole was so deep that a lot of people out there are still hurting," Obama said. "So the question then becomes, what can we now put in place to make sure that the trend lines continue in a positive direction, as opposed to going back in the negative direction?" First of all, we are well aware what happened the last few months of the George W. Bush administration. We remember the revelation of the mortgage meltdown and the TARP bailout. Things were in a mess in America. There's no doubt Obama had inherited a mess. However, he's not the only president that's inherited messes. The last several outgoing presidents have handed down problems to the incoming president. That's nothing new. I do recognize the scope of the financial mess we're in today is the worst in a few decades. However, President Obama has been in office for the last eighteen months. He's continued some of the same policies as his predecessor. He continued the TARP bailout when he became president last year. He's still continuing the same military policies in Iraq and Afghanistan that his predecessor began. President Obama has done nothing but contribute to the mess. He's just using this as a political ploy because the November election is just 40+ days away.
A woman who said she was the chief financial officer for a veterans' service organization told Obama: "I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now." "The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family...Is this my new reality?" she asked. President Obama responded by saying that he wasn't out to convince everybody everything is what it needs to be. But everything's "headed in the right direction." There was a man who described himself as a 30-year old law school graduate struggling with student loans asked: "Is the American Dream dead for me?" Obama replied that it wasn't. He was defending his efforts to revamp the student-loan program and to offer businesses tax credits to boost research and development. The president expressed confidence that the American Dream will continue and denied he was anti-business or anti-Wall Street with his plans.
He offered a mixed verdict on the growing Tea Party movement which expressed skepticism of government. Obama claimed the challenge for the Tea Party movement would be to state "what they would do?" to help turn around the economy and produce jobs. "It's not enough just to say, 'Get control of government.' I think it's important for you to say, 'You know, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or (pension) benefits' or I'm willing to see these taxes go up." Obama claims that the government cannot cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans "and magically think things are going to work out," he said. I have some news for Obama: raising taxes on the wealthiest isn't going to magically turn our country around economically. Many Americans who make $250,000 and more own small businesses. If we raise taxes on those with $250,000 or more, then we're not going to see an increase in job creation, which is what we need to bring this economy around.
President Obama's policies aren't going to lift this wobbling economy. What will lift up the wobbling economy is for the Bush tax cuts to be extended to everyone; including the wealthy. That's not the only thing. Another thing that needs to be done is to repeal Obamacare and any type of needless regulation which will hinder businesses from hiring new employees. Another thing that needs to be done is our national leaders need to re-negotiate these trade agreements which would place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. There was a time in American history when we placed tariffs on foreign goods to protect America's industry. Today those who advocate terrorists are called "protectionists". The problem is President Obama and the Democratic Party are socialist-minded and they want to seize control of the private sector. The direction of our economy is going the way they desire for it go. That's why it's so important that we vote these incumbent frauds out of Congress this year which includes both Democrats and Republicans. Our economy will recover if the politicians will keep their hands off the private sector for the most part.
Economists Claim that Recession Ended in June 2009
(USA Today) A panel of prominent economists have declared Monday that The Great Recession ended more than a year ago in June 2009. That's probably a surprise to 14.9 million unemployed Americans. It surprises me. I have a hard time believing spin regardless whether it comes from diehard Bushpots when Bush was president or those that are sympathetic to President Obama. Prior to the mortgage meltdown revelation in September 2008, I used to hear radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity claim the economy was doing fine. (They both were strong Bush supporters). Since Obama has been taking office I've been hearing spin from Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and other prominent Democrats that milions of jobs have been saved due to the passage of the stimulus bill in early 2009. I have a difficult time in believing the news about the economy from some of these economists I wonder if these economists are supporters of President Obama and the Democratic Party. Both parties will place a nice spin on the economy when one of them holds the rein of power. Both parties will point the fingers at each other when the economy isn't faring so well. The information that I'm presenting is what I'm reading from the USA Today article on Tuesday, September 21, 2010.
These economists claim that the economic downturn started in December 2007 and was the longest since World War II. I don't have a difficult time believing that the economic downturn could've began somewhere during that time. I'm going to quickly define the term recession. A recession is two straight quarters or six months of decreased economic activity or two straight downturns on the GDP. That's a simple definition of a recession. I paid attention to the news at that time and I could sense the economy was starting to falter. Gas prices were rising unrestrained. The economists claim the recession lasted for 18 months and outlasted two 16-month recessions, in 1973-75 and 1981-82. Niegel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, notes that economic output plunged 4.1% during the 2007-09 recession, the biggest postwar drop. "Even though economists may say that the recession officially ended last year, obviously for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, it's still very real for them," President Obama said.
The National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee, which issues the official word on the start and end of recessions, hastened to explain that it didn't mean "that economic conditions since June 2009 have been favorable or that the economy has turned to operating at normal capacity. It meant only that the economy hit bottom and began a feeble and fragile recovery. Nearly 7 million jobs vanished during the recession, and job losses continued for months afterward. The jobless rate didn't peak at 10.1% until October 2009. The committee withheld its decision until it saw the final version of key economic reports in July and August, then confirmed what most economists concluded months ago; that the recession ended in mid-2009. Hearing the recession declared over is "going to irritate a lot of people," says Dan Seiver, finance professor at San Diego State University. "When they say the recession ends, that doesn't mean everything is good again...Unemployment tends to be a lagging indicator." Economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland have found that recession triggered by financial crises tend to be the nastiest, marked by persistent joblessness and falling home prices. They claim that this announcement means that any new downturn would mark the beginning of a new recession, not a continuation of the previous recession.
Many times when I read the news about the economy, I have to take it with a grain of smart. I know there are those out in the media that will spin the economy favorable or unfavorable depending upon which party is in control in Washington and which political party they are sympathetic to. One point I will bear out and that is the stock market on Wall Street can be boosting high numbers, but that doesn't mean the economy is doing well for the average American. For those that work at our nation's capital, Wall Street, or those who head multi-national corporations, their economy is going great. The sector that has had the greatest job growth within the last eighteen months has been the public sector. Government has added all kinds of czars and bureaucrats to its payroll. However, the private sector is limping slowly. The Democrats in Washington refused to do what's necessary to help jump-start our economy: that is to renew the Bush tax cuts. This is no time to to raise taxes. The government needs to lower taxes on all Americans, businesses, and remove burdensome regulations that hinder businesses from growing. With the passage of Obamacare in March, businesses will incur extra costs which hinder them from hiring new employees. President Obama, the Democratic Party, and a group of elite economists can claim that our nation is out of a recession, but America's economy is hanging on a thread. Millions of manufacturing jobs have been exported overseas the last sixteen years. There won't be a true economic recovery until the private sector starts showing signs of steady growth once again and those that are presently unemployed will find new jobs.
These economists claim that the economic downturn started in December 2007 and was the longest since World War II. I don't have a difficult time believing that the economic downturn could've began somewhere during that time. I'm going to quickly define the term recession. A recession is two straight quarters or six months of decreased economic activity or two straight downturns on the GDP. That's a simple definition of a recession. I paid attention to the news at that time and I could sense the economy was starting to falter. Gas prices were rising unrestrained. The economists claim the recession lasted for 18 months and outlasted two 16-month recessions, in 1973-75 and 1981-82. Niegel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, notes that economic output plunged 4.1% during the 2007-09 recession, the biggest postwar drop. "Even though economists may say that the recession officially ended last year, obviously for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, it's still very real for them," President Obama said.
The National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee, which issues the official word on the start and end of recessions, hastened to explain that it didn't mean "that economic conditions since June 2009 have been favorable or that the economy has turned to operating at normal capacity. It meant only that the economy hit bottom and began a feeble and fragile recovery. Nearly 7 million jobs vanished during the recession, and job losses continued for months afterward. The jobless rate didn't peak at 10.1% until October 2009. The committee withheld its decision until it saw the final version of key economic reports in July and August, then confirmed what most economists concluded months ago; that the recession ended in mid-2009. Hearing the recession declared over is "going to irritate a lot of people," says Dan Seiver, finance professor at San Diego State University. "When they say the recession ends, that doesn't mean everything is good again...Unemployment tends to be a lagging indicator." Economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland have found that recession triggered by financial crises tend to be the nastiest, marked by persistent joblessness and falling home prices. They claim that this announcement means that any new downturn would mark the beginning of a new recession, not a continuation of the previous recession.
Many times when I read the news about the economy, I have to take it with a grain of smart. I know there are those out in the media that will spin the economy favorable or unfavorable depending upon which party is in control in Washington and which political party they are sympathetic to. One point I will bear out and that is the stock market on Wall Street can be boosting high numbers, but that doesn't mean the economy is doing well for the average American. For those that work at our nation's capital, Wall Street, or those who head multi-national corporations, their economy is going great. The sector that has had the greatest job growth within the last eighteen months has been the public sector. Government has added all kinds of czars and bureaucrats to its payroll. However, the private sector is limping slowly. The Democrats in Washington refused to do what's necessary to help jump-start our economy: that is to renew the Bush tax cuts. This is no time to to raise taxes. The government needs to lower taxes on all Americans, businesses, and remove burdensome regulations that hinder businesses from growing. With the passage of Obamacare in March, businesses will incur extra costs which hinder them from hiring new employees. President Obama, the Democratic Party, and a group of elite economists can claim that our nation is out of a recession, but America's economy is hanging on a thread. Millions of manufacturing jobs have been exported overseas the last sixteen years. There won't be a true economic recovery until the private sector starts showing signs of steady growth once again and those that are presently unemployed will find new jobs.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Issue is I-L-L-E-G-A-L Immigration/Restoring Honor Rally (Part 13)
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.13 Beck's Monologue
(USA Today) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell made an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. He was asked questions by moderator David Gregory about President Obama to begin with. Colin Powell openly supported then Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for president in 2008. Powell stated that President Obama is a Christian and isn't a Muslim and that he was born in the United States; not in Kenya. (Powell was asked by Gregory what he thought about the comments Newt Gingrich made in his new book about President Obama.) Aside from speaking about the Obama administration and what he thought about the Obama administration since Obama took office, Powell then proceeded to speak about the subject of illegal immigration.
Powell stated that illegal immigrants do essential work in the United States and he (Powell) has first-hand knowledge of that because they fix his house. Powell, who was Secretary of State during the first term of the George W. Bush administration, urged the Republicans to support "immigration" generally because it is "what's keeping this country's life blood moving forward." Powell said a path to legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants in the U.S. because they "are doing things we need done in this country." He added, "They're all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I'm sure you've seen them at your house. We've got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status." He claimed Republicans musn't become anti-immigration and spoke in support of legislation that would give certain children of illegal immigrants a way to become citizens if they pursue a college education or military service. He then went on to add that immigration offers the U.S. a chance to maintain a youthful population in contrast with the aging of Europe and Japan.
Many liberal pundits are always branding those that speak out against illegal immigration as anti-immigrant or racist. Racism isn't the issue. The issue is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! I understand the argument behind using illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. because it's difficult to find Americans to perform the type of jobs that illegals perform. I understand their argument. First of all, before we consider employing illegals, we should force those that are on welfare to take these jobs that illegals have been performing. That would remove several Americans off the government dole. That should be the first goal. Secondly, if there's still a need for foreigners to perform the "dirty" jobs that many Americans won't perform, then we should provide some type of identification and work permits to those illegals that work here. We need to have all foreigners that come to the U.S. documented. It's dangerous to allow illegals to sneak through our borders and not know they're living in America. If America's going to employ illegal immigrants, then we need to offer them work permits and conduct a background check on them. Once we go through that process, then they will become "legal" immigrants coming here to work. That would be the solution.
I'm assuming when Powell speaks of offering some type of status to illegals he's making reference to what I've just mentioned and that is issue identification and work permits. I believe they are classified as green cards. When I first read the article in the USA Today I didn't read the part where Powell said some sort of legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants who work in the U.S. If he's saying what I'm thinking, then I agree with him on that point. Nevertheless, we need to stop employing illegal immigrants. If we need to hire foreigners to work, then we need to conduct a background check on them, offer them sort sort of I.D., and issue work permits. On the other hand, the issue of authorizing a path to citizenship is a different story. If those illegals that live in America desire to eventually become U.S. citizens, then they need to get in line to go through the proper channels to apply for citizenship like any other immigrant that's applying for U.S. citizenship. It wouldn't be right to offer amnesty to those who have been residing in America illegally while there are those who have followed the laws and are waiting in line to become U.S. citizens. You don't offer amnesty to those who broke the law in coming here without some sort of documentation. I'm not opposed to legal immigration. America was built on immigrant families coming to America. However, they came to America legally and they worked to assimilate into the American culture. they went through the appropriate channels to become U.S. citizens. They came to seek for a better living and to contribute to the well-being of America. It's illegal immigration that I and most Americans have an issue with. It's the fault of the U.S. government for decades for not closing the borders except at certain checkpoints. Many state governments such as California for example are nearly bankrupt for using taxpayer dollars to provide benefits ranging from healthcare to welfare to illegals in America. It's bankrupting the country. That's not right to the taxpayers of America.
If the Democrats lose control of Congress in the general election, I suspect that Congress will hold a lame-duck session to vote on some type of deal to grant amnesty to illegals. That's the agenda of President Obama and Congress---both Democrat and Republican. If amnesty is granted to illegal aliens, it will forever change the landscape of America.
(USA Today) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell made an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. He was asked questions by moderator David Gregory about President Obama to begin with. Colin Powell openly supported then Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for president in 2008. Powell stated that President Obama is a Christian and isn't a Muslim and that he was born in the United States; not in Kenya. (Powell was asked by Gregory what he thought about the comments Newt Gingrich made in his new book about President Obama.) Aside from speaking about the Obama administration and what he thought about the Obama administration since Obama took office, Powell then proceeded to speak about the subject of illegal immigration.
Powell stated that illegal immigrants do essential work in the United States and he (Powell) has first-hand knowledge of that because they fix his house. Powell, who was Secretary of State during the first term of the George W. Bush administration, urged the Republicans to support "immigration" generally because it is "what's keeping this country's life blood moving forward." Powell said a path to legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants in the U.S. because they "are doing things we need done in this country." He added, "They're all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I'm sure you've seen them at your house. We've got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status." He claimed Republicans musn't become anti-immigration and spoke in support of legislation that would give certain children of illegal immigrants a way to become citizens if they pursue a college education or military service. He then went on to add that immigration offers the U.S. a chance to maintain a youthful population in contrast with the aging of Europe and Japan.
Many liberal pundits are always branding those that speak out against illegal immigration as anti-immigrant or racist. Racism isn't the issue. The issue is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! I understand the argument behind using illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. because it's difficult to find Americans to perform the type of jobs that illegals perform. I understand their argument. First of all, before we consider employing illegals, we should force those that are on welfare to take these jobs that illegals have been performing. That would remove several Americans off the government dole. That should be the first goal. Secondly, if there's still a need for foreigners to perform the "dirty" jobs that many Americans won't perform, then we should provide some type of identification and work permits to those illegals that work here. We need to have all foreigners that come to the U.S. documented. It's dangerous to allow illegals to sneak through our borders and not know they're living in America. If America's going to employ illegal immigrants, then we need to offer them work permits and conduct a background check on them. Once we go through that process, then they will become "legal" immigrants coming here to work. That would be the solution.
I'm assuming when Powell speaks of offering some type of status to illegals he's making reference to what I've just mentioned and that is issue identification and work permits. I believe they are classified as green cards. When I first read the article in the USA Today I didn't read the part where Powell said some sort of legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants who work in the U.S. If he's saying what I'm thinking, then I agree with him on that point. Nevertheless, we need to stop employing illegal immigrants. If we need to hire foreigners to work, then we need to conduct a background check on them, offer them sort sort of I.D., and issue work permits. On the other hand, the issue of authorizing a path to citizenship is a different story. If those illegals that live in America desire to eventually become U.S. citizens, then they need to get in line to go through the proper channels to apply for citizenship like any other immigrant that's applying for U.S. citizenship. It wouldn't be right to offer amnesty to those who have been residing in America illegally while there are those who have followed the laws and are waiting in line to become U.S. citizens. You don't offer amnesty to those who broke the law in coming here without some sort of documentation. I'm not opposed to legal immigration. America was built on immigrant families coming to America. However, they came to America legally and they worked to assimilate into the American culture. they went through the appropriate channels to become U.S. citizens. They came to seek for a better living and to contribute to the well-being of America. It's illegal immigration that I and most Americans have an issue with. It's the fault of the U.S. government for decades for not closing the borders except at certain checkpoints. Many state governments such as California for example are nearly bankrupt for using taxpayer dollars to provide benefits ranging from healthcare to welfare to illegals in America. It's bankrupting the country. That's not right to the taxpayers of America.
If the Democrats lose control of Congress in the general election, I suspect that Congress will hold a lame-duck session to vote on some type of deal to grant amnesty to illegals. That's the agenda of President Obama and Congress---both Democrat and Republican. If amnesty is granted to illegal aliens, it will forever change the landscape of America.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Sarah Shourd States the Hikers Weren't Guilty of Espionage/Restoring Honor Rally (Part 12)
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.12 Beck's Monologue
(USA Today) Sarah Shourd, who was held in Iran for more than 13 months and accused of espionage stated Sunday she and the two men who hiked with her never spied or committed any crime. She called their arrest "a huge misunderstanding." Disscussing her experience to some degree since her release Tuesday, Shourd underscored her gratitude at being released but said she felt only "one-third free" because her finace, Shane Beuer, and their friend, Josh Fattal, are still detained in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. "This is not the time to celebrate," Shourd said at a news conference. "The only thing that enabled me to cross the gulf from prison to freedom alone was the knowledge that Shane and Josh wanted with all their hearts for my suffering to end."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York on Sunday to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Ahmadinejad called Shourd's release "a huge humanitarian gesture" in an interview on "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour. He called on the United States to release eight Iranians detained after arrests which he called illegal. A composed Shourd with her voice wavering with emotion thanked Iranians and Ahmadinejad in a carefully scripted return that reflected the delicacy of her situation. She didn't take questions or discuss the conditions in which she had been held, walking away at a Manhattan motel hand-in-hand with her mother Nora, before Fattal's and Bauer's mothers answered reporters' questions.
Iran had issued espionage-related indictments against Shourd, Bauer and Fattal. The indictments could bring trials for the two men and proceedings in absentia for Shourd. Shourd stressed their innocence in a case that has added to the roster of tensions between the United States and Iran. The three were detained in July 2009 after Iranian officials said they intentionally crossed the country's border from Iraq. Shourd said Sunday that the three had been hiking in a popular tourist area--near a waterfall in Iraq's Kurdistan region--and had no idea the border was nearby. "If we were indeed near the Iraq-Iran border, that border was entirely unmarked and indistinguishable," she stated. "Shane and Josh do not deserve to be in prison one day longer than I was," she said. "We committed no crime, and we are not spies. We in no way intended any harm to the Iranian government or its people and believe a huge misunderstanding led to our detention and prolonged imprisonment."
Shourd's mother stated her daughter has health problems such as a breast lump and precancerous cervical cells. Shourd said Sunday that doctors in Oman, where she went immediately following her release, had determined that she was physically well. Officials in Oman, which is an ally of both Iran and the United States--mediated a $500,000 bail for Shourd that satisfied Iranian authorities and apparently did not violate U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. The source of the bail payment hasn't been disclosed. After 410 days in Iranian custody, "I walked out of prison with my Spirit bruised but unbroken," she said. Shourd and Bauer had been living in Damascus, Syria. Fattal, a fellow graduate of the University of California-Berkeley, visited them last July, and the three went hiking together.
Given the fact that the U.S. and Iran are at odds with one another, it can be dangerous when tourists from the United States come to visit or stay in the Middle East, especially in areas which are hotbeds of terrorism. Shourd was a teacher and activist in California who had the desire to improve America's relationship with other countries. However, there are rogue countries which are very unreasonable and are the enemies of America. Some dictators such as Ahmadinejad you can't reason with. Regardless whether or not the hikers were involved in espionage, the Iranian government is going to spin this as espionage. I believe Ahmadinejad is using Fattal and Bauer as pawns. Americans are praying for the soon release and return of Bauer and Fattal.
(USA Today) Sarah Shourd, who was held in Iran for more than 13 months and accused of espionage stated Sunday she and the two men who hiked with her never spied or committed any crime. She called their arrest "a huge misunderstanding." Disscussing her experience to some degree since her release Tuesday, Shourd underscored her gratitude at being released but said she felt only "one-third free" because her finace, Shane Beuer, and their friend, Josh Fattal, are still detained in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. "This is not the time to celebrate," Shourd said at a news conference. "The only thing that enabled me to cross the gulf from prison to freedom alone was the knowledge that Shane and Josh wanted with all their hearts for my suffering to end."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York on Sunday to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Ahmadinejad called Shourd's release "a huge humanitarian gesture" in an interview on "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour. He called on the United States to release eight Iranians detained after arrests which he called illegal. A composed Shourd with her voice wavering with emotion thanked Iranians and Ahmadinejad in a carefully scripted return that reflected the delicacy of her situation. She didn't take questions or discuss the conditions in which she had been held, walking away at a Manhattan motel hand-in-hand with her mother Nora, before Fattal's and Bauer's mothers answered reporters' questions.
Iran had issued espionage-related indictments against Shourd, Bauer and Fattal. The indictments could bring trials for the two men and proceedings in absentia for Shourd. Shourd stressed their innocence in a case that has added to the roster of tensions between the United States and Iran. The three were detained in July 2009 after Iranian officials said they intentionally crossed the country's border from Iraq. Shourd said Sunday that the three had been hiking in a popular tourist area--near a waterfall in Iraq's Kurdistan region--and had no idea the border was nearby. "If we were indeed near the Iraq-Iran border, that border was entirely unmarked and indistinguishable," she stated. "Shane and Josh do not deserve to be in prison one day longer than I was," she said. "We committed no crime, and we are not spies. We in no way intended any harm to the Iranian government or its people and believe a huge misunderstanding led to our detention and prolonged imprisonment."
Shourd's mother stated her daughter has health problems such as a breast lump and precancerous cervical cells. Shourd said Sunday that doctors in Oman, where she went immediately following her release, had determined that she was physically well. Officials in Oman, which is an ally of both Iran and the United States--mediated a $500,000 bail for Shourd that satisfied Iranian authorities and apparently did not violate U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. The source of the bail payment hasn't been disclosed. After 410 days in Iranian custody, "I walked out of prison with my Spirit bruised but unbroken," she said. Shourd and Bauer had been living in Damascus, Syria. Fattal, a fellow graduate of the University of California-Berkeley, visited them last July, and the three went hiking together.
Given the fact that the U.S. and Iran are at odds with one another, it can be dangerous when tourists from the United States come to visit or stay in the Middle East, especially in areas which are hotbeds of terrorism. Shourd was a teacher and activist in California who had the desire to improve America's relationship with other countries. However, there are rogue countries which are very unreasonable and are the enemies of America. Some dictators such as Ahmadinejad you can't reason with. Regardless whether or not the hikers were involved in espionage, the Iranian government is going to spin this as espionage. I believe Ahmadinejad is using Fattal and Bauer as pawns. Americans are praying for the soon release and return of Bauer and Fattal.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Christine O'Donnell's Witchcraft Comments/Restoring Honor Rally Part 11
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.11 Beck's Monologue
(Yahoo) Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware who defeated incumbent Rep. Mike Castle in last Tuesday's primary, made an appearance on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" program on October 29, 1999 making statements about dabbling in witchcraft. O'Donnell stated, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." Maher aired the old footage on his show last week. "One of my first dates with a watch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's a little blood there and stuff like that," she said.
This past weekend following last Tuesday's primary, McDonnell, a marketing consultant, was in Washington, D.C. speaking at the Values Voters' Conference, which was sponsored by the Family Research Council. At a picnic this past weekend in Delaware, O'Donnell played down the witchcraft episode, chalking it up to high school immaturity, the Associated Press reported. "How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked the GOP crowd.
It's obvious from the outset the left is using the comments she made about dabbling in witchcraft in high school as a means to smear her and to place further distrust in the voters of Delaware towards her. If there were revelations in 2008 that then candidate Barack Obama had dabbled in witchcraft while in high school, the media would've dismissed that as something that took place years ago. The liberal media, which includes those minions on MSNBC such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, would claim that's nothing but a right wing attack against Obama. However, it's fair game when the liberal media uses the past of conservative candidate to smear them. The liberal media will drag up anything unsavory about a conservative candidate to discredit them towards those likely voters. The media will especially use racial baiting to discredit a candidate. The media will contrive anything that would give a hint of racism, as when South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson called President Obama a liar when the President gave his speech on healthcare before a joint session of Congress last year. If Christine O'Donnell has made any type of racial comment towards another race, the media will bring that issue to light; I guarantee you.
With all that being said, I need to make a comment about how Christine O'Donnell should handle that witchcraft comment. First of all, I recognize that many of these who run for office has done something that's been unsavory in their past. I don't care about what they did in the past as long as they repented of what they did. I'm not personally concerned about Christine O'Donnell's dabbling into witchcraft years ago if she truly repented of it and no longer messes with it. If she was still dabbling into witchcraft, then that would be a different story. The thing that disturbed me about O'Donnell was the comment she made at a picnic when she made light of dabbling into witchcraft years ago. One thing a candidate should never do is to make light or condone in any way past sins. Sin is sin. Wickedness is wicknedness. The way she should've handled this would be to say she once played with witchcraft in high school and she's truly sorry for what she did. It was wrong and stupid. She wouldn't recommend anyone to engage in that kind of satanic activity. That's how she should've responded. Delaware voters would've had a higher opinion of her if she explained it in that way. Making light of past sins is wrong, regardless whether it wins you elections or not. Will it influence likely voters in Delaware from voting for her? I can't say for sure, but her statements in making light of witchcraft doesn't help her resume. She's a newcomer to politics. She's running for this Senate seat for the third time. She needs to hit the campaign trail hard in Delaware trying to articulate to the voters what her vision is if she's elected to the U.S. Senate. Given the liberal media's smears toward her, it will make her election chances in Delaware an uphill battle, given that voters in Delaware aren't necessarily conservative. Will O'Donnell be able to pull it through given the fierce attacks that will be directed against her? Only time will reveal that. We'll have to wait until November 2nd.
(Yahoo) Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware who defeated incumbent Rep. Mike Castle in last Tuesday's primary, made an appearance on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" program on October 29, 1999 making statements about dabbling in witchcraft. O'Donnell stated, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." Maher aired the old footage on his show last week. "One of my first dates with a watch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's a little blood there and stuff like that," she said.
This past weekend following last Tuesday's primary, McDonnell, a marketing consultant, was in Washington, D.C. speaking at the Values Voters' Conference, which was sponsored by the Family Research Council. At a picnic this past weekend in Delaware, O'Donnell played down the witchcraft episode, chalking it up to high school immaturity, the Associated Press reported. "How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked the GOP crowd.
It's obvious from the outset the left is using the comments she made about dabbling in witchcraft in high school as a means to smear her and to place further distrust in the voters of Delaware towards her. If there were revelations in 2008 that then candidate Barack Obama had dabbled in witchcraft while in high school, the media would've dismissed that as something that took place years ago. The liberal media, which includes those minions on MSNBC such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, would claim that's nothing but a right wing attack against Obama. However, it's fair game when the liberal media uses the past of conservative candidate to smear them. The liberal media will drag up anything unsavory about a conservative candidate to discredit them towards those likely voters. The media will especially use racial baiting to discredit a candidate. The media will contrive anything that would give a hint of racism, as when South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson called President Obama a liar when the President gave his speech on healthcare before a joint session of Congress last year. If Christine O'Donnell has made any type of racial comment towards another race, the media will bring that issue to light; I guarantee you.
With all that being said, I need to make a comment about how Christine O'Donnell should handle that witchcraft comment. First of all, I recognize that many of these who run for office has done something that's been unsavory in their past. I don't care about what they did in the past as long as they repented of what they did. I'm not personally concerned about Christine O'Donnell's dabbling into witchcraft years ago if she truly repented of it and no longer messes with it. If she was still dabbling into witchcraft, then that would be a different story. The thing that disturbed me about O'Donnell was the comment she made at a picnic when she made light of dabbling into witchcraft years ago. One thing a candidate should never do is to make light or condone in any way past sins. Sin is sin. Wickedness is wicknedness. The way she should've handled this would be to say she once played with witchcraft in high school and she's truly sorry for what she did. It was wrong and stupid. She wouldn't recommend anyone to engage in that kind of satanic activity. That's how she should've responded. Delaware voters would've had a higher opinion of her if she explained it in that way. Making light of past sins is wrong, regardless whether it wins you elections or not. Will it influence likely voters in Delaware from voting for her? I can't say for sure, but her statements in making light of witchcraft doesn't help her resume. She's a newcomer to politics. She's running for this Senate seat for the third time. She needs to hit the campaign trail hard in Delaware trying to articulate to the voters what her vision is if she's elected to the U.S. Senate. Given the liberal media's smears toward her, it will make her election chances in Delaware an uphill battle, given that voters in Delaware aren't necessarily conservative. Will O'Donnell be able to pull it through given the fierce attacks that will be directed against her? Only time will reveal that. We'll have to wait until November 2nd.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Jimmy Carter Claims Ted Kennedy Delayed Health Plan/Restoring Honor Rally (Part 10)
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.10 Beck's Monologue
(USA Today) Former president Jimmy Carter claimed Americans could've had comprehensive healthcare coverage back in the 1970's if Senator Edward Kennedy hadn't blocked a plan Carter had proposed. Carter brought up that incident on CBS's "60 Minutes" which was aired yesterday. Portions of the interview, prompted by the publication of his White House diary, were posted on the program's website Thursday.
"We would've had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy's deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed," Carter said. "It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill." Both Kennedy and Carter had competing healthcare plans while Carter was president. Carter stated Kennedy, who was his Democratic rival, was spiteful. "He did not want to see me have a major success in that realm of life." The Massachusetts Senator unsuccessfully challenged Carter for the 1980 presidential nomination. Carter eventually lost to Ronald Reagan during the November election. Healthcare was a prized cause for Kennedy. Kennedy had been pushing for healthcare since he was involved in a plane crash in 1964. Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009. In Carter's 2009 memoir, "True Compass", Kennedy accused Carter of dragging his feet on healthcare, saying Carter saw Kennedy's healthcare efforts as a platform to challenge his presidency.
I know from reading about Kennedy during Carter's presidency that Kennedy was no big fan of Carter. I'm thankful that national healthcare didn't pass during the Carter administration. If it wasn't for bribery and backroom deals, Obamacare wouldn't have passed this March. However, all this is part of the socialist plan for the government to take control of our economy and eventually everything that revolves around the lives of the American people.
(USA Today) Former president Jimmy Carter claimed Americans could've had comprehensive healthcare coverage back in the 1970's if Senator Edward Kennedy hadn't blocked a plan Carter had proposed. Carter brought up that incident on CBS's "60 Minutes" which was aired yesterday. Portions of the interview, prompted by the publication of his White House diary, were posted on the program's website Thursday.
"We would've had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy's deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed," Carter said. "It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill." Both Kennedy and Carter had competing healthcare plans while Carter was president. Carter stated Kennedy, who was his Democratic rival, was spiteful. "He did not want to see me have a major success in that realm of life." The Massachusetts Senator unsuccessfully challenged Carter for the 1980 presidential nomination. Carter eventually lost to Ronald Reagan during the November election. Healthcare was a prized cause for Kennedy. Kennedy had been pushing for healthcare since he was involved in a plane crash in 1964. Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009. In Carter's 2009 memoir, "True Compass", Kennedy accused Carter of dragging his feet on healthcare, saying Carter saw Kennedy's healthcare efforts as a platform to challenge his presidency.
I know from reading about Kennedy during Carter's presidency that Kennedy was no big fan of Carter. I'm thankful that national healthcare didn't pass during the Carter administration. If it wasn't for bribery and backroom deals, Obamacare wouldn't have passed this March. However, all this is part of the socialist plan for the government to take control of our economy and eventually everything that revolves around the lives of the American people.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Church at Philadelphia
(Revelation 3:7-13) "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, that he is true, but 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 will also keep them 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 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."
Philadelphia was located 28 miles south east of Sardis on the Cogamus River. The city was named after its founder King Attalus Philedelphos II of Pergamum. The "city of brotherly love" was built out of affection for his brother and predecessor Ecumenes II. Philadelphia was a city known for the spread of the Greek language and culture. The city was regarded as a wealthy trade center; it was located on the main route between the east and west. Philadelphia was a blessed congregation. Even though they had little strength, they kept His word, didn't deny his name, and endured patiently.
This church is also called the "favored church" or the "loved church", because God said that "I have loved you" and gave no reprimands whatsoever to this church. This is the period in church history that is considered the start of the missionary movement around the world. It was the reclaiming of the imminent return of Christ, the Pre-millennial coming of Jesus to the earth and the rapture of the church. This church is sort of a throwback to the first two churches of Ephesus and Smyrna of the first three centuries. Just as Sardis come out of Thyatira, so Philadelphia comes out of Sardis. As Sardis was dead and cold and aligned with the state, this church is alive, full of love and vitality for God and for people.
There are two factors that played a part in starting the missionary movement. One of them was the Bible was printed in the language of the people, and made available to people to read. Before this, there were few Bibles and the forbade the reading of it by common folk. Because the Spirit of the Lord will make the Word of God alive, when people started reading it, they took it literally, and when it said..."Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature", that's what Christians did. Also, because the Word of God was available, the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ for his bride (the rapture), the Second coming of Christ, the Millennial reign of Christ, and all the End times doctrines were revived. Due to the printing press, people had a copy of the Bible they could read to learn the truths of scripture. These teachings contributed, (as they did during the first 300 years of the church), to a consecrated, separated, and evangelistic church that reaches the whole world. In preparation for an anticipation of the return of the Lord, this church would do what He said to do in the Great Commission, which was to "go into all the world."
In this hour in which we live, the church era we're living in presently is the Laodecian church age which we'll be discussing next Sunday. Even though the church has become increased with goods and has need of nothing (so they think), we can still have the spirit of Philadelphia. In the midst of the church's slumber, I believe there's a remnant today that represents the church at Philadelphia. There are churches that are steadfast in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ to their local communities. There are those of us who believe Jesus is soon to return. There are still those that haven't compromised and bowed their knee to the gods of this world. They have been steadfast and faithful. We must keep in mind that everything we do when it comes to the gospel we do it in the light of the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is coming. The gospel is serious. Time is running out. What we need to do for the sake of the gospel we must do quickly. Signs are ripe for the rapture to take place. It could take place today.
Philadelphia was located 28 miles south east of Sardis on the Cogamus River. The city was named after its founder King Attalus Philedelphos II of Pergamum. The "city of brotherly love" was built out of affection for his brother and predecessor Ecumenes II. Philadelphia was a city known for the spread of the Greek language and culture. The city was regarded as a wealthy trade center; it was located on the main route between the east and west. Philadelphia was a blessed congregation. Even though they had little strength, they kept His word, didn't deny his name, and endured patiently.
This church is also called the "favored church" or the "loved church", because God said that "I have loved you" and gave no reprimands whatsoever to this church. This is the period in church history that is considered the start of the missionary movement around the world. It was the reclaiming of the imminent return of Christ, the Pre-millennial coming of Jesus to the earth and the rapture of the church. This church is sort of a throwback to the first two churches of Ephesus and Smyrna of the first three centuries. Just as Sardis come out of Thyatira, so Philadelphia comes out of Sardis. As Sardis was dead and cold and aligned with the state, this church is alive, full of love and vitality for God and for people.
There are two factors that played a part in starting the missionary movement. One of them was the Bible was printed in the language of the people, and made available to people to read. Before this, there were few Bibles and the forbade the reading of it by common folk. Because the Spirit of the Lord will make the Word of God alive, when people started reading it, they took it literally, and when it said..."Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature", that's what Christians did. Also, because the Word of God was available, the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ for his bride (the rapture), the Second coming of Christ, the Millennial reign of Christ, and all the End times doctrines were revived. Due to the printing press, people had a copy of the Bible they could read to learn the truths of scripture. These teachings contributed, (as they did during the first 300 years of the church), to a consecrated, separated, and evangelistic church that reaches the whole world. In preparation for an anticipation of the return of the Lord, this church would do what He said to do in the Great Commission, which was to "go into all the world."
In this hour in which we live, the church era we're living in presently is the Laodecian church age which we'll be discussing next Sunday. Even though the church has become increased with goods and has need of nothing (so they think), we can still have the spirit of Philadelphia. In the midst of the church's slumber, I believe there's a remnant today that represents the church at Philadelphia. There are churches that are steadfast in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ to their local communities. There are those of us who believe Jesus is soon to return. There are still those that haven't compromised and bowed their knee to the gods of this world. They have been steadfast and faithful. We must keep in mind that everything we do when it comes to the gospel we do it in the light of the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is coming. The gospel is serious. Time is running out. What we need to do for the sake of the gospel we must do quickly. Signs are ripe for the rapture to take place. It could take place today.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Voter Values Summit/Restoring Honor Rally (Part 9)
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.9 Beck's Monologue
(Politico) This weekend, a group of social conservative activists and politicians gathered in Washington to send an unmistakable message to both the media and their party: we won't take a back seat. From the ballroom podium to the corridors of the Omni Shoreham, the conservative Christians who attended the Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit" this weekend said even though concerns over spending and the state of the economy may be fueling activists on the right at the moment, the country and the GOP coalition still depend on cultural conservatives.
Attendees here welcomed the fiscally driven tea party activists to the Republican fold, but stated that the concerns over the deficit and the growth of government doesn't mean morality-based issues such as abortion and gay marriage should be placed on the back shelf. Even though speaker after speaker was reluctant to criticize Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels by name, each speaker criticized the governor's suggestion that the next president call a "truce" on hot-button cultural issues to focus on budget-related matters. Some of the speakers that spoke at the summit were Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, U.S. Senatorial Candidate Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), and former Arkanas governor Mike Huckabee, to name a few.
"We must realize there's a direct correlation between the stability of families and the stability of our economy," Mike Huckabee stated. "I'm so tired of people telling me we don't want to hear about issues of the family." Mike Pence surprisingly won the straw poll with 24 percent, narrowly edging Huckabee, who took 22 percent and finished 11 votes behind the Hoosier. The next closest contentder was Mitt Romney, who won 13 percent. Family Researach Council President Tony Perkins, speaking to reporters after announcing the results, praised Pence's devotion to both fiscal and social issues and said he was "the type of candidates values voters will be looking for." Since the rise of the new conservative movement with the aid of the Moral Majority in the late 70's, social/cultural issues aren't receiving the amount of attention nowadays that it once received several years ago. Polls show that the new, fiscal-focused conservative activists also share traditional views on social issues, but that's not what necessarily what drives the tea party movement. These activists are more focused on issues relating to the role of the federal government and are trying to thwart what they see as the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress's attempt to impose European-style socialism on America.
Social conservatives here said that if the GOP takes back control of the House or Senate this November, they won't tolerate compromise with Democrats on cultural mattes. Perkins stated he expected a new Republican majority in the House to push back against any attempt to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against homosexuals in the military and legislation to restrict businesses from discriminating against homosexual employees.
We have a group within the Republican party who want to downplay the importance of social/cultural issues. That's why the Republican Party is divided. Some Republicans refuse to see that America's moral/social problems are correlated with America's financial problems. America's problems are much deeper than fiscal. The reason why America is in the shape she's in today is due to the breakdown of the traditional family unit. That's why issues such as abortion and homosexuality are at the forefront. We've had groups of abortion activists and groups of homosexual activists that have sued the courts years ago and that's why those two issues are in the political arena. They must be squarely dealt with. Proverbs 14:34 states that righteousness exalteth a nation. Our nation is unstable due to America forgetting God as well as the breakdown of the family unit. If our homes and churches followed what the Bible says, America wouldn't be in the shape she's in today. America's drift from constitutional principles along with the fiscal shape America's in is a result of the moral/spiritual problems plaguing America today. Electing "conservative" Republicans to Congress and the presidency aren't what's going to save America. God's people must repent of their sins and right their relationship with Him. America's problems are primarily spiritual. Christians must set the standard on how people should live if America is to be salvaged.
(Politico) This weekend, a group of social conservative activists and politicians gathered in Washington to send an unmistakable message to both the media and their party: we won't take a back seat. From the ballroom podium to the corridors of the Omni Shoreham, the conservative Christians who attended the Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit" this weekend said even though concerns over spending and the state of the economy may be fueling activists on the right at the moment, the country and the GOP coalition still depend on cultural conservatives.
Attendees here welcomed the fiscally driven tea party activists to the Republican fold, but stated that the concerns over the deficit and the growth of government doesn't mean morality-based issues such as abortion and gay marriage should be placed on the back shelf. Even though speaker after speaker was reluctant to criticize Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels by name, each speaker criticized the governor's suggestion that the next president call a "truce" on hot-button cultural issues to focus on budget-related matters. Some of the speakers that spoke at the summit were Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, U.S. Senatorial Candidate Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), and former Arkanas governor Mike Huckabee, to name a few.
"We must realize there's a direct correlation between the stability of families and the stability of our economy," Mike Huckabee stated. "I'm so tired of people telling me we don't want to hear about issues of the family." Mike Pence surprisingly won the straw poll with 24 percent, narrowly edging Huckabee, who took 22 percent and finished 11 votes behind the Hoosier. The next closest contentder was Mitt Romney, who won 13 percent. Family Researach Council President Tony Perkins, speaking to reporters after announcing the results, praised Pence's devotion to both fiscal and social issues and said he was "the type of candidates values voters will be looking for." Since the rise of the new conservative movement with the aid of the Moral Majority in the late 70's, social/cultural issues aren't receiving the amount of attention nowadays that it once received several years ago. Polls show that the new, fiscal-focused conservative activists also share traditional views on social issues, but that's not what necessarily what drives the tea party movement. These activists are more focused on issues relating to the role of the federal government and are trying to thwart what they see as the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress's attempt to impose European-style socialism on America.
Social conservatives here said that if the GOP takes back control of the House or Senate this November, they won't tolerate compromise with Democrats on cultural mattes. Perkins stated he expected a new Republican majority in the House to push back against any attempt to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against homosexuals in the military and legislation to restrict businesses from discriminating against homosexual employees.
We have a group within the Republican party who want to downplay the importance of social/cultural issues. That's why the Republican Party is divided. Some Republicans refuse to see that America's moral/social problems are correlated with America's financial problems. America's problems are much deeper than fiscal. The reason why America is in the shape she's in today is due to the breakdown of the traditional family unit. That's why issues such as abortion and homosexuality are at the forefront. We've had groups of abortion activists and groups of homosexual activists that have sued the courts years ago and that's why those two issues are in the political arena. They must be squarely dealt with. Proverbs 14:34 states that righteousness exalteth a nation. Our nation is unstable due to America forgetting God as well as the breakdown of the family unit. If our homes and churches followed what the Bible says, America wouldn't be in the shape she's in today. America's drift from constitutional principles along with the fiscal shape America's in is a result of the moral/spiritual problems plaguing America today. Electing "conservative" Republicans to Congress and the presidency aren't what's going to save America. God's people must repent of their sins and right their relationship with Him. America's problems are primarily spiritual. Christians must set the standard on how people should live if America is to be salvaged.
God's Answers aren't Always Yes
II Corinthians 12:7-9 "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of the Christ may rest upon me." One of the problems Christians face when they seek God in prayer is a lack of patience. They pray to God and are seeking for an answer from the Lord. They desire for the Lord to answer that prayer immediately. The truth of the matter is, the Lord doesn't always answer prayer whenever we desire him to answer prayer. Sometimes the Lord delays prayer. In the book of I Samuel chapter 1, you read about Hannah whose womb was closed. She prayed to God for a child. The Lord didn't answer her prayer exactly when she desired for it to be answered. However, the Lord eventually granted her request for a child. As a result, the prophet Samuel was born and he was the judge of Israel. Sometimes we become too impatient on God and we immediately expect him to answer our prayers. God doesn't necessarily answer according to our timetable. Many times the Lord answers according to his own timetable. Sometimes that could mean waiting for years, which is something we have a difficult time accepting. However, God's timing is always right. God knows our frame and he knows what time is appropriate in which to answer our prayers. God knows us and knows that sometimes it takes some preparation for us to be ready to handle what God has for us. We think we're ready for what we're requesting from God right this moment. However, the Lord knows better.
Another problem Christians have when it comes to seeking God for prayer is accepting the fact that God doesn't always answer our prayers the way we think He should answer our prayers. We tend to think that when the Lord answers our prayer, it will always be in the affirmative. The truth of the matter is, God's answers aren't always yes. Sometimes God's answers are "no." No is just as much of an answer to prayer as yes is. For some strange reason, we fail to see "no" is just as much of an answer to prayer as "yes" is. Read the passage in II Corinthians 12:7-9 when Paul mentions about the thorn in the flesh which was the messenger from Satan to buffet him, lest he be exalted above meausure. Paul mentioned that he besought the Lord three times asking that the "thorn" be departed from him. The Lord refused his request, saying His grace is sufficient for Paul. God answered Paul's prayer. It's not the answer the Apostle Paul had originally desired. But it was God's answer to Paul's prayer. We just need to recognize that "no" is as equally as sufficient of an answer as "yes" is. The problem is we don't like a negative answer. We want God to be a "yes" God that we can manipulate. We desire for God to always grant our requests when we make those requests. God doesn't always work that way. We should be thankful that God doesn't always answer our prayers in the affirmative.
Sometimes we as Christians don't know how to pray or what to pray for. Many times we'll request God for something we desire and never recognize if he gave us that request, it could be harmful to us or probably we wouldn't want it once God answered our prayers in the affirmative. Romans 8:26-27 states, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." What a blessing that is! Sometimes we'll face situations in which we're confused and don't know how to pray. We're emotionally in shambles. I'm thankful that the Spirit of God knows how to intercede on our behalf when we don't know how to pray. There've been some desires I've had that didn't work according to what I desired. God didn't answer my prayer the way I desired them to be answered. There have been times I've had to be honest and say I don't know how to pray for this. I've had to tell the Lord that whatever your will is in that particular area of my life that it will be done and give me the grace to accept your will in that particular area of my life. One thing we need to recognize is there are times when we are sailing through some turbulent waters and emotionally we don't know what's best for us. We'll be praying amiss not recognizing it's for our good. We better be thankful that God doesn't always say "yes" to what we pray for. We would be in a heap of trouble if God granted all of our requests.
There are some young people as I'm speaking that are single and are praying for God to give them a spouse. It's difficult many times when God doesn't grant our desires at the time we so desire for them to be granted. Many young people's lives have been in a mess because they wouldn't wait on God when it came to seeking his will for a spouse. Many times we'll see the first person that comes along the pike and we'll jump at the opportunity. However, God didn't will for the individual couple to marry. They married and their lives were in shambles all because they weren't willing to wait on God and wait for God's approval on who they should marry. Many young couples have married one another and God wasn't a thousand miles in that union. It's very imperative that when God says "no" to us that we follow that and not rebel. The word "no" can be our very best friend. There have been people who have been spared from tons of heartache because they obeyed God when he answered in the negative. When I say the word "negative", I mean no. I'm not suggesting in the way I use "negative" that it's a bad thing. The term "negative" is a good thing if God says "no." The word "no" will spare you from all kinds of sorrow if you will heed to it when God doesn't answer your prayer the way you desire for it to be answered. Many times we don't recognize how great of a friend "no" can be until the situation has passed. Then we recognize it was for our own good when God declined to answer our prayers the way we desired. Of course, the word "no" just doesn't apply to seeking for a wife. It could apply to a multitude of other areas in our lives such as a move to another state, a new job, friendships, new opportunities in different places, and the list continues. God has his reason when he says no.
God sometimes will say no because when we petitioned our requests to the Lord, we were praying amiss and asking to consume it for our own lusts (James 4:3). Sometimes we might be seeking God for divine healing for ourselves or for a dear loved one of hours. God may refuse to heal that individual we so dearly love. That doesn't imply God is being mean or doesn't love us. It's just that it doesn't fit in God's plan to heal that individual. Sometimes that can be very hard to swallow when it's our spouse, our parents, or our own children. The thing we must recognize is that God has a plan and he knows what's best. Sometimes a healing touch from God can bring glory to the Lord. The Lord has raised up people from the deathbed of affliction and the Lord used them for a great work to glorify the Lord. There are other people the Lord has chosen to remain in their infirmity. Sometimes our sickness can bring glory to the Lord. Sometimes the world needs to see that serving the Lord is worth it whether in sickness or health. There are some people that God chooses not to heal simply because that individual wouldn't walk as close to God if they were in divine health. Sometimes the best Christians are those that are experiencing physical difficulties. When we experience physical difficulties, we know that we must be dependent on God. Otherwise, if those same people were well physically, they probably wouldn't look to the Lord like they should.
One of the things I've learned when requesting something from the Lord is to be cautious and not plead and cajole esp. if the Lord remains silent or hasn't seemingly answered our prayer yet. Sometimes the Lord will say to us "no" but we plead and beg anyway. I'm reminded of the story in I Samuel 8 where the Israelites wanted a king. The prophet Samuel warned them what it would be like if they were to have a king. God told Samuel to warn the Israelites the consequences of having a king. However, the Israelites didn't hearken unto the warning that Samuel gave them. God let them have their request for a king. Anybody that reads the books of both Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles knows what happened to the nation of Israel during the reign of numerous kings. It wasn't God's will for Israel to have a king, but he allowed them their request because Israel rejected God. God's ways may not always make sense to us. However, if God has made plain that he doesn't want something to take place in your life, you better be careful when pleading with God over and over concerning a prayer request. He may just give it to you and later on you'll regret you didn't accept "no" when God made it plain it wasn't his will for you to have what you were desiring. There's a lesson in what I just said: be careful in what you pray for. Sometimes we pray for things and we know not what we're asking. That's something I'm trying to learn in light of situations not working the way I desired for them to work. Even though it's been difficult to accept at times, I much rather not have what I think I desire then be granted my request and later on down the road regret that I didn't accept God's perfect will for my life.
We as Christians should always be cautious when praying. We need to recognize when we pray that we don't always know what to ask for. I'm thankful for Romans 8:26, 27. I'm glad the Spirit of God intercedes for us. We need to remember that "no" is just as much of an answer as "yes". The problem is when we request something from the Lord, we don't want him to answer negatively. We want him to grant our requests. However, we don't recognize the kind of trouble we could get ourselves into if God always granted all our prayer requests. We need to be thankful that he's a God of "no". "No" can be your best friend. The word "no" has been a best friend to many people. Many people have avoided untold heartache and sorrow when told "no". Some people have refused to accept "no" for an answer. As a result, they've paid a huge price. They have become miserable people because they wouldn't accept what was God's will for their lives. Even though we may not recognize it at the time, we must always recognize God always has our best interests in mind. We must learn to trust Him even when things don't make sense. If we learn to trust and obey, life will be much more peaceful for the child of God. What we need to do is remember what God said in Romans 8:28. If we will memorize that verse and put it into our hearts, it will help us and comfort us when we don't understand why God's answer sometimes is "no."
Another problem Christians have when it comes to seeking God for prayer is accepting the fact that God doesn't always answer our prayers the way we think He should answer our prayers. We tend to think that when the Lord answers our prayer, it will always be in the affirmative. The truth of the matter is, God's answers aren't always yes. Sometimes God's answers are "no." No is just as much of an answer to prayer as yes is. For some strange reason, we fail to see "no" is just as much of an answer to prayer as "yes" is. Read the passage in II Corinthians 12:7-9 when Paul mentions about the thorn in the flesh which was the messenger from Satan to buffet him, lest he be exalted above meausure. Paul mentioned that he besought the Lord three times asking that the "thorn" be departed from him. The Lord refused his request, saying His grace is sufficient for Paul. God answered Paul's prayer. It's not the answer the Apostle Paul had originally desired. But it was God's answer to Paul's prayer. We just need to recognize that "no" is as equally as sufficient of an answer as "yes" is. The problem is we don't like a negative answer. We want God to be a "yes" God that we can manipulate. We desire for God to always grant our requests when we make those requests. God doesn't always work that way. We should be thankful that God doesn't always answer our prayers in the affirmative.
Sometimes we as Christians don't know how to pray or what to pray for. Many times we'll request God for something we desire and never recognize if he gave us that request, it could be harmful to us or probably we wouldn't want it once God answered our prayers in the affirmative. Romans 8:26-27 states, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." What a blessing that is! Sometimes we'll face situations in which we're confused and don't know how to pray. We're emotionally in shambles. I'm thankful that the Spirit of God knows how to intercede on our behalf when we don't know how to pray. There've been some desires I've had that didn't work according to what I desired. God didn't answer my prayer the way I desired them to be answered. There have been times I've had to be honest and say I don't know how to pray for this. I've had to tell the Lord that whatever your will is in that particular area of my life that it will be done and give me the grace to accept your will in that particular area of my life. One thing we need to recognize is there are times when we are sailing through some turbulent waters and emotionally we don't know what's best for us. We'll be praying amiss not recognizing it's for our good. We better be thankful that God doesn't always say "yes" to what we pray for. We would be in a heap of trouble if God granted all of our requests.
There are some young people as I'm speaking that are single and are praying for God to give them a spouse. It's difficult many times when God doesn't grant our desires at the time we so desire for them to be granted. Many young people's lives have been in a mess because they wouldn't wait on God when it came to seeking his will for a spouse. Many times we'll see the first person that comes along the pike and we'll jump at the opportunity. However, God didn't will for the individual couple to marry. They married and their lives were in shambles all because they weren't willing to wait on God and wait for God's approval on who they should marry. Many young couples have married one another and God wasn't a thousand miles in that union. It's very imperative that when God says "no" to us that we follow that and not rebel. The word "no" can be our very best friend. There have been people who have been spared from tons of heartache because they obeyed God when he answered in the negative. When I say the word "negative", I mean no. I'm not suggesting in the way I use "negative" that it's a bad thing. The term "negative" is a good thing if God says "no." The word "no" will spare you from all kinds of sorrow if you will heed to it when God doesn't answer your prayer the way you desire for it to be answered. Many times we don't recognize how great of a friend "no" can be until the situation has passed. Then we recognize it was for our own good when God declined to answer our prayers the way we desired. Of course, the word "no" just doesn't apply to seeking for a wife. It could apply to a multitude of other areas in our lives such as a move to another state, a new job, friendships, new opportunities in different places, and the list continues. God has his reason when he says no.
God sometimes will say no because when we petitioned our requests to the Lord, we were praying amiss and asking to consume it for our own lusts (James 4:3). Sometimes we might be seeking God for divine healing for ourselves or for a dear loved one of hours. God may refuse to heal that individual we so dearly love. That doesn't imply God is being mean or doesn't love us. It's just that it doesn't fit in God's plan to heal that individual. Sometimes that can be very hard to swallow when it's our spouse, our parents, or our own children. The thing we must recognize is that God has a plan and he knows what's best. Sometimes a healing touch from God can bring glory to the Lord. The Lord has raised up people from the deathbed of affliction and the Lord used them for a great work to glorify the Lord. There are other people the Lord has chosen to remain in their infirmity. Sometimes our sickness can bring glory to the Lord. Sometimes the world needs to see that serving the Lord is worth it whether in sickness or health. There are some people that God chooses not to heal simply because that individual wouldn't walk as close to God if they were in divine health. Sometimes the best Christians are those that are experiencing physical difficulties. When we experience physical difficulties, we know that we must be dependent on God. Otherwise, if those same people were well physically, they probably wouldn't look to the Lord like they should.
One of the things I've learned when requesting something from the Lord is to be cautious and not plead and cajole esp. if the Lord remains silent or hasn't seemingly answered our prayer yet. Sometimes the Lord will say to us "no" but we plead and beg anyway. I'm reminded of the story in I Samuel 8 where the Israelites wanted a king. The prophet Samuel warned them what it would be like if they were to have a king. God told Samuel to warn the Israelites the consequences of having a king. However, the Israelites didn't hearken unto the warning that Samuel gave them. God let them have their request for a king. Anybody that reads the books of both Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles knows what happened to the nation of Israel during the reign of numerous kings. It wasn't God's will for Israel to have a king, but he allowed them their request because Israel rejected God. God's ways may not always make sense to us. However, if God has made plain that he doesn't want something to take place in your life, you better be careful when pleading with God over and over concerning a prayer request. He may just give it to you and later on you'll regret you didn't accept "no" when God made it plain it wasn't his will for you to have what you were desiring. There's a lesson in what I just said: be careful in what you pray for. Sometimes we pray for things and we know not what we're asking. That's something I'm trying to learn in light of situations not working the way I desired for them to work. Even though it's been difficult to accept at times, I much rather not have what I think I desire then be granted my request and later on down the road regret that I didn't accept God's perfect will for my life.
We as Christians should always be cautious when praying. We need to recognize when we pray that we don't always know what to ask for. I'm thankful for Romans 8:26, 27. I'm glad the Spirit of God intercedes for us. We need to remember that "no" is just as much of an answer as "yes". The problem is when we request something from the Lord, we don't want him to answer negatively. We want him to grant our requests. However, we don't recognize the kind of trouble we could get ourselves into if God always granted all our prayer requests. We need to be thankful that he's a God of "no". "No" can be your best friend. The word "no" has been a best friend to many people. Many people have avoided untold heartache and sorrow when told "no". Some people have refused to accept "no" for an answer. As a result, they've paid a huge price. They have become miserable people because they wouldn't accept what was God's will for their lives. Even though we may not recognize it at the time, we must always recognize God always has our best interests in mind. We must learn to trust Him even when things don't make sense. If we learn to trust and obey, life will be much more peaceful for the child of God. What we need to do is remember what God said in Romans 8:28. If we will memorize that verse and put it into our hearts, it will help us and comfort us when we don't understand why God's answer sometimes is "no."
Friday, September 17, 2010
If Elected, Will the Tea Party Candidates Shake up Washington?/Restoring Honor Rally (Part 8)
YouTube - Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally pt.8
This past Tuesday Tea Party and Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell scored an upset over veteran Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. Castle was a liberal Republican who supported cap and trade, healthcare, and some of the Democrats' liberal agenda. O'Donnell's win was a crowning triumph over Republican voters's dissatisfaction over with politics as usual in the Republican Party. Throughout this year's primaries, there have been some upsets scored in such states as Utah and Alaska. In Utah, Mike Lee defeated three-term incumbent Senator Bob Bennett. In Alaska, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller defeated Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski. The Tea Party has scored victories in other states as well. In Kentucky Rand Paul defeated establishment Republican Trey Grayson in the primary. In Colorado, Ken Buck defeated Republican establishment-backed Jane Norton. In Nevada, Sharron Angle was another Tea Party candidate who trumped two well-known Republican candidates. The one person responsible in campaigning for these Tea Party candidates is none other than former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Palin's been traveling around the country campaigning for several Tea Party candidates in different states. So far she's had some success.
The first question that must be asked in regards to these Tea Party candidates is are they all winnable? In some states they appear to be winnable and other states they're questionable. In Kentucky, Republican Rand Paul has a great chance of picking up the retiring Jim Bunning's Senate seat. In the state of Nevada, Sharron Angle is neck-and neck with Harry Reid. Angle is not a very formidable candidate to run against Reid. She's made several gaffes that haven't helped. her. The best thing she could do is air adds linking Harry Reid to the Democratic establishment in Washington. Anytime Angle speaks she doesn't help herself. In the Delaware race, Democratic candidate Chris Coons has an 11-point lead over Christine O'Donnell. Some pundits such as Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer don't feel her chances of winning the Delaware race are great. One of the odds against her is that O'Donnell is a newcomer and the voters in Delaware don't know much about vision her nor what type of agenda she'll promote. Given the voter angst against President Obama and the Democratic establishment's agenda in Washington, anything is possible. However, these Tea Party candidates need to know how to connect with the voters as well as to articulate a vision for America. Being opposed to President Obama and his socialist agenda isn't sufficient in and of itself. They must articulate their vision and outline what kind of agenda they would promote as Senator or Congressman. One of the mistakes some of these Tea Party candidates make is some such as Joe Miller will say they don't believe unemployment benefits are constitutional or Rand Paul's gaffe about a particular provision he didn't like about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I agree the government continuously providing unemployment benefits isn't good for America. I also agree the government doesn't need to be involved with our nation's social security system. However, saying you want to end government involvement in social programs isn't sufficient in and of itself. There must be a plan to wean the American people from depending upon the government for benefits. It's not something that will happen overnight. Government needs to stop hindering the private sector when it comes to it's ridiculous taxation policy and some of it's foolish regulations. The only way we'll wean Americans off the government dole is for the private sector to grow economically and hire more people. That will stop Americans from being dependent on government services.
If the Tea Party candidates win some of these elections, will they be able to shake things up in Washington? I tend to be very cynical when it comes to politics. I'm not very optimistic when I hear candidates from both sides of the aisle speaking about reforming government. I've heard that same old line for years and years. What one needs to take a look at is who are the contributors to these candidates' campaigns? That's the problem. There are numerous lobbyists who donate money to these candidates so these candidates will grant them special favors for their donations. Many of the bills that are crafted include provisions that provide favors to those lobbyists who supported these politicians' campaigns. Some of the donors that support some of these Tea Party candidates are some of the same donors who have supported other candidates in the past. Republican candidate Rand Paul has received support from the Chamber of Commerce, for example. These candidates that accept campaign contributions are bought by those who donate to them. Therefore, instead of representing the people who voted for them, these politicians are beholden to those who donate to their campaigns, regardless whether it's Democrat or Republican. With the corrupt atmosphere that pervades Washington, it will be very difficult for any of the Tea Party candidates to make much of a difference in Washington if they win. Honestly, I don't know if a decent, upright honest man can run for office and maintain his integrity while in office. It doesn't make any difference on what these candidates claim is part of their platform, they turn out to be part of the problem. They spend their time making deals with their colleagues to vote for a certain project for their district so in turn those same colleagues will vote with them to bring projects into their own districts. Most of these Congressmen and Senators involve themselves with pork barrel spending, which is bringing millions of dollars into their districts to fund various projects. Former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd was notorious for "bringing home the bacon." These politicians will sell out this country to pay back favors to those lobbyists that support their campaigns.
Within the last several decades, there's only one former congressman that I knew of that never accepted a campaign contribution. That was former Democratic Congressman William H. Natcher, who represented the 2nd district of Western Kentucky. He represented that district for 40 years. He died on March 29, 1994. I didn't agree with some of his politics. However, he had integrity in the sense he didn't accept campaign contributions, which is something that's missing in today's politicians. Another problem is there are forces involved that are trying to collapse the economy of America to make us into a socialist country, which is something that the Tea Party candidates won't be able to control. There's a new world order agenda that's being pushed in Washington. That's something no politician in Washington has been successful in trying to halt. I believe some of these Tea Party candidates have good motives. I'm not denying they may have good motives. However, having good motives and being able to shake up the one world government mentality in Washington is going to be nearly impossible. The Federal Reserve controls our money supply and many of the things that take place globally are beyond Congress's control. Despite how grim things are politically, I still believe we need to vote out the bad incumbents. If the Tea Party candidates win and don't measure up once they're in office, then we need to vote them out in the next election. The only answer is for us to be vigilant and vote out the bad incumbents. Then we can elect a new set of candidates the next time. We just need to make sure the door in Congress is a revolving door.
This past Tuesday Tea Party and Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell scored an upset over veteran Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. Castle was a liberal Republican who supported cap and trade, healthcare, and some of the Democrats' liberal agenda. O'Donnell's win was a crowning triumph over Republican voters's dissatisfaction over with politics as usual in the Republican Party. Throughout this year's primaries, there have been some upsets scored in such states as Utah and Alaska. In Utah, Mike Lee defeated three-term incumbent Senator Bob Bennett. In Alaska, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller defeated Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski. The Tea Party has scored victories in other states as well. In Kentucky Rand Paul defeated establishment Republican Trey Grayson in the primary. In Colorado, Ken Buck defeated Republican establishment-backed Jane Norton. In Nevada, Sharron Angle was another Tea Party candidate who trumped two well-known Republican candidates. The one person responsible in campaigning for these Tea Party candidates is none other than former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Palin's been traveling around the country campaigning for several Tea Party candidates in different states. So far she's had some success.
The first question that must be asked in regards to these Tea Party candidates is are they all winnable? In some states they appear to be winnable and other states they're questionable. In Kentucky, Republican Rand Paul has a great chance of picking up the retiring Jim Bunning's Senate seat. In the state of Nevada, Sharron Angle is neck-and neck with Harry Reid. Angle is not a very formidable candidate to run against Reid. She's made several gaffes that haven't helped. her. The best thing she could do is air adds linking Harry Reid to the Democratic establishment in Washington. Anytime Angle speaks she doesn't help herself. In the Delaware race, Democratic candidate Chris Coons has an 11-point lead over Christine O'Donnell. Some pundits such as Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer don't feel her chances of winning the Delaware race are great. One of the odds against her is that O'Donnell is a newcomer and the voters in Delaware don't know much about vision her nor what type of agenda she'll promote. Given the voter angst against President Obama and the Democratic establishment's agenda in Washington, anything is possible. However, these Tea Party candidates need to know how to connect with the voters as well as to articulate a vision for America. Being opposed to President Obama and his socialist agenda isn't sufficient in and of itself. They must articulate their vision and outline what kind of agenda they would promote as Senator or Congressman. One of the mistakes some of these Tea Party candidates make is some such as Joe Miller will say they don't believe unemployment benefits are constitutional or Rand Paul's gaffe about a particular provision he didn't like about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I agree the government continuously providing unemployment benefits isn't good for America. I also agree the government doesn't need to be involved with our nation's social security system. However, saying you want to end government involvement in social programs isn't sufficient in and of itself. There must be a plan to wean the American people from depending upon the government for benefits. It's not something that will happen overnight. Government needs to stop hindering the private sector when it comes to it's ridiculous taxation policy and some of it's foolish regulations. The only way we'll wean Americans off the government dole is for the private sector to grow economically and hire more people. That will stop Americans from being dependent on government services.
If the Tea Party candidates win some of these elections, will they be able to shake things up in Washington? I tend to be very cynical when it comes to politics. I'm not very optimistic when I hear candidates from both sides of the aisle speaking about reforming government. I've heard that same old line for years and years. What one needs to take a look at is who are the contributors to these candidates' campaigns? That's the problem. There are numerous lobbyists who donate money to these candidates so these candidates will grant them special favors for their donations. Many of the bills that are crafted include provisions that provide favors to those lobbyists who supported these politicians' campaigns. Some of the donors that support some of these Tea Party candidates are some of the same donors who have supported other candidates in the past. Republican candidate Rand Paul has received support from the Chamber of Commerce, for example. These candidates that accept campaign contributions are bought by those who donate to them. Therefore, instead of representing the people who voted for them, these politicians are beholden to those who donate to their campaigns, regardless whether it's Democrat or Republican. With the corrupt atmosphere that pervades Washington, it will be very difficult for any of the Tea Party candidates to make much of a difference in Washington if they win. Honestly, I don't know if a decent, upright honest man can run for office and maintain his integrity while in office. It doesn't make any difference on what these candidates claim is part of their platform, they turn out to be part of the problem. They spend their time making deals with their colleagues to vote for a certain project for their district so in turn those same colleagues will vote with them to bring projects into their own districts. Most of these Congressmen and Senators involve themselves with pork barrel spending, which is bringing millions of dollars into their districts to fund various projects. Former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd was notorious for "bringing home the bacon." These politicians will sell out this country to pay back favors to those lobbyists that support their campaigns.
Within the last several decades, there's only one former congressman that I knew of that never accepted a campaign contribution. That was former Democratic Congressman William H. Natcher, who represented the 2nd district of Western Kentucky. He represented that district for 40 years. He died on March 29, 1994. I didn't agree with some of his politics. However, he had integrity in the sense he didn't accept campaign contributions, which is something that's missing in today's politicians. Another problem is there are forces involved that are trying to collapse the economy of America to make us into a socialist country, which is something that the Tea Party candidates won't be able to control. There's a new world order agenda that's being pushed in Washington. That's something no politician in Washington has been successful in trying to halt. I believe some of these Tea Party candidates have good motives. I'm not denying they may have good motives. However, having good motives and being able to shake up the one world government mentality in Washington is going to be nearly impossible. The Federal Reserve controls our money supply and many of the things that take place globally are beyond Congress's control. Despite how grim things are politically, I still believe we need to vote out the bad incumbents. If the Tea Party candidates win and don't measure up once they're in office, then we need to vote them out in the next election. The only answer is for us to be vigilant and vote out the bad incumbents. Then we can elect a new set of candidates the next time. We just need to make sure the door in Congress is a revolving door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)