(USA Today) Former Senator Ted Stevens, who was the longest serving Republican ever in the U.S. Senate who represented the state of Alaska for approximately 41 years, died Tuesday in a plane crash. Stevens was a central figure in Alaska history, who never apologized for using his power in Congress to funnel billions in federal money to the beautiful and sparsely populated state. Stevens, 86, was confirmed dead Tuesday, following a plane crash Monday in southwest Alaska. Decades earlier, Stevens was one of two survivors of an airplane crash in Anchorage that killed his first wife, Ann. He was the longest serving Republican in Congress before he narrowly lost his re-election bid in 2008. He was convicted of concealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in home renovations and gifts from an oil executive. He lost to Democrat Mark Begich. A federal judge threw out the conviction in 2009 for prosecutorial misconduct. President Obama stated the decorated World War II pilot "devoted his career to serving the people of Alaska and fighting for our men and women in uniform." Republican Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, said the state's residents "have a long road of grieving" ahead. "He built Alaska. He stood for Alaska. He fought for Alaskans," Parnell said Tuesday. "Ted was a lion who retreated before nothing.
During the four decades that Stevens occupied the Senate, he was an unabashed advocated for the state who often donned his trademark "Incredible Hulk" tie before waging battle on the Senate floor." He was a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee--he was chairman when Republicans controlled the chamber. Stevens supported defense spending and sent billions of dollars in federal money to the state. He was famously known for backing the now-infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2005. It was a multimillion-dollar span intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on Gravina Island, which had 50 residents in the 2000 census. He was also known for his heated outburst such as when he tried to appropriate funds for this particular project. When a Republican colleague attempted to strip money for the Gravina Island bridge from a bill in 2005 and redirect it to hurricane-ravaged Lousiana, Stevens angrily threatened to resign, "if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state." He should've resigned then. If the Republicans who occupied the Senate had any audacity about them, they should've told him to go ahead because they're not going to back down to his outbursts. He wouldn't have resigned anyway, in my opinion. He was bluffing.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog group, routinely criticized Steven's work as an appropriator and said the state ranked first in "pork per capita" in 2008, the last year he served in the Senate. His work was celebrated by many in the state. He was known as "Uncle Ted". In 2000, he was named "Alaskan of the Century" by the state's Legislature. That year, Anchorage Airport was renamed the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
Ted Stevens is just another example what's wrong with today's politicians: they're out to perpetuate their power base. I know some would support him with all the money he funneled to Alaska. However, some of the projects he funneled money to was wasteful, such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." Corruption is a trademark of politicians who have their hands on the money. He played a role in funding having chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee when the Republicans were in charge. These career politicians need to be voted out. It's good that Alaskans finally voted him out in 2008. It was overdue.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Children Need Fathers as Well as Mothers
Yesterday evening on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly had Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover as his guests on the Cultural Warrior segment on his program. He was mentioning about the comment that Actress Jennifer Aniston made concerning single motherhood. Aniston stated (I'm paraphrasing it) that women more and more don't have to settle down with a man to have a child. Bill O'Reilly stated that Aniston was presenting the message to 12 and 13 year old girls that fathers aren't important. In other words, you don't need father. O'Reilly said sending that kind of message to young girls is very destructive to society. O'Reilly's on the mark. I can recall back in 1992 when Candace Bergen, who starred in "Murphy Brown" made light of the importance of fatherhood. Then Vice President Dan Quayle jumped on that issue and he received a lot of criticism for that statement. That same year happened to be a presidential election year as well where Bill Clinton defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush for the presidency.
I want to make a statement at the outset and say I do recognize there are men or males who are sorry fathers. There are numerous deadbeat fathers in our society who don't pay child support nor have any type of contact with their children. However, that doesn't demean the importance of fatherhood. On the other hand there are some women or females who make sorry mothers. There have been news reports of some mothers throwing their newborns in the garbage can. That's unnatural affection. However, that doesn't demean the importance of motherhood or imply that most mothers are bad mothers. Of course not. Consequently, there are some in this society that want to denigrate the importance of fathers in a child's life. Today, secular society wants to remake a man in a femine way and make him effeminate. That's not a true father nor more than society attempting to masculanize a woman makes a true mother. Both mothers and fathers have distinct roles in their children's lives, but the roles of both mother and father are equally important. God created the family unit which consists of a mother and father. The very first child that was born on earth was Cain. His birth parents were Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve nor Mary and Eve. The concept of homosexual parents is out of the pits of hell. That's a perversion of parenthood. A child needs the influence of both genders in his/her life in order to be a complete person. If God was in favor of homosexual parenting, then there would've been one gender, instead of two. God has a purpose in creating both male and female. God's design for the family unit is for the child to have both a mother and father who are married prior to the conception of that child.
I quickly need to make a point concerning single mothers. There are situations due to divorce, abandonment, death, or other situations where some mothers become single mothers. I'm not in any way trying to belittle those women that are single mothers due to hardships. My heart's out to those single mothers who have lost their husband and are trying to make it the best they could alone. There are single mothers that despite their circumstances have done a great job in rearing their children alone. The point I'm trying to stress is that single motherhood shouldn't be extolled as the ideal or another option, like Jennifer Aniston put it. I'm in no way trying to belittle single mothers that are forced into that position. There are many single mothers that have done very well in raising children given their circumstances. I recognize it's easier for some mothers to raise their children by themselves than raising them with abusive or alcoholic husbands.
We need a rebirth of manhood in this society. Children need to know what a man is and what it means to be a man. The Word of God states what the roles of husband/father and mother/wife are. Children need fathers who will work diligently to provide for their families and will sacrifice for the family's well-being. That's what fathers are about. They are the priests of their home. They're also to discipline and teach their children in the right way. Ephesians 5:22-33 talks about the relationship between the husband and wife and Ephesians 6:1-4 mentions about the children's relationship to their parents. Our homes need to return to that model once again. We need husbands that will live for God and love their wives as Christ loved the church. The husband/father needs to be the provider/protector of the home.
It's a tragedy how society denigrates the roles not only of the mother but also of the father. A country will be weak and leaderless without strong father figures in the home. The only hope our children have is a strong stable home where both mother and father are fulfilling their God-given roles in the home. Many of the problems children experience today would be eliminated if they had the kind of fatherly leadership that's so desperately lacking in the home. The lives of America's children will lack stability until the father resumes his rightful place in the life of his children.
I want to make a statement at the outset and say I do recognize there are men or males who are sorry fathers. There are numerous deadbeat fathers in our society who don't pay child support nor have any type of contact with their children. However, that doesn't demean the importance of fatherhood. On the other hand there are some women or females who make sorry mothers. There have been news reports of some mothers throwing their newborns in the garbage can. That's unnatural affection. However, that doesn't demean the importance of motherhood or imply that most mothers are bad mothers. Of course not. Consequently, there are some in this society that want to denigrate the importance of fathers in a child's life. Today, secular society wants to remake a man in a femine way and make him effeminate. That's not a true father nor more than society attempting to masculanize a woman makes a true mother. Both mothers and fathers have distinct roles in their children's lives, but the roles of both mother and father are equally important. God created the family unit which consists of a mother and father. The very first child that was born on earth was Cain. His birth parents were Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve nor Mary and Eve. The concept of homosexual parents is out of the pits of hell. That's a perversion of parenthood. A child needs the influence of both genders in his/her life in order to be a complete person. If God was in favor of homosexual parenting, then there would've been one gender, instead of two. God has a purpose in creating both male and female. God's design for the family unit is for the child to have both a mother and father who are married prior to the conception of that child.
I quickly need to make a point concerning single mothers. There are situations due to divorce, abandonment, death, or other situations where some mothers become single mothers. I'm not in any way trying to belittle those women that are single mothers due to hardships. My heart's out to those single mothers who have lost their husband and are trying to make it the best they could alone. There are single mothers that despite their circumstances have done a great job in rearing their children alone. The point I'm trying to stress is that single motherhood shouldn't be extolled as the ideal or another option, like Jennifer Aniston put it. I'm in no way trying to belittle single mothers that are forced into that position. There are many single mothers that have done very well in raising children given their circumstances. I recognize it's easier for some mothers to raise their children by themselves than raising them with abusive or alcoholic husbands.
We need a rebirth of manhood in this society. Children need to know what a man is and what it means to be a man. The Word of God states what the roles of husband/father and mother/wife are. Children need fathers who will work diligently to provide for their families and will sacrifice for the family's well-being. That's what fathers are about. They are the priests of their home. They're also to discipline and teach their children in the right way. Ephesians 5:22-33 talks about the relationship between the husband and wife and Ephesians 6:1-4 mentions about the children's relationship to their parents. Our homes need to return to that model once again. We need husbands that will live for God and love their wives as Christ loved the church. The husband/father needs to be the provider/protector of the home.
It's a tragedy how society denigrates the roles not only of the mother but also of the father. A country will be weak and leaderless without strong father figures in the home. The only hope our children have is a strong stable home where both mother and father are fulfilling their God-given roles in the home. Many of the problems children experience today would be eliminated if they had the kind of fatherly leadership that's so desperately lacking in the home. The lives of America's children will lack stability until the father resumes his rightful place in the life of his children.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Who is in Charge in Washington?
Recently there's been much publicity over the vacations the Obama family have been taking within the last several months. We've been seeing pictures of President Obama traveling and playing golf during the oil spill crisis. During the Memorial Day weekend, instead of visiting Arlington National Cemetery, President Obama and his family spent time in Chicago. Back in July the Obama family traveled to Maine for vacation. Last week Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha went to a luxurious trip to Spain. Last weekend, President Obama spent his time celebrating his 49th birthday playing basketball with some basketball players and eating barbeque. Following Mrs. Obama's trip to Spain, the Obamas are headed to Florida. Vacationing is nothing new to presidents. The last few presidents vacationed quite often. I can remember in August 2001 when President Bush spent the entire month of August at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. I'm not going to pose the question on whether the Obamas should be vacationing extravagantly considering America is in a recession and the problems our country is facing. It's amazing how much vacationing is taking place by the president considering the fact we face nuclear and terrorist threats and our country could head into bankruptcy anytime. The question that comes to my mind is: Who's in charge in Washington?
This isn't the first time I've wondered that about a president. There's been a number of times when Bush was president with the things taking place like they are that I wondered who was in charge. Barack Obama is the president of the United States and he's the leader of the free world supposedly. However, as carefree as he and even his predecessor George W. Bush acted, it appears like they aren't as in charge one might think. I happen to believe that's the case. There are many forces involved in running our country that I believe nobody knows about. There are monied interests such as the Federal Reserve and individuals like George Soros and the Rockefeller family who influence our economy. There also is the Council of Foreign Relations that's involved with foreign policy involving the United States and the other countries. We have the United Nations that exerts influence in world affairs. There are numerous lobbyists in Washington that contribute millions of dollars to the coffers of our elected officials as well as lobby for interests of their own. Anybody that believes that Congress and the President run this country need to think twice. If they are the only ones that run this country, then they are absolutely the most foolish ignoramuses that ever existed. It makes no sense to run this country into the ground economically and spend us into an oblivion. It doesn't make sense nearly 37 years following the Arab Oil Embargo America hasn't rid itself of independence from foreign oil. It's foolish for America to continue keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan unless there's an agenda somewhere taking place. I believe the powers-that-be, whomever they may be, desire to see all these things take place. Those of us that believe the Bible believe it's leading to the unveiling of the antichrist and the soon return of Jesus.
Most of the time when the economy tanks or there's a major castastrophe such as the recent Gulf Oil Spill where federal response to the cleanup of the spill was slow, we tend to blame the president for his lack of leadership in the midst of these crises because he's the face of America. He's the one supposedly in charge. It's true that there are many things he's at fault for. He plays a role in the transformation of America into a socialist country. However, I don't believe he controls everything. I don't believe he's in control as much as some would like to believe. America's road to socialism didn't begin with Barack Obama. President Obama may not even finish the job even though it appears likely he will. The road was paved long before Obama ever became president. If I was to give a starting point, I would begin with FDR and the New Deal. The previous administration (Bush) before Obama became president played a role in America's road to socialism. Many of the executive powers that Obama possesses is the result of the Patriot Act that Bush signed into law in October 2001. The government's recent takeovers of private industry such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, Chrysler, and the healthcare industry was begun by the Bush administration with the Bush administration's bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, to name a few. President Obama just picked up where Bush left off when he became president. The current agena being pushed by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama is bigger than they are. Regardless of whether or not they're re-elected, America's road to socialism will continue with or without them.
I need to give a word of caution to those on the Right who believe Obama will be a one-term president: don't count your chickens until they're hatched. Obama won't be defeated by a Republican who's a Progressive. He won't be defeated by a Democrat-lite Republican who espouses many of the same policies as the Demcrats do. He won't be defeated by a Republican who won't stand for anything. As of yet, I don't see any Republican candidates who appear to be a formidable candidate in the running for president in 2012. Obama won't be defeated by just anyone. I stand against Obama and the Reid-Pelosi-Emanuel, and the Chicago machine. However, this agenda is much larger than all those put together. The socialist agenda they desire to be implemented in America will one day be carried to fruition with or without them. They are all just characters playing their role in the transformation of America. There are forces behind the scenes that are the mastermind behind the road to socialism which will one day create a one world government and the new world order. I don't know all the forces involved in this grand scheme, but they're there. President Obama, like the previous presidents before him, are just pieces of the puzzle putting everything in place for the coming of the new world order and the revealing of the antichrist.
This isn't the first time I've wondered that about a president. There's been a number of times when Bush was president with the things taking place like they are that I wondered who was in charge. Barack Obama is the president of the United States and he's the leader of the free world supposedly. However, as carefree as he and even his predecessor George W. Bush acted, it appears like they aren't as in charge one might think. I happen to believe that's the case. There are many forces involved in running our country that I believe nobody knows about. There are monied interests such as the Federal Reserve and individuals like George Soros and the Rockefeller family who influence our economy. There also is the Council of Foreign Relations that's involved with foreign policy involving the United States and the other countries. We have the United Nations that exerts influence in world affairs. There are numerous lobbyists in Washington that contribute millions of dollars to the coffers of our elected officials as well as lobby for interests of their own. Anybody that believes that Congress and the President run this country need to think twice. If they are the only ones that run this country, then they are absolutely the most foolish ignoramuses that ever existed. It makes no sense to run this country into the ground economically and spend us into an oblivion. It doesn't make sense nearly 37 years following the Arab Oil Embargo America hasn't rid itself of independence from foreign oil. It's foolish for America to continue keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan unless there's an agenda somewhere taking place. I believe the powers-that-be, whomever they may be, desire to see all these things take place. Those of us that believe the Bible believe it's leading to the unveiling of the antichrist and the soon return of Jesus.
Most of the time when the economy tanks or there's a major castastrophe such as the recent Gulf Oil Spill where federal response to the cleanup of the spill was slow, we tend to blame the president for his lack of leadership in the midst of these crises because he's the face of America. He's the one supposedly in charge. It's true that there are many things he's at fault for. He plays a role in the transformation of America into a socialist country. However, I don't believe he controls everything. I don't believe he's in control as much as some would like to believe. America's road to socialism didn't begin with Barack Obama. President Obama may not even finish the job even though it appears likely he will. The road was paved long before Obama ever became president. If I was to give a starting point, I would begin with FDR and the New Deal. The previous administration (Bush) before Obama became president played a role in America's road to socialism. Many of the executive powers that Obama possesses is the result of the Patriot Act that Bush signed into law in October 2001. The government's recent takeovers of private industry such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, Chrysler, and the healthcare industry was begun by the Bush administration with the Bush administration's bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, to name a few. President Obama just picked up where Bush left off when he became president. The current agena being pushed by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama is bigger than they are. Regardless of whether or not they're re-elected, America's road to socialism will continue with or without them.
I need to give a word of caution to those on the Right who believe Obama will be a one-term president: don't count your chickens until they're hatched. Obama won't be defeated by a Republican who's a Progressive. He won't be defeated by a Democrat-lite Republican who espouses many of the same policies as the Demcrats do. He won't be defeated by a Republican who won't stand for anything. As of yet, I don't see any Republican candidates who appear to be a formidable candidate in the running for president in 2012. Obama won't be defeated by just anyone. I stand against Obama and the Reid-Pelosi-Emanuel, and the Chicago machine. However, this agenda is much larger than all those put together. The socialist agenda they desire to be implemented in America will one day be carried to fruition with or without them. They are all just characters playing their role in the transformation of America. There are forces behind the scenes that are the mastermind behind the road to socialism which will one day create a one world government and the new world order. I don't know all the forces involved in this grand scheme, but they're there. President Obama, like the previous presidents before him, are just pieces of the puzzle putting everything in place for the coming of the new world order and the revealing of the antichrist.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Another School Year is About to Begin
This week is the beginning of a new school year in various parts of the country. The public school system will start classes on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 in the Daviess County Public School System in Owensboro as well as the Owensboro Public Schools in the city school district. It's time once again for students to head back to school and begin a new year. The summer has flown by. Within the last few weeks many retail stores have been selling school supplies as it's time once again to gear up for school. A new school year means new possibilities and new goals to accomplish. I wish those that are starting school a great school year regardless whether it be in the public schools, private schools, or homeschool.
Last year I used the verse from II Timothy 2:15 to commence the new school last year. It says "Study to shew thyself approved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. This year the theme I desire to highlight is, Preparing Children for the Future. There's a purpose in sending children to school and spending the millions of dollars that are spent every year for the education of each child. We don't spend that kind of money just for the sake of spending that kind of money. We don't require children to receive an education just for the sake of receiving an education. There's a purpose behind all the money, time, and materials that's used to educate students. What is that purpose? It's for the future. The lives of our young people are hanging in the balance; spiritually as well as life in general. There will come a day when students will no longer be students in a public school. There will come a day when they'll graduate from high school and they'll have to make a choice in which direction they desire for their lives to go in the future. Many students will pursue their studies in a college to pursue a particular career. They will have to search for a job or some type of career to make a living. They will have to join the work force to become productive citizens in this society. Even though job opportunities are bleak at this moment, every person who's a male will have to obtain a job to support his family. That's what the purpose of education is all about. It's to prepare students to enter the labor market.
All students possess varying degrees of motivation. Some are highly motivated, some are moderately motivated, others possess little motivation, and some possess no motivation whatsoever. It's imperative that parents monitor their children's progress in school and know the level of motivation their child possesses. Parents have a responsibility to motivate their children to excel and perform their best. All students don't possess the same capacity to succeed. However, parents have a responsibility to motivate their children to perform to their highest level in school; regardless of what that level may be. Students that aren't adequately trained in academics are going to be lacking when they apply for a job following graduation. It's important students have an adequate foundation in math, reading, science, spelling, history, social studies, elective courses, and the list continues. One of these days students will have to apply the skills they've learned in school on their careers. It's important that students are adequately prepared academically when they graduate to compete in the work force. Employers are looking for employees that are proficient in speaking and writing skills in some occupations. Students need to be challenged so they can be competitive when it comes time to pursuing a career. Depending upon the type of vocation some students select, some will need to pursue higher education at a university. Higher education is becoming more imperative in this society given the fact we are an information and technological society. Regardless of which vocation students choose, it's imperative that students are pressed to perform at their utmost in school if they ever expect to have a chance to succeed when they are released into the job market.
I want to encourage all the students that are returning to school this year to have a great school year. Recognize the great responsibility you have to study diligently and learn. Two important skills for students to master are writing and public speaking skills. You'll travel a long way in your life if you're a fluent speaker and a prolific writer. Strive for excellence this school year.
Last year I used the verse from II Timothy 2:15 to commence the new school last year. It says "Study to shew thyself approved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. This year the theme I desire to highlight is, Preparing Children for the Future. There's a purpose in sending children to school and spending the millions of dollars that are spent every year for the education of each child. We don't spend that kind of money just for the sake of spending that kind of money. We don't require children to receive an education just for the sake of receiving an education. There's a purpose behind all the money, time, and materials that's used to educate students. What is that purpose? It's for the future. The lives of our young people are hanging in the balance; spiritually as well as life in general. There will come a day when students will no longer be students in a public school. There will come a day when they'll graduate from high school and they'll have to make a choice in which direction they desire for their lives to go in the future. Many students will pursue their studies in a college to pursue a particular career. They will have to search for a job or some type of career to make a living. They will have to join the work force to become productive citizens in this society. Even though job opportunities are bleak at this moment, every person who's a male will have to obtain a job to support his family. That's what the purpose of education is all about. It's to prepare students to enter the labor market.
All students possess varying degrees of motivation. Some are highly motivated, some are moderately motivated, others possess little motivation, and some possess no motivation whatsoever. It's imperative that parents monitor their children's progress in school and know the level of motivation their child possesses. Parents have a responsibility to motivate their children to excel and perform their best. All students don't possess the same capacity to succeed. However, parents have a responsibility to motivate their children to perform to their highest level in school; regardless of what that level may be. Students that aren't adequately trained in academics are going to be lacking when they apply for a job following graduation. It's important students have an adequate foundation in math, reading, science, spelling, history, social studies, elective courses, and the list continues. One of these days students will have to apply the skills they've learned in school on their careers. It's important that students are adequately prepared academically when they graduate to compete in the work force. Employers are looking for employees that are proficient in speaking and writing skills in some occupations. Students need to be challenged so they can be competitive when it comes time to pursuing a career. Depending upon the type of vocation some students select, some will need to pursue higher education at a university. Higher education is becoming more imperative in this society given the fact we are an information and technological society. Regardless of which vocation students choose, it's imperative that students are pressed to perform at their utmost in school if they ever expect to have a chance to succeed when they are released into the job market.
I want to encourage all the students that are returning to school this year to have a great school year. Recognize the great responsibility you have to study diligently and learn. Two important skills for students to master are writing and public speaking skills. You'll travel a long way in your life if you're a fluent speaker and a prolific writer. Strive for excellence this school year.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Ichabod: The Glory is Departed
(I Samuel 4:15-22) Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see. And the man said unto Eli, I am he that cme out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. and he said, What is there done, my son? And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a gret slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken. And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. and he had judged Israel forty years. And his daughter in law, Phinehas wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast born a son. But she answered not, neither did she regard it. And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband. and she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken."
I'm not going to devote the time to explain the background behind the passages. I'm not going to conduct an exposition of these passages. Instead, I want to expound upon a topical thought entitled, Ichabod: The Glory is Departed. America was built on old-time preaching. America was founded by the Pilgrims and Puritans. They came to North America for the purpose of freedom of worship. Over the years this country has experienced waves of revivals. There was the First and Second Great Awakenings in the eighteenth century. Around 1802 there was the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky. There were revivals where Charles Finney preached in New York. There have been great preachers over the course of American history. There have been preachers such as Jonathon Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Peter Cartwright, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Sam Jones, to name a few. During the 20th century, there was a great preacher by the name of Dr. Percy Ray who founded Camp Zion in 1949 in Myrtle, Mississippi. He would preach with unction and fervor from the Lord. The Lord moved and performed a great work among God's people at Camp Zion. Scores of people would be saved, scores would be called to preach, and many received much needed spiritual help. Today, Dr. Percy Ray is deceased and Camp Zion no longer resembles the days of glory a few decades ago. America has seen the glory of God roll through this country. There have been generations of Christians who knew how to worship the Lord. There was a time whenever church was taking place, all the other events in town were shut down for the evening. Church was considered more important. Today whenever church services are taking place, businesses are still operating as usual. People no longer regard the House of God as important like they once did.
What has happened over the years? Why has the glory of God departed from our churches, including our fundamental Baptist churches? Sin has taken over and destroyed many of our churches today. Most of our fundamental churches no longer have any real spiritual life to them anymore. The Holy Spirit has been grieved. There's a generation of church leaders that believe they don't need the old-time way in their churches anymore. Today instead of heading to the altar where sinners can come to become converted and saints can come to receive help, it has been replaced by "Christian" psychology. We've substituted psychology for theology in our churches today. Churches today have become nothing but entertainment centers. We allow the world to come in and entertain church members. You wonder why there are so many church members that don't have any interest in the things of God. You can't expect church members to have an interest in spiritual things if there's never been a true conversion. Also, conversion doesn't come through worldly entertainment such as contemporary Christian music, puppet shows, "Christian movies", choreographical dancing, and the list continues. Today we have mega churches such as Willow Creek in Chicago and Saddleback Community Church in California that are utilizing "user-friendly" methods to reach the world. They have changed their terminology. They now refer to sinners as "seekers" and they strive to not be offensive in the worship services. I'm not a believer in intentionally being offensive when there's no purpose for it, but the truth must be preached--offensive or not! If the truth found in the Bible is offensive, then they will just have to endure it. They will have to find a glad place. The Word of God is spiritually discerned and it will be offensive by it's very message. I agree Christians shouldn't be offensive by living a shoddy testimony. Shame on us when we live shoddy lives. The world has a right to be offended when we portray ourselves one way at church and live another lifestyle at home or at work.
When the church mingles with the world and you can't hardly tell the difference between the church and the world, then God will write "Ichabod" over the door. God's not pleased with churches that use worldly customs in its church services. The Lord is grieved when we do that. In Joshua 7 you read about the account of Achan where he sinned. Joshua 7:21 states that he stole the Babylonish garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold fifty shekels weight. He took them and he hid them in the earth in the midst of his tent. As a result of his sin, he was stoned by the Israelites. It was when he was stoned that the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger (Joshua 7:26). God hates sin. If the church doesn't repent when God reproves it, he will write Ichabod over the church. When you read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, you see where Jesus points out the sins in that church. He admonishes them to repent or he'll remove the candlestick. God can't stand sin. God won't bless a church that won't deal with sin. Whenever a church member's in sin and they refuse to repent, the church is supposed to discipline him/her. The purpose of church discipline is to shame those living in sin into recognizing that they've sinned and that they need to repent before fellowship can be restored.
Many of the churches that once had the power of God are dead. They've allowed sin and inquity to infiltrate the church. I believe God will give a church a space for repentance. If they refuse to repent, then He'll write Ichabod over the church. The last church Jesus addressed in Revelation was Laodecia. They were rich and increased with goods. They felt they needed nothing. Jesus warned them they were blind, miserable, wretched, poor, and naked. Jesus beseeched them that if any man would hear his voice and open the door, He would come in to sup with him. Jesus was knocking at the door inviting them to come in and fellowship with him. Today there are churches that have allowed things to slip in their churches. The Devil has planted people who have been a menace to the church. The church has been torn asunder due to those Satan has planted in some of those churches. Today there are churches that are in disarray and no longer display God's power and presence in their services. It's tragic. Jesus loves the church. He gave himself for it. If the church refuses to repent, then God will eventually write "Ichabod" over the door. At what point God does that I don't know. I know God's longsuffering and thank God for that. However, there'll be a time that if churches that once displayed God's glory in them don't, repent, then Ichabod will be written over the door. What a shame!
I'm not going to devote the time to explain the background behind the passages. I'm not going to conduct an exposition of these passages. Instead, I want to expound upon a topical thought entitled, Ichabod: The Glory is Departed. America was built on old-time preaching. America was founded by the Pilgrims and Puritans. They came to North America for the purpose of freedom of worship. Over the years this country has experienced waves of revivals. There was the First and Second Great Awakenings in the eighteenth century. Around 1802 there was the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky. There were revivals where Charles Finney preached in New York. There have been great preachers over the course of American history. There have been preachers such as Jonathon Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Peter Cartwright, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Sam Jones, to name a few. During the 20th century, there was a great preacher by the name of Dr. Percy Ray who founded Camp Zion in 1949 in Myrtle, Mississippi. He would preach with unction and fervor from the Lord. The Lord moved and performed a great work among God's people at Camp Zion. Scores of people would be saved, scores would be called to preach, and many received much needed spiritual help. Today, Dr. Percy Ray is deceased and Camp Zion no longer resembles the days of glory a few decades ago. America has seen the glory of God roll through this country. There have been generations of Christians who knew how to worship the Lord. There was a time whenever church was taking place, all the other events in town were shut down for the evening. Church was considered more important. Today whenever church services are taking place, businesses are still operating as usual. People no longer regard the House of God as important like they once did.
What has happened over the years? Why has the glory of God departed from our churches, including our fundamental Baptist churches? Sin has taken over and destroyed many of our churches today. Most of our fundamental churches no longer have any real spiritual life to them anymore. The Holy Spirit has been grieved. There's a generation of church leaders that believe they don't need the old-time way in their churches anymore. Today instead of heading to the altar where sinners can come to become converted and saints can come to receive help, it has been replaced by "Christian" psychology. We've substituted psychology for theology in our churches today. Churches today have become nothing but entertainment centers. We allow the world to come in and entertain church members. You wonder why there are so many church members that don't have any interest in the things of God. You can't expect church members to have an interest in spiritual things if there's never been a true conversion. Also, conversion doesn't come through worldly entertainment such as contemporary Christian music, puppet shows, "Christian movies", choreographical dancing, and the list continues. Today we have mega churches such as Willow Creek in Chicago and Saddleback Community Church in California that are utilizing "user-friendly" methods to reach the world. They have changed their terminology. They now refer to sinners as "seekers" and they strive to not be offensive in the worship services. I'm not a believer in intentionally being offensive when there's no purpose for it, but the truth must be preached--offensive or not! If the truth found in the Bible is offensive, then they will just have to endure it. They will have to find a glad place. The Word of God is spiritually discerned and it will be offensive by it's very message. I agree Christians shouldn't be offensive by living a shoddy testimony. Shame on us when we live shoddy lives. The world has a right to be offended when we portray ourselves one way at church and live another lifestyle at home or at work.
When the church mingles with the world and you can't hardly tell the difference between the church and the world, then God will write "Ichabod" over the door. God's not pleased with churches that use worldly customs in its church services. The Lord is grieved when we do that. In Joshua 7 you read about the account of Achan where he sinned. Joshua 7:21 states that he stole the Babylonish garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold fifty shekels weight. He took them and he hid them in the earth in the midst of his tent. As a result of his sin, he was stoned by the Israelites. It was when he was stoned that the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger (Joshua 7:26). God hates sin. If the church doesn't repent when God reproves it, he will write Ichabod over the church. When you read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, you see where Jesus points out the sins in that church. He admonishes them to repent or he'll remove the candlestick. God can't stand sin. God won't bless a church that won't deal with sin. Whenever a church member's in sin and they refuse to repent, the church is supposed to discipline him/her. The purpose of church discipline is to shame those living in sin into recognizing that they've sinned and that they need to repent before fellowship can be restored.
Many of the churches that once had the power of God are dead. They've allowed sin and inquity to infiltrate the church. I believe God will give a church a space for repentance. If they refuse to repent, then He'll write Ichabod over the church. The last church Jesus addressed in Revelation was Laodecia. They were rich and increased with goods. They felt they needed nothing. Jesus warned them they were blind, miserable, wretched, poor, and naked. Jesus beseeched them that if any man would hear his voice and open the door, He would come in to sup with him. Jesus was knocking at the door inviting them to come in and fellowship with him. Today there are churches that have allowed things to slip in their churches. The Devil has planted people who have been a menace to the church. The church has been torn asunder due to those Satan has planted in some of those churches. Today there are churches that are in disarray and no longer display God's power and presence in their services. It's tragic. Jesus loves the church. He gave himself for it. If the church refuses to repent, then God will eventually write "Ichabod" over the door. At what point God does that I don't know. I know God's longsuffering and thank God for that. However, there'll be a time that if churches that once displayed God's glory in them don't, repent, then Ichabod will be written over the door. What a shame!
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Elena Kagan Sworn in as Supreme Court Justice
(MSNBC.Com) Elena Kagan has been sworn in today as the 112th U.S. Supreme Court Justice and the fourth woman ever to serve on the nation's highest court. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath to Kagan in a ceremony cermony at the court before her friends and family. Kagan pledged in an oath to faithfully and impartially uphold the law. We'll have to see that before we believe it. The former Harvard Law School dean was most recently the U.S. Solicitor General. President Obama chose her to succeed retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Stevens was the liberal leader of the Supreme Court upon retirement.
She was confirmed by a Senate vote of 63-37 with 58 Democrats, the Independents, and five Republicans voting for her. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), voted against her. The five Republicans that voted for Kagan were Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. Kagan's Republican opponents, including Jeff Sessions of Alabama, deemed the nominee as too liberal. He and others also objected to actions Kagan took as Harvard law dean in the mid-2000's to restrict military recruiters because of the policy known as "Don't ask, don't tell" against openly gay soldiers. She was opposed to that policy. Kagan's confirmation supposedly isn't likely to change the ideological cast of the court since the justice she replaced was very liberal himself. As the makeup of the court stands, four are conservative, four are liberal, and one is a swing vote. However, with her progressive views, she will try to make the Supreme Court an activist court. What disturbs me is that none of the Republicans either in committee nor on the full Senate floor made any attempt to filibuster her nomination. The Republicans will filibuster a jobless benefits bill or a financial reform bill, but they wouldn't make any attempt to filibuster her. She has very progressive views concerning law and she'll be very activist on the Supreme Court. The Republicans are worthless.
Kagan's duties on the Supreme Court won't officially begin until October 1, but she can now begin her duties reviewing cases, etc. She was be sworn in on October 1 with a formal courtroom ceremony.
She was confirmed by a Senate vote of 63-37 with 58 Democrats, the Independents, and five Republicans voting for her. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), voted against her. The five Republicans that voted for Kagan were Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. Kagan's Republican opponents, including Jeff Sessions of Alabama, deemed the nominee as too liberal. He and others also objected to actions Kagan took as Harvard law dean in the mid-2000's to restrict military recruiters because of the policy known as "Don't ask, don't tell" against openly gay soldiers. She was opposed to that policy. Kagan's confirmation supposedly isn't likely to change the ideological cast of the court since the justice she replaced was very liberal himself. As the makeup of the court stands, four are conservative, four are liberal, and one is a swing vote. However, with her progressive views, she will try to make the Supreme Court an activist court. What disturbs me is that none of the Republicans either in committee nor on the full Senate floor made any attempt to filibuster her nomination. The Republicans will filibuster a jobless benefits bill or a financial reform bill, but they wouldn't make any attempt to filibuster her. She has very progressive views concerning law and she'll be very activist on the Supreme Court. The Republicans are worthless.
Kagan's duties on the Supreme Court won't officially begin until October 1, but she can now begin her duties reviewing cases, etc. She was be sworn in on October 1 with a formal courtroom ceremony.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Missouri Voters Reject Obamacare
YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
This past Tuesday August 3rd, 2010, Missouri voters went to the polls and voted for Propositions C, which is a statewide ballot measure which prohibits the federal government's enforcement of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Voters overwhelmingly approved the measure 71%. Voters who opposed Proposition C was 29%. This is the first time voters from a state voted on whether they desired for the federal government to mandate its citizens to purchase a particular healthcare plan. Missouri voters showed their overwhelming disapproval over Obamacare. It could be a tough battle for Democrats in Missouri given the majority of voters disapprove of Obamacare. President Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the votes of the citizens of Missouri is symbolic and irrelevant. Who should be surprised over Gibbs' comments given both Houses of Congress jammed national healthcare down the throats of American citizens this past March.
"We're excited and proud to be ground zero in the battle against this misbegotten health care reform," said Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder in an exclusive interview. "We had the first vote in the nation in the Show-Me-State. The vote in favor of Proposition C came despite a well-funded campaign from the Missouri Hospital Association to oppose the ballot measure. According to what some on the Left had said, the opponents of Proposition C had a sizable advantage in resources. The Missouri Hospital Association spent more than $400,000 in advertisements compared with approximately $100,000 from Missourians for Health Care Freedom. Three other states which are Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma will have constitutional ballots in November on Obamacare.
The will of the people of one state has finally been expressed and it goes to show those in the Bellweather state are opposed to the federal government mandating that U.S. citizens purchase mandatory healthcare. The citizens of Missouri have shown they desire freedom to choose the type of healthcare they so desire. I believe some of these other states that vote on a similar measure will follow suit. If the other states vote in the same direction as Missouri did, it appears that Democrats' chances in the Fall election are bleak. However, President Obama and the Democrats have achieved what they've desired to achieve for decades--that's the passage of universal healthcare which will give the federal government control over 1/6th of the nation's economy. Regardless of whether the Democrats win or lose, I predict Obamacare won't be repealed. The Republicans don't have the audacity to repeal it. They're witnesses to this travesty. Also, a federal judge will uphold Obamacare in courts, citing the Supremacy Clause which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws. As much as I'm glad the voters in Missouri voted against Obamacare, it won't mean anything when a federal judge declares the ballot measure null and void. We're enslaved to those that wear black robes on the judiciary.
I've inserted a YouTube clip of Ronald Reagan around 1961 when he speaks about the dangers of socialized medicine. I think it would be fitting to place it here on this post. I hope you find it interesting.
This past Tuesday August 3rd, 2010, Missouri voters went to the polls and voted for Propositions C, which is a statewide ballot measure which prohibits the federal government's enforcement of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Voters overwhelmingly approved the measure 71%. Voters who opposed Proposition C was 29%. This is the first time voters from a state voted on whether they desired for the federal government to mandate its citizens to purchase a particular healthcare plan. Missouri voters showed their overwhelming disapproval over Obamacare. It could be a tough battle for Democrats in Missouri given the majority of voters disapprove of Obamacare. President Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the votes of the citizens of Missouri is symbolic and irrelevant. Who should be surprised over Gibbs' comments given both Houses of Congress jammed national healthcare down the throats of American citizens this past March.
"We're excited and proud to be ground zero in the battle against this misbegotten health care reform," said Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder in an exclusive interview. "We had the first vote in the nation in the Show-Me-State. The vote in favor of Proposition C came despite a well-funded campaign from the Missouri Hospital Association to oppose the ballot measure. According to what some on the Left had said, the opponents of Proposition C had a sizable advantage in resources. The Missouri Hospital Association spent more than $400,000 in advertisements compared with approximately $100,000 from Missourians for Health Care Freedom. Three other states which are Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma will have constitutional ballots in November on Obamacare.
The will of the people of one state has finally been expressed and it goes to show those in the Bellweather state are opposed to the federal government mandating that U.S. citizens purchase mandatory healthcare. The citizens of Missouri have shown they desire freedom to choose the type of healthcare they so desire. I believe some of these other states that vote on a similar measure will follow suit. If the other states vote in the same direction as Missouri did, it appears that Democrats' chances in the Fall election are bleak. However, President Obama and the Democrats have achieved what they've desired to achieve for decades--that's the passage of universal healthcare which will give the federal government control over 1/6th of the nation's economy. Regardless of whether the Democrats win or lose, I predict Obamacare won't be repealed. The Republicans don't have the audacity to repeal it. They're witnesses to this travesty. Also, a federal judge will uphold Obamacare in courts, citing the Supremacy Clause which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws. As much as I'm glad the voters in Missouri voted against Obamacare, it won't mean anything when a federal judge declares the ballot measure null and void. We're enslaved to those that wear black robes on the judiciary.
I've inserted a YouTube clip of Ronald Reagan around 1961 when he speaks about the dangers of socialized medicine. I think it would be fitting to place it here on this post. I hope you find it interesting.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Gay Marriage Ban Overturned in California
(USA Today) A federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that eventually could land before the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling doesn't automatically grant gays and lesbians to marry in California immediately. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker (a homosexual), placed his decision on hold pending responses from lawyers on both sides about whether his ruling should take effect right away. The responses are due by Friday. Douglas Napier, a lawyer for Protect Marriage, said the group will file an appeal of the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the next few days. "We're filing an appeal before the ink is dry on the judge's ruling," Napier said. He claimed proponents of the ban are disappointed in the ruling but aren't surprised. Both sides said the case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a national standard on same-sex marriage. Walker, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights.
The case centered on whether Proposition 8 is consitutional under the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. California voters approved the ban in November 2008, following a state court ruling that May saying gays and lesbians had a right to marry under the state Constitution. "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
This decision is repulsive. This goes to show you what the homosexual mafia is willing to do to strike down any reference to marriage that God ordained between man and woman. The Bible is explicitly clear that marriage is ordained only between man and woman. Genesis 2:24 verifies that marriage is between a man and woman. In the New Testament Ephesians 5:22-33 talks about the marriage relationship between a man and woman. I Peter chapter 3 speaks of the marriage relationship between husbands and wives. There's nowhere in the Word of God that supports homosexuality, much less gay marriage. Romans chapter 1 and I Corinthians 6:9 condemn the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is in direct violation of scripture. It's a sin against God, society, and against nature. It's not even natural to speak of such perversion as homosexual marriage. I recall when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in November 2003 "gave" homosexuals the right to marry. I was thinking about the subject of sex education. Sex education is taught to students throughout the country from the elementary grades to high school. We're teaching sex education to the wrong group of people. These judges that believe in homosexual marriage need to be taught sex education. There's no way that homosexuals can engage in a proper sexual relationship. The body is designed only for a relationship between a married man and woman. Anybody with any sense knows what I'm speaking of. It's against nature for two people of the same gender to have a sexual relationship. If it was meant for two people of the same gender to have a sexual relationship, then God would've designed our bodies to have that kind of relationship. To go a step further, we wouldn't have two genders--male and female. It wouldn't be necessary. Homosexuality is Satan's attempt to thwart God's design for the family unit.
This isn't the first time the California voters voted against same-sex marriage and the state court has ruled it illegal. Politics is crooked. Many of those that support the ban invoke the will of the voters in supporting this measure. The truth of the matter is, homosexual marriage is repugnant. Homosexuality directly violates God's laws. No society can flourish if the homosexual lifestyle becomes widespread. If you want to wipe out the population, it can be done through homosexuality. Why? Homosexuals can't reproduce. This whole notion falls in line with those that advocate population control. They will support the homosexual lifestyle because the population will decrease if the number of homosexuals grow. Will the U.S. Supreme Court back Proposition 8 that Californians voted in November 2008? I wouldn't hold my breath. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion in 2003 that struck down Texas's sodomy law. Kennedy stated the law was unconstitutional. Kennedy is the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Who knows which side he will take. It's pathetic if this case were to head to the Supreme Court. It could go either direction.
The case centered on whether Proposition 8 is consitutional under the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. California voters approved the ban in November 2008, following a state court ruling that May saying gays and lesbians had a right to marry under the state Constitution. "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
This decision is repulsive. This goes to show you what the homosexual mafia is willing to do to strike down any reference to marriage that God ordained between man and woman. The Bible is explicitly clear that marriage is ordained only between man and woman. Genesis 2:24 verifies that marriage is between a man and woman. In the New Testament Ephesians 5:22-33 talks about the marriage relationship between a man and woman. I Peter chapter 3 speaks of the marriage relationship between husbands and wives. There's nowhere in the Word of God that supports homosexuality, much less gay marriage. Romans chapter 1 and I Corinthians 6:9 condemn the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is in direct violation of scripture. It's a sin against God, society, and against nature. It's not even natural to speak of such perversion as homosexual marriage. I recall when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in November 2003 "gave" homosexuals the right to marry. I was thinking about the subject of sex education. Sex education is taught to students throughout the country from the elementary grades to high school. We're teaching sex education to the wrong group of people. These judges that believe in homosexual marriage need to be taught sex education. There's no way that homosexuals can engage in a proper sexual relationship. The body is designed only for a relationship between a married man and woman. Anybody with any sense knows what I'm speaking of. It's against nature for two people of the same gender to have a sexual relationship. If it was meant for two people of the same gender to have a sexual relationship, then God would've designed our bodies to have that kind of relationship. To go a step further, we wouldn't have two genders--male and female. It wouldn't be necessary. Homosexuality is Satan's attempt to thwart God's design for the family unit.
This isn't the first time the California voters voted against same-sex marriage and the state court has ruled it illegal. Politics is crooked. Many of those that support the ban invoke the will of the voters in supporting this measure. The truth of the matter is, homosexual marriage is repugnant. Homosexuality directly violates God's laws. No society can flourish if the homosexual lifestyle becomes widespread. If you want to wipe out the population, it can be done through homosexuality. Why? Homosexuals can't reproduce. This whole notion falls in line with those that advocate population control. They will support the homosexual lifestyle because the population will decrease if the number of homosexuals grow. Will the U.S. Supreme Court back Proposition 8 that Californians voted in November 2008? I wouldn't hold my breath. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion in 2003 that struck down Texas's sodomy law. Kennedy stated the law was unconstitutional. Kennedy is the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Who knows which side he will take. It's pathetic if this case were to head to the Supreme Court. It could go either direction.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Charles Rangel Charged With 13 Ethics Violations
(USA Today) A House investigative panel formally charged U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) with 13 ethics violations Thursday, setting the stage for a trial a few months before the midterm elections. In a 40-page statement of charges, a bipartisan panel said the New York Democrat had improperly solicited donations for a public center and library bearing his name and that he omitted hundreds of thousands of dollars of income and assets on disclosure statements. The broad allegations had previously come to light over the course of the committee's nearly two-year investigation into Rangel's conduct, but the detailed charges, and the start of a public trial--came as lawmakers prepared to go home to meet with voters during the summer recess.
Rangel didn't appear at the 30-minute hearing but instead submitted a lengthy statement in which his lawyers are negotiating with the committee's staff to find an agreement to avoid a prolonged trial. The statement reads, "The undisputed evidence is that . . . Rangel did not dispense any political favors, that he did not intentionally violate any law, rule, or regulation, and that he did not misuse his public office for private gain." Republicans on the committee left little room for an agreement, which would require a vote to take effect. "Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama. "Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial." The committee's charges centered on four broad issues, including: Rangel's solicitation of donations for a public service center at the City College of New York, his failure to report income and assets, his use of a rent-stabilized apartment for campaign offices, and taxes he did not pay on rental income for a Dominican Republic beach villa. From 2005 to 2007, Rangel used his official letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center from organizations that had business before the House Ways and Means Committee, according to the charges. Rangel chaired the committee until he stepped down in March.
The ethics panel also alleged that Rangel accepted a rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan he used for his campaign offices and that he initially didn't pay federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property. Rangel acknowledged the tax issue in 2008 and said Thursday that the matter was resolved. An eight member committee consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans must decide whether to uphold the charges. The committee didn't state when it would meet next. The Rangel controversy also continued to play into this year's elections. Republicans have been eager to remind voters that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the 2006 takeover of Congress in party by promising to "drain the swamp" of ethics violations. A growing number of Democrats have called on Rangel to resign. Even President Obama stated that Rangel should resign from Congress.
The reason why President Obama and the Democrats want him to resign is because Rangel has become a political liability for the party. Many House and Senate seats that the Democrats occupy are vulnerable. If a trial takes place, I heard it could possibly take place in September, which is just a couple of months before the November elections. Both political parties take turns playing the bad guys and the not-so bad guys. I recall the corruption involved with the Republicans prior to the 2006 midterm elections involving Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Mark Foley, and many Republican senators who took a part in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Since the Democrats have taken control of both Houses of Congress since 2006, there are a number of ethics violations against prominent Democrats such as Charles Rangel and even Maxine Waters (D-Calif). Both parties are corrupt to the core. If the Republicans take charge in 2011, there will be a new round of ethics violations against the Republicans. It's the same ordeal. These ethics trials demonstrate the importance of why American voters need to vote out incumbents in drove this November.
Rangel didn't appear at the 30-minute hearing but instead submitted a lengthy statement in which his lawyers are negotiating with the committee's staff to find an agreement to avoid a prolonged trial. The statement reads, "The undisputed evidence is that . . . Rangel did not dispense any political favors, that he did not intentionally violate any law, rule, or regulation, and that he did not misuse his public office for private gain." Republicans on the committee left little room for an agreement, which would require a vote to take effect. "Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama. "Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial." The committee's charges centered on four broad issues, including: Rangel's solicitation of donations for a public service center at the City College of New York, his failure to report income and assets, his use of a rent-stabilized apartment for campaign offices, and taxes he did not pay on rental income for a Dominican Republic beach villa. From 2005 to 2007, Rangel used his official letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center from organizations that had business before the House Ways and Means Committee, according to the charges. Rangel chaired the committee until he stepped down in March.
The ethics panel also alleged that Rangel accepted a rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan he used for his campaign offices and that he initially didn't pay federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property. Rangel acknowledged the tax issue in 2008 and said Thursday that the matter was resolved. An eight member committee consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans must decide whether to uphold the charges. The committee didn't state when it would meet next. The Rangel controversy also continued to play into this year's elections. Republicans have been eager to remind voters that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the 2006 takeover of Congress in party by promising to "drain the swamp" of ethics violations. A growing number of Democrats have called on Rangel to resign. Even President Obama stated that Rangel should resign from Congress.
The reason why President Obama and the Democrats want him to resign is because Rangel has become a political liability for the party. Many House and Senate seats that the Democrats occupy are vulnerable. If a trial takes place, I heard it could possibly take place in September, which is just a couple of months before the November elections. Both political parties take turns playing the bad guys and the not-so bad guys. I recall the corruption involved with the Republicans prior to the 2006 midterm elections involving Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Mark Foley, and many Republican senators who took a part in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Since the Democrats have taken control of both Houses of Congress since 2006, there are a number of ethics violations against prominent Democrats such as Charles Rangel and even Maxine Waters (D-Calif). Both parties are corrupt to the core. If the Republicans take charge in 2011, there will be a new round of ethics violations against the Republicans. It's the same ordeal. These ethics trials demonstrate the importance of why American voters need to vote out incumbents in drove this November.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor: An Introduction
Last month on Saturday July 17, 2010, I introduced this series on the Letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor by quoting chapters 2 and 3 and the end of chapter 1 on the seven churches. The passages were lengthy so I decided to devote a full post on just scripture alone. Now, I'm officially beginning the series on the Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor. Today's post will begin the introduction to the series. For the seven Sundays following today, I will be featuring one of the churches each Sunday until I conclude with Laodecia, which is the last church Jesus addresses.
The letters to the seven churches are a distinct unit of seven within the book of Revelation. Other sevenfold units are the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls of God's wrath. Since the number seven denotes completeness the seven letters form a whole unit which has a message to the church universal. There are more than seven churches in Asia, but Jesus addressed these particular seven. In Revelation 1:11 John is commandd to write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodecia. In verse 13 we see Christ among the lampstands, that is the seven churches, and in the letters we find out what he observed as he walks among the seven churches (2:1). Our Lord is one who walks among the churches and sees their deeds both good and bad. The seven churches represent the different imperfections that are likely to be found in individual churches in different localities and at different times. The churches give us a template which we can measure our churches in order to see our weaknesses and strengths, he also gives us the remedy for our deficiencies.
In this section God is judging His church in order to purify it from sin within so that it will not be condemned along with the world (I Corinthians 11:32). There was a warning in Revelation 18:4 to come out of Babylon lest we share in her sins and her judgment. This judgment is depicted later in the sections of the seven trumpets, the seven bowls, the judgment of the harlot and the day of judgment. Pergamos is warned about the Balaamite teaching concerning idolatry and immorality, Thyatira is warned about the false prophet Jezebel who misleads the church into idolatry and immorality. Laodecia claims it's rich in goods but actually it is poor, but we find that those whom the Lord loves he rebukes and chastens. God is warning the church because the world is infiltrating the church, but later the seven trumpets are warnings to the world to repent of its idolatry and its results which include sexual immorality.
Smyrna and Philadelphia are both troubled by false Jews who slander her, later we find the 144,000 who are sealed by God to protect them from the seven trumpets, these are the true Jews, the Israel of God, who we later see as a great multitude . Smyrna is warned that a period of Satanic testing is coming and they must be faithful unto death and in Revelation 12:17 we find Satan making war against the saints and in chapter 13 we find that the beast from the sea making war against the saints and conquering them. Ephesus was sound in doctrine and persevered under hardship, neither the world or persecution was the problem. Consequently, they had lost their first love, for christ and each other and had therefore almost became sub-Christian. There was a lack of love in the church of Ephesus. John makes clear in his first epistle that love is to be the essential response to God 's love. John penned down that whoever loves God must love his brother. The members were to love each other. The church in Sardis was on the verge of death and was hardly in a position to withstand attack from the world and its values. The church in Laodecia was also in danger of receiving the world's values. The letters follow a general sevenfold pattern:
1. A greeting. To the angel of the church.
2. A reference to Christ's self designation from Rev. 1:12-19.
3. A commendation. I know your deeds. (except Laodecia and Pergamos)
4. A rebuke if applicable (except in case of Smyrna and Philadelphia)
5. A charge to repent or a warning.
6. A call to hear. Hence the phrase, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches".
7. A promise. The phrase "To him who overcomes" followed by a reference to a reward mentioned laer in Revelation.
Rewards for those who overcome involve a share in Christ himself:
1. Will eat of the tree of life watered by the river of life whose source is Christ.
2. Will receive the hidden manna which is Christ the true bread which comes down from Heaven.
3. Will share in Christ's authority over the nations.
4. Will walk with Christ dressed in white.
5. Will write on him my new name.
6. Will sit with Christ on his throne.
Lastly, I'm going to give a short summary of the condition of the churches described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
Smyrna - Materially poor but spiritually rich, enduring affliction, slandered and persecuted.
Philadelphia - Open door, little strength, kept his word, had not denied his name, endured patiently.
Ephesus - Hard work, perseverance, have not grown weary, cannot tolerate wicked men but had lost their love.
Pergamos - Live where Satan has his throne, Antipas was martyred, remain true to his name did not renounce their faith, but some hold to teaching of Balaam.
Thyatira - Have growing love and faith but tolerate the false teaching of Jezebel.
Sardis - Reputation of being alive but spiritually dead. Wake-up call.
Laodecia - Lukewarm, materially rich but spiritually poor, blind and naked. About to be spewed out.
The letters to the seven churches are a distinct unit of seven within the book of Revelation. Other sevenfold units are the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls of God's wrath. Since the number seven denotes completeness the seven letters form a whole unit which has a message to the church universal. There are more than seven churches in Asia, but Jesus addressed these particular seven. In Revelation 1:11 John is commandd to write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodecia. In verse 13 we see Christ among the lampstands, that is the seven churches, and in the letters we find out what he observed as he walks among the seven churches (2:1). Our Lord is one who walks among the churches and sees their deeds both good and bad. The seven churches represent the different imperfections that are likely to be found in individual churches in different localities and at different times. The churches give us a template which we can measure our churches in order to see our weaknesses and strengths, he also gives us the remedy for our deficiencies.
In this section God is judging His church in order to purify it from sin within so that it will not be condemned along with the world (I Corinthians 11:32). There was a warning in Revelation 18:4 to come out of Babylon lest we share in her sins and her judgment. This judgment is depicted later in the sections of the seven trumpets, the seven bowls, the judgment of the harlot and the day of judgment. Pergamos is warned about the Balaamite teaching concerning idolatry and immorality, Thyatira is warned about the false prophet Jezebel who misleads the church into idolatry and immorality. Laodecia claims it's rich in goods but actually it is poor, but we find that those whom the Lord loves he rebukes and chastens. God is warning the church because the world is infiltrating the church, but later the seven trumpets are warnings to the world to repent of its idolatry and its results which include sexual immorality.
Smyrna and Philadelphia are both troubled by false Jews who slander her, later we find the 144,000 who are sealed by God to protect them from the seven trumpets, these are the true Jews, the Israel of God, who we later see as a great multitude . Smyrna is warned that a period of Satanic testing is coming and they must be faithful unto death and in Revelation 12:17 we find Satan making war against the saints and in chapter 13 we find that the beast from the sea making war against the saints and conquering them. Ephesus was sound in doctrine and persevered under hardship, neither the world or persecution was the problem. Consequently, they had lost their first love, for christ and each other and had therefore almost became sub-Christian. There was a lack of love in the church of Ephesus. John makes clear in his first epistle that love is to be the essential response to God 's love. John penned down that whoever loves God must love his brother. The members were to love each other. The church in Sardis was on the verge of death and was hardly in a position to withstand attack from the world and its values. The church in Laodecia was also in danger of receiving the world's values. The letters follow a general sevenfold pattern:
1. A greeting. To the angel of the church.
2. A reference to Christ's self designation from Rev. 1:12-19.
3. A commendation. I know your deeds. (except Laodecia and Pergamos)
4. A rebuke if applicable (except in case of Smyrna and Philadelphia)
5. A charge to repent or a warning.
6. A call to hear. Hence the phrase, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches".
7. A promise. The phrase "To him who overcomes" followed by a reference to a reward mentioned laer in Revelation.
Rewards for those who overcome involve a share in Christ himself:
1. Will eat of the tree of life watered by the river of life whose source is Christ.
2. Will receive the hidden manna which is Christ the true bread which comes down from Heaven.
3. Will share in Christ's authority over the nations.
4. Will walk with Christ dressed in white.
5. Will write on him my new name.
6. Will sit with Christ on his throne.
Lastly, I'm going to give a short summary of the condition of the churches described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
Smyrna - Materially poor but spiritually rich, enduring affliction, slandered and persecuted.
Philadelphia - Open door, little strength, kept his word, had not denied his name, endured patiently.
Ephesus - Hard work, perseverance, have not grown weary, cannot tolerate wicked men but had lost their love.
Pergamos - Live where Satan has his throne, Antipas was martyred, remain true to his name did not renounce their faith, but some hold to teaching of Balaam.
Thyatira - Have growing love and faith but tolerate the false teaching of Jezebel.
Sardis - Reputation of being alive but spiritually dead. Wake-up call.
Laodecia - Lukewarm, materially rich but spiritually poor, blind and naked. About to be spewed out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)