YouTube - Extremism In The Defense Of Liberty Is No Vice
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.----Barry Goldwater--Acceptance Speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention
The late Senator Barry Goldwater echoed the words of the Roman philospher and orator Cicero during the 1964 Republican National Convention in his acceptance speech. I like that quote. In today's political circles, you hear many commentators making reference to the word "extremism", "extremist", or "extreme." Most of the time that word is used in a very derogatory manner. What does the term "extremism" mean? According to the online dictionary extremism is the condition or act of taking an extreme view. Another definition is the taking of an extreme action. During the election season, you'll hear the word "extremist" floating around frequently. You'll hear candidates from both political parties labeling each other as extremist. The Democrats say the Republican Party is the party of extremists. The Republicans say the Democrat Party is the party of extremists. The Democrats say Republicans and most recently the Tea Party candidates hold extreme views on Social Security, abolishing the Department of Education, Healthcare, unions, taxes, and regulation on corporations, to name a few. The Republicans say the Democrats are extremists when it comes to the passage of Obamacare, "financial reform" on Wall Street, higher taxation, government regulation on business, and the list continues. You hear the same old argument back and forth from both parties.
I don't like how both parties tout the "extremist" label. The Republicans need to frame their argument differently when speaking out against President Obama and the Democrat Party's socialist agenda. What the Republicans need to do is explain what's wrong with the socialist agenda that President Obama is trying to thrust upon America. What do you mean when you say extremist? Just saying the Democrats are the party of "extremists" is a vague argument. It's an issue over whether the policies are constitutional or unconstitutional--regardless of whether or not they're extremist. I guarantee you the Founding Fathers ideas during the time of the American Revolution would be considered extremist to the minds of our politicians, the media, and academia in today's society. When they formed this country, they were very suspicious of centralized power in the hands of the federal government. They understood the human nature of man and recognized that too much power could lead to tyranny. I believe they would be very opposed to the Progressive form of government that's infiltrated American politics since the late 1800's. Today the media, the academia, and many elected officials believe power should be wrested in the federal government. Today government is encroaching upon our freedoms as U.S. citizens more than ever before. With the federal takeover of the healthcare system, we will be losing more and more of our basic freedoms. Taxes will definitely be increased to cover the cost of the healthcare system that's being put in place.
I'm going to make a statement: The viewpoints of the liberal progressives are extreme to convservative-minded Americans. The viewpoints of conservative minded Americans are extreme to liberal progressives. Using the "extremist" argument to score political points is a weak argument. We need to to specifically state what's wrong with the agenda of the liberal progressives. We also need to outline solutions on what's needed to bring this country back. I have some news for you: The solutions that's needed to solve America's problems are extreme. But that's what's necessary if America has an inkling of a chance to be salvaged. What's needed in America is undboutedly extreme to the Progressive politicians and the liberal media. However, we're far past the point of preserving the status quo. I'm very guilty myself in labeling those that believe like I do concerning the role of the federal government as conservatives. The problem is what would be considered conservative today would've been considered extremist years ago. Today, we conservatives don't think much about government entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. During the Great Depression, conservatives classified Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies as socialist. Today we consider it mainstream. Seven years ago the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health struck down the state laws which prohibited same sex couples from having the "right" to marry. I can recall many conservative Americans, Christians, and even some liberals thought that the courts sanctioning the right for homosexuals to marry very extreme. However, as time has rolled along, more and more Americans are sadly buying into the argument that homosexuals should be granted the right to marry. Before too long the idea that homosexuals deserve the privilege to marry will be the mainstream in the American thought life, except those that are truly Christians and regard what the Bible says about the homosexual lifestyle. We need to go back to the Constitution and read what it says. We also need to read the Holy Bible and the Federalist Papers to have a proper understanding of America's heritage. If you want to know the mindset of the Founding Fathers, you need to read the Federalist Papers.
America is in such a terrible shape spiritually and politically. Each year several million babies are aborted in their mother's wombs. We have numerous latchkey children across America when they come home from school, and we have a major drug epidemic among our nation's youth. Also, America's national debt is over 13 trillion dollars. The government has taken over General Motors, Chrysler, the banks, etc. as the result of the TARP bailout. Congress also signed the national healthcare overhaul in March. Our government is headed towards fascism and communism. The days of being in the mainstream are over with. If this country is to be saved, it will take extreme measures. Moderacy won't solve the problem. First of all, God's people need to be revived. America needs a spiritual awakening and return to the spiritual roots that built this country. Secondly, we need to exercise our right to vote and vote out the vast majority of those that are up for re-election in Congress and numerous other races across the country. When I say incumbents, I mean incumbents from both political parties. Both parties are part of the problem. If we don't defeat them in the polls in a few weeks, then we will get the government we deserve. We can no longer place our confidence in a particular candidate anymore. The forces of evil that pervades over Washington is so great that I don't know if there's anybody that's bold enough to stand against those forces. Eventually, those candidates we elect will become part of the problem. We must vote them out. I know this year there are several Tea Party candidates that are running on the Republican Party ticket. I would advise voters to vote for them in a few weeks. However, those same candidates that we support today we'll have to vote against tomorrow. I look for us to have to vote out incumbents across the board the next few election cycles. We'll have to continue doing so until they receive the message they're in Washington to stand up for God, Country, and the Constitution. If they fall short of that, then they need to be voted out. The days of the career politician must end. America is in a too perilous condition for career politicians.
We need to vote for candidates that promise to uphold the principles of God, Country, and the Constitution (a slogan I contrived). We need candidates that will stand up for constitutional principles even if it means losing the next election. They will need to tackle the issues of the national debt, spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reforming taxation, and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy. The issues revolving around Social Security will have to be addressed. We need to privatize Social Security and remove it from the hands of the federal government. There will need to be some drastic reforms concerning government programs.
Most of America's problems aren't politicial--they're spiritual. America needs Jesus. Americans need to know that satisfaction comes from God alone--not the federal government. We need to change our mentality about the federal government. We need to recognize that government isn't our provider. If we are to make a living, then we must find a job and labor diligently. We need Americans that will contribute to make this a great country once again. We once again need to be a nation of producers instead of just consumers. We need to have a serious debate on what should be the role of the government. Many Americans across the country possess diverse views concerning the role of the federal government. If we read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, we'll know what the intent of our Founding Fathers were concerning how they wanted the federal government to operate. In order for America to be turned around, it will require extreme action. Implementing a few cosmetic changes won't solve the problem. The extremism I'm referring to is extremism in the defense of liberty. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Extremism is what's needed to save our country--that is extremism rooted in God's Holy Word and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We can no longer make the case for moderation in the political arena. We're too far past that. The solutions to America's problems requires radical action--immediately!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Rick Sanchez Fired from CNN
YouTube - Rick Sanchez fired from CNN calling Jon Stewart bigot and saying Jews run the network and all media
Former CNN host Rick Sanchez came under fire last Friday after making controversial remarks the previous day on a satellite radio show. Sanchez singled out Comedy Csentral host Jon Stewart and called Stewart a "bigot". Sanchez mocked him and complained that Jews--like Stewart--don't face discrimination. He also suggested that CNN, and perhaps the media industry more broadly, is run by Jews and elitists who look down on Hispanics like himself.
Last Friday around 6:00 p.m. CNN released a statement which said, "Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company." "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well." Sanchez made a statement on a radio show called "Stand Up!" last Thursday with Pete Dominick. On the radio show he didn't make a single impolitic statement, but he spoke at length for 20 minutes about Stewart and a media world he believes to be filled with "elite Northeast liberals" who consider Hispanic journalists "second tier." Sanchez is Cuban-American. He specifically called out Stewart as someone with "a white liberal establishment point-of-view" who "can't" relate to a guy like me." Also, Sanchez claimed that Stewart is "upset that someone of my ilk is at, almost, his level." Sanchez joined CNN in 2004 after working as an anchor in Miami. Prior to that, Sanchez worked as a correspondent at MSNBC, providing breaking news updates at CNBC, and at other local stations.
When I heard about this story late last week, I was thinking that Sanchez has a major ego problem. Sanchez is one of those that desire to blame the Jews for the problems in this world. Does Sanchez view the world in terms of race? I wonder. There are anti-Semitics that are very racist towards Jews. There are those that blame Jews for the world's ills. There are some Jews that are very liberal in their thinking. There are some that I would vehemently disagree with in terms of political philosophy. However, I do love the Jewish people. God said in Genesis that He would curse those that curse Israel and bless those that bless Israel. We're living in scary times right now because President Obama isn't very supportive towards the Jewish nation.
On yesterday's edition of "USA Today", it had an article on the side that said that Rick Sanchez apologized for the remarks he made last week about Stewart and the Jews. Sanchez apologized to Stewart and anyone else he offended and made reference to the "inartful comments" he made during a radio interview. Sanchez said, "Despite what my tired and mangled words may have implied, they were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness and should have never been made." He issued that statement Wednesday, five days after he was fired from CNN.
Former CNN host Rick Sanchez came under fire last Friday after making controversial remarks the previous day on a satellite radio show. Sanchez singled out Comedy Csentral host Jon Stewart and called Stewart a "bigot". Sanchez mocked him and complained that Jews--like Stewart--don't face discrimination. He also suggested that CNN, and perhaps the media industry more broadly, is run by Jews and elitists who look down on Hispanics like himself.
Last Friday around 6:00 p.m. CNN released a statement which said, "Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company." "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well." Sanchez made a statement on a radio show called "Stand Up!" last Thursday with Pete Dominick. On the radio show he didn't make a single impolitic statement, but he spoke at length for 20 minutes about Stewart and a media world he believes to be filled with "elite Northeast liberals" who consider Hispanic journalists "second tier." Sanchez is Cuban-American. He specifically called out Stewart as someone with "a white liberal establishment point-of-view" who "can't" relate to a guy like me." Also, Sanchez claimed that Stewart is "upset that someone of my ilk is at, almost, his level." Sanchez joined CNN in 2004 after working as an anchor in Miami. Prior to that, Sanchez worked as a correspondent at MSNBC, providing breaking news updates at CNBC, and at other local stations.
When I heard about this story late last week, I was thinking that Sanchez has a major ego problem. Sanchez is one of those that desire to blame the Jews for the problems in this world. Does Sanchez view the world in terms of race? I wonder. There are anti-Semitics that are very racist towards Jews. There are those that blame Jews for the world's ills. There are some Jews that are very liberal in their thinking. There are some that I would vehemently disagree with in terms of political philosophy. However, I do love the Jewish people. God said in Genesis that He would curse those that curse Israel and bless those that bless Israel. We're living in scary times right now because President Obama isn't very supportive towards the Jewish nation.
On yesterday's edition of "USA Today", it had an article on the side that said that Rick Sanchez apologized for the remarks he made last week about Stewart and the Jews. Sanchez apologized to Stewart and anyone else he offended and made reference to the "inartful comments" he made during a radio interview. Sanchez said, "Despite what my tired and mangled words may have implied, they were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness and should have never been made." He issued that statement Wednesday, five days after he was fired from CNN.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
I am not a Witch
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ad
Is Christine O'Donnell serious about winning the Senatorial race in Delaware? From listening to this ad, it makes me think she's not running a serious campaign. She doesn't say much in this ad. She starts off by reminding voters in Delaware that she's not a witch and that she's nothing they've heard. She tells them "I'm you." She reminds everyone that she's not perfect but at the same time we don't like what we're seeing around us in Washington with all the spending and backroom deals to remain in office. She says she'll go to office and "do what you do,", "I'm you." When she says I'm you, I'm assuming she's trying to identify herself with the voters. However, she was very vague about saying she would do what we're doing when she goes to Washington.
The way O'Donnell appears to be waging her campaign, she doesn't seem like she's serious enough. She's running against the "bearded Marxist", who happens to be Chris Coons. He's Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid's "pet." Coons would do nothing but support Obama's socialist policies. O'Donnell's behind him in the polls from around 17 to 19 points. She doesn't seem to be mounting the kind of offensive she needs to in this campaign. She needs to be running a very aggressive campaign against Coons. She needs to expose him for the Marxist ideas he espouses. On top of that, she needs to define her philosophy about government and give specifics on some of the things she would push for if she were Senator. You can't use vague terminology like she did in this ad and expect to convince undecided voters in Delaware. The media is already smearing her for her dabbling in "witchcraft" when she was in her 20's.
One of the things I disagreed with O'Donnell was how she handled the smear tactic that Bill Maher used on O'Donnell a few weeks ago when she made the statement in 1999 on Maher's program that she dabbled in witchcraft. I agree Maher was using that tactic to smear her. That was very unfair for Maher to bring that issue up especially since she doesn't practice witchcraft today. Consequently, O'Donnell's response wasn't proper. She made light of that issue when it was brought to surface. When it was first revealed that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was in her 20's, she should've told the voters in Delaware that she was wrong doing what she did years ago and should've said that she was sorry for that and that it was stupid. She could've then emphasized she hasn't messed with witchcraft since that time. That would've been the proper way to have handled that. I believe she would gain more respect from the voters in Delaware if she responded to the witchcraft smear in that fashion. You can't make light of past sins. Just be honest and say you were wrong in what you did years ago.
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points segment on radio yesterday morning driving to work. He was mentioning about the Delaware Senatorial race. He was mentioning that the campaign that she's running is disorganized and that she was a no-show at either some of the picnics or rallies. O'Donnell is down about 19 points. She has to be on the campaign trail everyday trying to sell herself to the voters in Delaware. Delaware is a blue state. She's not going to have a chance to win unless she's aggressive and she clearly defines her message. Vague messages such as the latest campaign ad isn't going to resonate with the voters in Delaware, given the attacks she's currently experiencing from the media. She has to be organized in the race she's running against Coons. He would do nothing but help advance the Obama agenda in Washington. You're not going to charge Hell with a water pistol. She's not going to gain traction with the voters by fighting with "kid gloves" on.
I know I sound critical of O'Donnell, but I know with her poll numbers being down, she has to wage an aggressive campaign. I think she's a nice person. She would be a better Senator than Coons. We don't need another socialist-minded person like Coons in Congress. But she needs to define herself and explain what kind of agenda she would push for in Congress. She has to show that she would be a much better candidate than Coons. The direction this campaign is going my prediction is O'Donnell will lose this election. She's not prepared to battle Coons in this election.
Is Christine O'Donnell serious about winning the Senatorial race in Delaware? From listening to this ad, it makes me think she's not running a serious campaign. She doesn't say much in this ad. She starts off by reminding voters in Delaware that she's not a witch and that she's nothing they've heard. She tells them "I'm you." She reminds everyone that she's not perfect but at the same time we don't like what we're seeing around us in Washington with all the spending and backroom deals to remain in office. She says she'll go to office and "do what you do,", "I'm you." When she says I'm you, I'm assuming she's trying to identify herself with the voters. However, she was very vague about saying she would do what we're doing when she goes to Washington.
The way O'Donnell appears to be waging her campaign, she doesn't seem like she's serious enough. She's running against the "bearded Marxist", who happens to be Chris Coons. He's Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid's "pet." Coons would do nothing but support Obama's socialist policies. O'Donnell's behind him in the polls from around 17 to 19 points. She doesn't seem to be mounting the kind of offensive she needs to in this campaign. She needs to be running a very aggressive campaign against Coons. She needs to expose him for the Marxist ideas he espouses. On top of that, she needs to define her philosophy about government and give specifics on some of the things she would push for if she were Senator. You can't use vague terminology like she did in this ad and expect to convince undecided voters in Delaware. The media is already smearing her for her dabbling in "witchcraft" when she was in her 20's.
One of the things I disagreed with O'Donnell was how she handled the smear tactic that Bill Maher used on O'Donnell a few weeks ago when she made the statement in 1999 on Maher's program that she dabbled in witchcraft. I agree Maher was using that tactic to smear her. That was very unfair for Maher to bring that issue up especially since she doesn't practice witchcraft today. Consequently, O'Donnell's response wasn't proper. She made light of that issue when it was brought to surface. When it was first revealed that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was in her 20's, she should've told the voters in Delaware that she was wrong doing what she did years ago and should've said that she was sorry for that and that it was stupid. She could've then emphasized she hasn't messed with witchcraft since that time. That would've been the proper way to have handled that. I believe she would gain more respect from the voters in Delaware if she responded to the witchcraft smear in that fashion. You can't make light of past sins. Just be honest and say you were wrong in what you did years ago.
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points segment on radio yesterday morning driving to work. He was mentioning about the Delaware Senatorial race. He was mentioning that the campaign that she's running is disorganized and that she was a no-show at either some of the picnics or rallies. O'Donnell is down about 19 points. She has to be on the campaign trail everyday trying to sell herself to the voters in Delaware. Delaware is a blue state. She's not going to have a chance to win unless she's aggressive and she clearly defines her message. Vague messages such as the latest campaign ad isn't going to resonate with the voters in Delaware, given the attacks she's currently experiencing from the media. She has to be organized in the race she's running against Coons. He would do nothing but help advance the Obama agenda in Washington. You're not going to charge Hell with a water pistol. She's not going to gain traction with the voters by fighting with "kid gloves" on.
I know I sound critical of O'Donnell, but I know with her poll numbers being down, she has to wage an aggressive campaign. I think she's a nice person. She would be a better Senator than Coons. We don't need another socialist-minded person like Coons in Congress. But she needs to define herself and explain what kind of agenda she would push for in Congress. She has to show that she would be a much better candidate than Coons. The direction this campaign is going my prediction is O'Donnell will lose this election. She's not prepared to battle Coons in this election.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Terror Alert Issued for Those Traveling to Europe Last Weekend
(USA Today) Europe faces months of uncertainty about terrorism and tourism after the Obama administration warned Americans on Sunday of possible attacks across the continent, particularly on public transit and at tourist sites. A State Department "travel" alert stops short of advising Americans to stay away from Europe or to take precautions in any specific country, city, or activity. The administration said nothing about an increased possibility of an attack in the United States. "We are not--repeat, not--advising Americans not to go to Europe," State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy said. "This is an alert. We put out alerts to ensure that American citizens are aware of possible incidents." The 286-word alert comes as European countries have issued their own warnings, some focusing on a particular strike similar to the attacks in Mumbai, India in November 2008, by armed commandos who targeted the train station and popular hotels, killing 166. Paris police evacuated the Eiffel Tower twice last week after bomb threats, and Sweden raised its terror threat level this past Friday.
On Sunday, the British Foreign Office refined its warnings about travel to France and Germany, saying those countries face a "high threat of terrorism" instead of a "general threat" British authorities had previously cited. The U.S. travel alert names no countries and is unusual in focusing on an entire continent, which includes 40 countries from Iceland to Ukraine. Steve Lot of the International Air Transport Association said advisories usually are country-specific. The alert, which is in place until January 31, has few details about threats and largtely repeats recent statements by FBI Director Robert Mueller and National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter about Al-Qaeda's continuing interest in striking Europe and the United States.
The alert urges citizens to register with the U.S. consolate or embassy in the country they are visiting so officials will know how to find them in case of an attack. Kennedy of the State Department said the alert was issued after "intensive discussion" in recent weeks with allies "about the nature of the ongoing threat." The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on Sunday issued a joint bulletin to law enforcement colleagues across the USA, alerting them to the threat activity in Europe, said federal officials who had reviewed the bulletin but were not authorized to comment publicly. "Europe is the most likely place for terrorists to hit because they've got so many people in place over there," said Randall Larsen, head of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. "It's still a little bit of a challenge for them to get over here."
What a dangerous time we live in this world today. America's national media wants to say that Islam is a religion of peace. If it's really that peaceful then why do we have to be concerned about possible terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere? We need to get our head out of the sand and recognize there are a group of Islamic jihadists that don't like America, Europe, and Israel and they don't like our way of life. Our elected elite don't have the audacity to deal with terrorism straight-on. We need to tighten our borders and screen those ethnic groups that come through our borders. Aviation Security needs to check security conditions in other countries before they fly out Americans to those countries. To me it's just common sense.
On Sunday, the British Foreign Office refined its warnings about travel to France and Germany, saying those countries face a "high threat of terrorism" instead of a "general threat" British authorities had previously cited. The U.S. travel alert names no countries and is unusual in focusing on an entire continent, which includes 40 countries from Iceland to Ukraine. Steve Lot of the International Air Transport Association said advisories usually are country-specific. The alert, which is in place until January 31, has few details about threats and largtely repeats recent statements by FBI Director Robert Mueller and National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter about Al-Qaeda's continuing interest in striking Europe and the United States.
The alert urges citizens to register with the U.S. consolate or embassy in the country they are visiting so officials will know how to find them in case of an attack. Kennedy of the State Department said the alert was issued after "intensive discussion" in recent weeks with allies "about the nature of the ongoing threat." The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on Sunday issued a joint bulletin to law enforcement colleagues across the USA, alerting them to the threat activity in Europe, said federal officials who had reviewed the bulletin but were not authorized to comment publicly. "Europe is the most likely place for terrorists to hit because they've got so many people in place over there," said Randall Larsen, head of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. "It's still a little bit of a challenge for them to get over here."
What a dangerous time we live in this world today. America's national media wants to say that Islam is a religion of peace. If it's really that peaceful then why do we have to be concerned about possible terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere? We need to get our head out of the sand and recognize there are a group of Islamic jihadists that don't like America, Europe, and Israel and they don't like our way of life. Our elected elite don't have the audacity to deal with terrorism straight-on. We need to tighten our borders and screen those ethnic groups that come through our borders. Aviation Security needs to check security conditions in other countries before they fly out Americans to those countries. To me it's just common sense.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Dino Kartsonakis Performs the Song "Behold the Lamb" at Dottie Rambo's Funeral
YouTube - Dottie Rambo Home-Going-3 - Behold The Lamb
Dino Kartsonakis, the famous pianist, peforms one of Dottie Rambo's old songs that she wrote years ago, "Behold the Lamb." I hope you enjoy it. He does a splendid job playing the piano.
Dino Kartsonakis, the famous pianist, peforms one of Dottie Rambo's old songs that she wrote years ago, "Behold the Lamb." I hope you enjoy it. He does a splendid job playing the piano.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The One Nation Rally
YouTube - Liberals gather for 'One Nation' rally
(USA Today) Thousands of people from across the country converged on the National Mall on Saturday, which is one month before the Nov. 2 Congressional elections, to rally for jobs, education, immigration overhaul and other liberal causes. Some of the liberal participants classified this event as a counterpoint to the Tea Party movement and the "Restoring Honor" rally which was held on August 28, 2010 in the same location, which commemorated the day that the late Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Cheryl Albright, of West Warwick, Rhode Island, a community health advocate said, "We're fired up, and we're fighting for jobs and justice." She claimed this isn't like the Tea Party. She claims that they're the real America just like the Tea Party claims to be the real America. There were black, white, Latinos, Asians, old people and young in attendance.
Karolina Bodner, 64, a retired teacher from Barrington, N.H., marched to show support for government programs as Social Security, which she said protects the elderly from starvation. "Most people I know are getting Social Security checks from the government, getting disability checks from the government or driving on roads that are built and repaired by the government. I don't know who the people are that are saying 'Get rid of all that.'" There were organizers at that rally such as the Urban League, for example. There were many speakers there such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz. "This march is about the power to the people," said Schultz. "It's about the peole standing up to the corporations." "The last two years," he said, "President Obama has had to put up with the word 'no.' Forty Republicans, (referring to Senators) decided to say no while you suffer, while jobs go overseas. We cannot let that happen . . .We cannot give up on Nov. 2."
The Urban League president, Marc Morial, told the crowd: "Too many people are hurting. Without good jobs to support our families, our nation cannot recover." He called for "a targeted jobs program" to create 3 million jobs "to build our streets and rebuild our cities...We are for economic empowerment for all. We are one nation working together." Jesse Jackson encouraged people to vote. And he joined in the lobby for jobs." "We globalized capital without globalizing workers' rights," he said. Speakers emerged in pairs, reminiscent of a televised awards show, with tag team delivery. Upstart activists and everyday American workers shared the podium with seasoned political figures. Firebrand "civil rights" activist Al Sharpton, traded comments with recent University of Massachusetts-Amherst graduate Lindsay McCluskey, who advocates for affordable college education.
This rally was supported by many left wing groups and unions such as the Communist Party USA, Green For All, Code Pink, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other socialist groups. This rally had a high turnout but the attendance wasn't as high as the "Restoring Honor" rally on August 28. Many of those that attended were persuaded by their unions to attend this rally. Many of them were given a free ride to the rally. I'm not insinuating everybody that was in attendance were left wingers. However, the sponors of this meeting were left wingers. Those that spoke were left wingers. They believe the solution to America's problems is a bloated socialist bureaucracy. They believe that government is the answer to the social and economic ills of America. This rally was in contrast to the "Restoring Honor" rally that was held on August 28. Even though I was opposed to the ecumenical aspects of the "Restoring Honor" rally, the atmosphere on August 28th was in contrast to the October 2nd rally. Glenn Beck and those at the 8/28 rally emphasized that America needs to turn to God and that God is the solution to America's ills. Socialism has failed in all the countries in Europe. Many countries in Europe are trying to flee from socialism and our elected elite are pushing us towards Marxism. Try to figure that one out. Those who sponsored the "One Nation" rally are in disillusionment. Government is their god and they believe government is what will deliver us from the "oppressive" conditions in which we're living. They couldn't be farther from the truth.
(USA Today) Thousands of people from across the country converged on the National Mall on Saturday, which is one month before the Nov. 2 Congressional elections, to rally for jobs, education, immigration overhaul and other liberal causes. Some of the liberal participants classified this event as a counterpoint to the Tea Party movement and the "Restoring Honor" rally which was held on August 28, 2010 in the same location, which commemorated the day that the late Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Cheryl Albright, of West Warwick, Rhode Island, a community health advocate said, "We're fired up, and we're fighting for jobs and justice." She claimed this isn't like the Tea Party. She claims that they're the real America just like the Tea Party claims to be the real America. There were black, white, Latinos, Asians, old people and young in attendance.
Karolina Bodner, 64, a retired teacher from Barrington, N.H., marched to show support for government programs as Social Security, which she said protects the elderly from starvation. "Most people I know are getting Social Security checks from the government, getting disability checks from the government or driving on roads that are built and repaired by the government. I don't know who the people are that are saying 'Get rid of all that.'" There were organizers at that rally such as the Urban League, for example. There were many speakers there such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz. "This march is about the power to the people," said Schultz. "It's about the peole standing up to the corporations." "The last two years," he said, "President Obama has had to put up with the word 'no.' Forty Republicans, (referring to Senators) decided to say no while you suffer, while jobs go overseas. We cannot let that happen . . .We cannot give up on Nov. 2."
The Urban League president, Marc Morial, told the crowd: "Too many people are hurting. Without good jobs to support our families, our nation cannot recover." He called for "a targeted jobs program" to create 3 million jobs "to build our streets and rebuild our cities...We are for economic empowerment for all. We are one nation working together." Jesse Jackson encouraged people to vote. And he joined in the lobby for jobs." "We globalized capital without globalizing workers' rights," he said. Speakers emerged in pairs, reminiscent of a televised awards show, with tag team delivery. Upstart activists and everyday American workers shared the podium with seasoned political figures. Firebrand "civil rights" activist Al Sharpton, traded comments with recent University of Massachusetts-Amherst graduate Lindsay McCluskey, who advocates for affordable college education.
This rally was supported by many left wing groups and unions such as the Communist Party USA, Green For All, Code Pink, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other socialist groups. This rally had a high turnout but the attendance wasn't as high as the "Restoring Honor" rally on August 28. Many of those that attended were persuaded by their unions to attend this rally. Many of them were given a free ride to the rally. I'm not insinuating everybody that was in attendance were left wingers. However, the sponors of this meeting were left wingers. Those that spoke were left wingers. They believe the solution to America's problems is a bloated socialist bureaucracy. They believe that government is the answer to the social and economic ills of America. This rally was in contrast to the "Restoring Honor" rally that was held on August 28. Even though I was opposed to the ecumenical aspects of the "Restoring Honor" rally, the atmosphere on August 28th was in contrast to the October 2nd rally. Glenn Beck and those at the 8/28 rally emphasized that America needs to turn to God and that God is the solution to America's ills. Socialism has failed in all the countries in Europe. Many countries in Europe are trying to flee from socialism and our elected elite are pushing us towards Marxism. Try to figure that one out. Those who sponsored the "One Nation" rally are in disillusionment. Government is their god and they believe government is what will deliver us from the "oppressive" conditions in which we're living. They couldn't be farther from the truth.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Wholesome Conversation
Philippians 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or elese be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel." Romans 8:29 says that God desires for his children to be conformed to the image of Christ. One of the ways we are to be conformed to the image of Christ is through our speech. Verse 27 in the first chapter of Philippians says our conversation should be as it becometh the gospel. When reading that verse, I don't think it means that every word or every sentence that's uttered out of our mouths always has to be theological or Jesus has to be mentioned in every other word. Psalms 124:1 says that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. There are a host of things we can discuss in everyday conversation. However, those that are saved and name the name of Christ should watch how they use their tongue. The book of James mentions much about the tongue and how dangerous it is when we our tongue isn't tamed. Our speech is very serious to the Lord. Those that claim to be saved are to live like Christ. We should act, talk, walk, and speak like Jesus.
Ephesians 4:29 says that we are not to allow any corrupt communication proceed out of our mouths but only that which is good to the use of edifying, that is may minister grace to the hearers. Our conversation on a daily basis with whomever we may come in contact with should be wholesome. Our conversation should reveal that we are saved and love Jesus. Our conversation should be edifying. Our conversation should point the way to Christ towards those that are without. Our conversation as a whole should be wholesome. What is a wholesome conversation? It's a conversation that's conducive to sound health or well-being. Anytime we engage in a dialogue with someone, it should be uplifting and conducive to the well-being of someone spiritually. Anytime we engage in a conversation with the brethren, whatever comes from our lips should be edifying to the brethren. The Bible says we should encourage one another. The Bible says that the brethren are to love one another. We're to love one another both through word and deed. Any type of conversation that destroys, tears down, or hurts someone is not wholesome conversation. It's also not Christlike. I want to quickly point out when I mention conversation that tears down someone, I'm making reference to destructive conversation. There are times that as a friend you may have to rebuke or just tell them the truth, which isn't always pleasant. There are times when it's necessary that a friend criticizes another friend. Proverbs says that wounds from a friend are better than kisses from an enemy. However, our conversation shouldn't be used to destroy or hurt someone. It should be for the purpose of building others up. Criticism is necessary at times, but it's a constructive criticism. Sometimes in order to help someone you have to criticize them in the direction they're headed, but that type of criticism will save someone from trouble if they'll heed to it.
There are some types of conversation that are destructive such as gossip. One of the places where you find gossip is in the House of God. There are those in the church that engage in malicious gossip which does nothing but causes strife and contention. God says in Proverbs that He hates those that sow discord among the brethren. Discord and strife is unwholesome and dangerous. We're not to use our tongue to destroy the brethren or the man of God. Many times lying goes along with gossip. Much of the gossip you hear so often in many churches today are lies. There are those that claim to be brethren that love to stir up trouble amongst other brethren in the church. God hates that. There are also those that love to criticize every decision the man of God makes concerning which direction he believes the church should go. Those types of conversations should never take place. We're not to engage in corrupt speech.
We have a responsibility as Christians to show the world that Christ is real. One of the ways we must do that is through our conversation. Our lifestyle, our actions, and our speech reveals to the world who we are. It reveals whether or not we believe what we say we believe. There are numerous conversations we can engage in that are very constructive. There are plenty of things we can discuss without sowing discord or speaking evil. We could spend the rest of our lives talking about the things of God and His creation without scratching the surface. There's no excuse for speaking about things that are unwholesome and unproductive.
Ephesians 4:29 says that we are not to allow any corrupt communication proceed out of our mouths but only that which is good to the use of edifying, that is may minister grace to the hearers. Our conversation on a daily basis with whomever we may come in contact with should be wholesome. Our conversation should reveal that we are saved and love Jesus. Our conversation should be edifying. Our conversation should point the way to Christ towards those that are without. Our conversation as a whole should be wholesome. What is a wholesome conversation? It's a conversation that's conducive to sound health or well-being. Anytime we engage in a dialogue with someone, it should be uplifting and conducive to the well-being of someone spiritually. Anytime we engage in a conversation with the brethren, whatever comes from our lips should be edifying to the brethren. The Bible says we should encourage one another. The Bible says that the brethren are to love one another. We're to love one another both through word and deed. Any type of conversation that destroys, tears down, or hurts someone is not wholesome conversation. It's also not Christlike. I want to quickly point out when I mention conversation that tears down someone, I'm making reference to destructive conversation. There are times that as a friend you may have to rebuke or just tell them the truth, which isn't always pleasant. There are times when it's necessary that a friend criticizes another friend. Proverbs says that wounds from a friend are better than kisses from an enemy. However, our conversation shouldn't be used to destroy or hurt someone. It should be for the purpose of building others up. Criticism is necessary at times, but it's a constructive criticism. Sometimes in order to help someone you have to criticize them in the direction they're headed, but that type of criticism will save someone from trouble if they'll heed to it.
There are some types of conversation that are destructive such as gossip. One of the places where you find gossip is in the House of God. There are those in the church that engage in malicious gossip which does nothing but causes strife and contention. God says in Proverbs that He hates those that sow discord among the brethren. Discord and strife is unwholesome and dangerous. We're not to use our tongue to destroy the brethren or the man of God. Many times lying goes along with gossip. Much of the gossip you hear so often in many churches today are lies. There are those that claim to be brethren that love to stir up trouble amongst other brethren in the church. God hates that. There are also those that love to criticize every decision the man of God makes concerning which direction he believes the church should go. Those types of conversations should never take place. We're not to engage in corrupt speech.
We have a responsibility as Christians to show the world that Christ is real. One of the ways we must do that is through our conversation. Our lifestyle, our actions, and our speech reveals to the world who we are. It reveals whether or not we believe what we say we believe. There are numerous conversations we can engage in that are very constructive. There are plenty of things we can discuss without sowing discord or speaking evil. We could spend the rest of our lives talking about the things of God and His creation without scratching the surface. There's no excuse for speaking about things that are unwholesome and unproductive.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Exits White House for Mayoral Run in Chicago
(USA Today) The White House is experiencing a shake-up. President Obama recently said good-bye to two key leaders of his economic team who were budget chief Peter Orszag and economist Christina Romer. A third economist, Lawrence Summers, is leaving to return to Harvard University at the end of the year. There are future departures taking place. Senior adviser David Axelrod says he will leave in 2011 to return to Chicago to work on the president's re-election campaign. Yesterday, another member of Obama's staff announced he was leaving--Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Adviser Pete Rouse will be Emanuel's interim successor, according to two administration officials.
In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley has announced he will not seek a seventh term, which will clear the way for several candidates to line up to run for that seat. Emanuel's leaving the White House to run for mayor of Chicago, which has been speculated in the news since Richard Daley announced he wasn't running for a seventh term. Emanuel has until November 22 to submit petitions for the non-partisan primary on February 22. A Chicago Sun-Times poll taken days after Daley's announcement last month placed Emanuel at the back of a pack of five possible candidates with 7% support. More than one-third are undecided. Former Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein says Emanuel stands a good chance of rising to the top.
I believe that Emanuel will be very competitive in next year's mayoral race in Chicago. He fits the Chicago style of politics very well. He's had plenty experience working as Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel represented Illinois as Congressman. I thought he was very corrupt in his dealings. Therefore, he would be a perfect candidate to run Chicago's political machine. He's had plenty of experience twisting arms and making deals to help pass the recent healthcare bill in Congress, for example. If he's elected as mayor next November, I predict he'll continue Chicago's tradition of "dirty politics."
In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley has announced he will not seek a seventh term, which will clear the way for several candidates to line up to run for that seat. Emanuel's leaving the White House to run for mayor of Chicago, which has been speculated in the news since Richard Daley announced he wasn't running for a seventh term. Emanuel has until November 22 to submit petitions for the non-partisan primary on February 22. A Chicago Sun-Times poll taken days after Daley's announcement last month placed Emanuel at the back of a pack of five possible candidates with 7% support. More than one-third are undecided. Former Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein says Emanuel stands a good chance of rising to the top.
I believe that Emanuel will be very competitive in next year's mayoral race in Chicago. He fits the Chicago style of politics very well. He's had plenty experience working as Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel represented Illinois as Congressman. I thought he was very corrupt in his dealings. Therefore, he would be a perfect candidate to run Chicago's political machine. He's had plenty of experience twisting arms and making deals to help pass the recent healthcare bill in Congress, for example. If he's elected as mayor next November, I predict he'll continue Chicago's tradition of "dirty politics."
In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul (The song)
YouTube - The Rambos-In The Valley He Restoreth My Soul.wmv
This song was penned by the late Dottie Rambo several years ago. I have a YouTube clip linked to this post where the Singing Rambos are performing this song. I hope you enjoy it.
(Psalm 23) "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever."
When I'm low in spirit I cry Lord lift me up
I want to go higher with Thee
But nothing grows high on a mountain
So he picked out a valley for me.
And he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried
In the valley He restoreth my soul.
------------------------Instrumental-----------------------------------------
It's dark as a dungeon and the sun seldom shines
And I question Lord why must this be
Then He tells me there's strength in my sorrow
And there's victory in trials for me.
And he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried
In the valley He restoreth my soul.
This song was penned by the late Dottie Rambo several years ago. I have a YouTube clip linked to this post where the Singing Rambos are performing this song. I hope you enjoy it.
(Psalm 23) "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever."
When I'm low in spirit I cry Lord lift me up
I want to go higher with Thee
But nothing grows high on a mountain
So he picked out a valley for me.
And he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried
In the valley He restoreth my soul.
------------------------Instrumental-----------------------------------------
It's dark as a dungeon and the sun seldom shines
And I question Lord why must this be
Then He tells me there's strength in my sorrow
And there's victory in trials for me.
And he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried
In the valley He restoreth my soul.
Friday, October 1, 2010
What is President Obama's Religion?
YouTube - Jeremiah Wright - Obama's mentor - Hate speech
(USA Today) President Obama, in a rare disccussion about his religious beliefs, described himself on Tuesday as a "Christian by choice" who arrived at his faith in adulthood because the "precepts of Jesus Christ" helped him envision the kind of life he wanted to lead. Obama was speaking of his beliefs when he was asked, "Why are you a Christian?" The question was from a woman at a backyard conversation, part of a series of meetings Obama is holding to talk informally with Americans given the fact the election is just a few short weeks away.
Recently there have been those that have questioned President Obama's religious beliefs. A Pew Research Center poll in August found that 18% of people believe Obama is a Muslim--up from 11% who said so in March 2009. Just 34% said they thought Obama is a Christian. "I'm a Christian by choice," Obama told his audience. "My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn't raise me in church." "So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life I would want to lead--being my brothers' and sisters' keeper, treating others as they would treat me," he continued. I don't believe those polled who believed Obama was a Muslim was necessarily due to ignorance or the information that was posted on some conservative websites. I believe part of it was due to President Obama catering to Muslims. Also, another reason why I believe some thought Obama is a Muslim is due to the fact his father was from Kenya and he was a Muslim. President Obama also spent several years in predominantly Muslim Indonesia and his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim.
I was thinking last night about religion. Most religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and the list continues is not difficult to define. You know what each of these religions stand for. Consequently, when someone claims they are a Christian, it's difficult for the world to know what Christians in general believe. That's due to the fact there's so much diversity in false doctrine and teachings in Christianity. Ever since the inception of the Early Church in the New Testament, the Devil has planted false teachers and false teachings in the church to deceive people. The Devil has done everything he could throughout the history of the New Testament church to deceive people. That's why there's such a diversity of false doctrine in those churches that label themselves "Christian". The Bible declares in Ephesians that there's "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." There aren't a diversity of faiths. There is only one Christian faith. If your Christianity doesn't follow the Bible, then it's not Christianity. If the Christianity you claim to uphold doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, it's counterfeit Christianity. I've heard President Obama state that his individual salvations depends upon the "collective" salvation of others. There's no such thing as "collective salvation." Salvation is individual and personal. It's a gift of God. Christianity rests on that. Any church that doesn't teach the Biblical doctrine of salvation isn't a New Testament Church.
What is President Obama's Christianity? President Obama's "Christianity" teaches Black Liberation Theology. President Obama was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois for twenty years. He sat under former pastor Jeremiah Wright for twenty years. Wright upholds black liberation theology. Just listen to his preaching on the YouTube clips. I have a sample of Wright's preaching on this particular YouTube clip. Black Liberation Theology blames the white people for the shape the black race is in. They believe the whites took from the black people. It upholds this victim mentality. The black race are the victims and the white male is the oppressor. They believe in collectivism. Black liberation theology places blame on society for what ails the black race. They believe the blacks should be paid reparations for all that the white people inflicted on the black race. Black liberation theology teaches that blacks need to be liberated from all forms of bondage which are religious, economic, social, etc. This religion is akin to Marxism. The teaching of Black Liberation Theology stems from Jame Cone, whom I mentioned about in a blogpost in July. When then Senator Obama was running for president in 2008, he claimed he didn't know that Jeremiah Wright made those racist, inflammatory comments from the pulpit when some tapes of Jeremiah Wright's preaching was made available to the media in March 2008. You're not going to convince me that President Obama didn't know what his pastor preached having sat under Wright for 20 years. He did know. He and the liberal media conspired to cover that up in order to enable him to win the presidency in 2008. This is President Obama's religion in a nutshell.
(USA Today) President Obama, in a rare disccussion about his religious beliefs, described himself on Tuesday as a "Christian by choice" who arrived at his faith in adulthood because the "precepts of Jesus Christ" helped him envision the kind of life he wanted to lead. Obama was speaking of his beliefs when he was asked, "Why are you a Christian?" The question was from a woman at a backyard conversation, part of a series of meetings Obama is holding to talk informally with Americans given the fact the election is just a few short weeks away.
Recently there have been those that have questioned President Obama's religious beliefs. A Pew Research Center poll in August found that 18% of people believe Obama is a Muslim--up from 11% who said so in March 2009. Just 34% said they thought Obama is a Christian. "I'm a Christian by choice," Obama told his audience. "My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn't raise me in church." "So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life I would want to lead--being my brothers' and sisters' keeper, treating others as they would treat me," he continued. I don't believe those polled who believed Obama was a Muslim was necessarily due to ignorance or the information that was posted on some conservative websites. I believe part of it was due to President Obama catering to Muslims. Also, another reason why I believe some thought Obama is a Muslim is due to the fact his father was from Kenya and he was a Muslim. President Obama also spent several years in predominantly Muslim Indonesia and his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim.
I was thinking last night about religion. Most religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and the list continues is not difficult to define. You know what each of these religions stand for. Consequently, when someone claims they are a Christian, it's difficult for the world to know what Christians in general believe. That's due to the fact there's so much diversity in false doctrine and teachings in Christianity. Ever since the inception of the Early Church in the New Testament, the Devil has planted false teachers and false teachings in the church to deceive people. The Devil has done everything he could throughout the history of the New Testament church to deceive people. That's why there's such a diversity of false doctrine in those churches that label themselves "Christian". The Bible declares in Ephesians that there's "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." There aren't a diversity of faiths. There is only one Christian faith. If your Christianity doesn't follow the Bible, then it's not Christianity. If the Christianity you claim to uphold doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, it's counterfeit Christianity. I've heard President Obama state that his individual salvations depends upon the "collective" salvation of others. There's no such thing as "collective salvation." Salvation is individual and personal. It's a gift of God. Christianity rests on that. Any church that doesn't teach the Biblical doctrine of salvation isn't a New Testament Church.
What is President Obama's Christianity? President Obama's "Christianity" teaches Black Liberation Theology. President Obama was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois for twenty years. He sat under former pastor Jeremiah Wright for twenty years. Wright upholds black liberation theology. Just listen to his preaching on the YouTube clips. I have a sample of Wright's preaching on this particular YouTube clip. Black Liberation Theology blames the white people for the shape the black race is in. They believe the whites took from the black people. It upholds this victim mentality. The black race are the victims and the white male is the oppressor. They believe in collectivism. Black liberation theology places blame on society for what ails the black race. They believe the blacks should be paid reparations for all that the white people inflicted on the black race. Black liberation theology teaches that blacks need to be liberated from all forms of bondage which are religious, economic, social, etc. This religion is akin to Marxism. The teaching of Black Liberation Theology stems from Jame Cone, whom I mentioned about in a blogpost in July. When then Senator Obama was running for president in 2008, he claimed he didn't know that Jeremiah Wright made those racist, inflammatory comments from the pulpit when some tapes of Jeremiah Wright's preaching was made available to the media in March 2008. You're not going to convince me that President Obama didn't know what his pastor preached having sat under Wright for 20 years. He did know. He and the liberal media conspired to cover that up in order to enable him to win the presidency in 2008. This is President Obama's religion in a nutshell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)