Senator John McCain in this year's run for a fifth U.S. Senate Term is likely to face a very tough challenger in the form of former Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona. According to a website called "The Hill", this could be one of Senator McCain's toughest election challenges in a number of years. According to some reports, McCain's overall popularity is around 40%, which is the lowest job-approval rating since January 1994 when John McCain was recovering from the McKeating banking scandal that erupted in the late eighties as a part of the savings and loans scandal. A Rasmussen report at one time had McCain leading Hayworth at 22 points but now it's down to single digits. McCain is under fire from some conservatives due to some of his more liberal positions he holds such as his views on global warming, campaign finance reform, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Also, McCain ran a very poor campaign when he ran for president in 2008.
John McCain was born of a Navy admiral named John Sidney McCain II. McCain grew up in a military family. Upon graduation from high school McCain enrolled in the Navy and served for over 23 years. McCain was famous for being a P.O.W. from 1967-73 when he was captured by North Vietnamese forces after his plane was shot down in Hanoi. He endured the brutal torture he faced for 5.5 years until he was released from captivity in 1973. Afterwards he served as a Navy liasion to the Senate until he retired in 1981. In 1982 he ran successfully for his first two Congressional terms he would serve in the House. In 1986 when Barry Goldwater announced his retirement from the Senate, John McCain ran for his seat and was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986. He's held that post for nearly four terms. He ran for president in 2000 and 2008; winning the Republican nomination in 2008.
J.D. Hayworth has been charging McCain with being a big spender in Washington when he approved of the bailouts to the banks in the fall of 2008 to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to AIG. The McCain campaign has shot back at Hayworth and said that Hayworth supported the prescription drug coverage item in Medicare in 2003 and supported both of Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. McCain claimed that the reason why he (McCain) opposed the tax cuts was because of the out-of-control spending that was taking place in Washington. Throughout his tenure as Senator McCain has opposed spending on earmarks, which is to his credit. McCain's record on spending is better than some Republicans.
Senator McCain has been known for some of his famous legislative attempts and accomplishments such as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform of 2002, which supposedly limits the amount of money corporations can donate to presidential campaigns. The U.S. Supreme Court just recently rejected provisions of the McCain-Feingold act and eliminated the corporate spending restrictions on campaign finance. McCain also tried to push through a bill with Senator Joe Lieberman which is called McCain-Lieberman, which deals with global warming or climate change. McCain would probably also be a likely candidate to support the cap and trade bill if it were to come before Congress. The most infamous bill which Senator McCain has drawn ire from conservatives was over the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill for illegal aliens in 2007, which went down to defeat due to protests from many of the Congressional constituents who were opposed to the bill. Those three issues alone along with McCain voting for the bank bailouts in 2008 is why this year's Senatorial race will be a challenge for McCain. Overall according to some reports I've read McCain votes conservative approximately 60% of the time and liberal 40% of the time.
Giving the fact that McCain is receiving a tough challenge from former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, McCain is going to temporarily lean to the right and not fight for the terrible legislation he's been fighting for the last several years. McCain knows if he is to have a chance to win, he must downplay some of his past votes and legislative attempts. However, let's not allow ourselves to be fooled, once the election's over with and if McCain turns out to be the victor, he'll go back to championing the liberal causes he pushed for prior to the 2008 presidential campaign. When the time is right, Senator McCain will be there to push for amnesty legislation for illegal aliens. It might have to wait until next year. But he'll do it if the opportunity avails itself. McCain has served for four terms. It's time for the Republican voters to vote out Senator McCain in the primary and vote for a more conservative candidate. Hayworth may not be ideal, but he would fight for the traditional values that have made America great before McCain will. It's tragic former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney are campaigning for McCain. These old-line Republican loyalists are part of the problem and they need to be removed in the primary. It will be too late to wait until the general election when the Democratic candidate will more than likely be worse than McCain. If nothing else, the Democrats in Congress must be removed from power. President Obama doesn't need accomplices to achieve his socialist agenda.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Congressman John Murtha, 77, Dies
*(Politico) Former Congressman and outspoken critic of the Iraq War John Murtha (D-PA) died on Monday afternoon at age 77 due to complications as a result of surgery. He died at 1:18 p.m. at the Virginia Hospitcal Center. He was admitted there after having his gallbladder removed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. A Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, he won national fame for standing up against the military involvement in Iraq in November 2005. He made national headlines when he stood up against the continuing war in Iraq after having voted for the authorization to go to war against Iraq in 2002. He symbolized a generation of old-school Democrats going back to then House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the Democratic heydey of the '70's when the House was less divided by partisan ideology than often by regional interests. He was forever "Captain Jack"--the mayor of Murtha's corner. He was involved in vote swapping and pork barrel politics. He was the king of pork barrel politics. He was known to leave home early and read history and monitor the BBC broadcasts to gain their perspective on overseas wars.
When Murtha stood out against the Iraq War, the Republicans poured millions of dollars into their campaigns to try to unseat him after he came out against the war. He was rarely in the public eye prior to November 2005 when he opposed the Iraq War. There were internet sites devoted to attacking Murtha. He was unprepared for the exposure. He had rarely been on television and his blunt backroom style invited ridicule. Reporters began looking for a scandal behind the millions of dollars he steered towards home-state projects in his annual defense bill.
In the spring of 2006, Murtha made himself a target with public comments which I believe were to former Clinton aid George Stephanopoulos when he was pressuring the Marine command to investigate allegations of civilian casualties at Haditah, Iraq. He was accusing the American troops there of killing innocent civilians in cold blood. That statement that Murtha made turned me against him. He was second-guessing the troops. I couldn't understand that given he supposedly understood the strain of war on the troops. However, Murtha was a politician and he was looking out to promote himself, I believe. Murtha was even a regular visitor to the Bethesda Naval and Walter Reed Army Hospitals. I found it very troubling when he tried to identify with the pain our troops were suffering but then used a knife to stab the troops in Haditha, Iraq in the back. Those troops that were on trial were later acquitted but Murtha never made any apology towards those troops that he had second-guessed. Murtha was opposed to torture and he made a behind-the-scenes effort to save an anti-torture amendment, which he did. Then Vice President Dick Cheney was strongly opposed to the anti-torture amendment. He and some House colleagues helped save the amendment.
John Murtha was elected in a special election in February of 1974. Murtha was the first of the "Watergate babies" of that year. He was also the first Vietnam Marine veteran to win a seat in Congress as well. That year during the fall elections, the Democrats gained 49 Republican seats due to the Watergate scandal that forced the disgraced president Richard Nixon to resign. Murtha established himself early on the House Appropriations Committtee--he befriended the late Appropriations Chairman Jamie Whitten (D-Miss). Murtha paid a heavy price when he was drawn into the FBI's Abscam sting operation in 1980. He was never prosecuted but was severely embarrassed when a videotape showed his exchanged with a purported sheik. He could be immensely useful to former House Speaker O'Neill but a rambunctious irritant. An aide to O'Neill said that Murtha was good at solving problems, but many of them were of his own making.
Murtha was also a supporter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was a supporter of her when she first became House Minority Whip in 2002. Murtha was Pelosi's choice to be the new House Majority Leader of the Democratic-controlled Congress, but Steny Hoyer (D-MD) overwhelmingly defeated Murtha for the post. I can't prove this, but I believe the Democrats used Murtha starting back in November 2005 because they knew they could use the Iraq War as an election issue against President Bush and the Republicans. Since Murtha was a former Marine veteran the Democrats probably felt Murtha would be a "qualified" spokesman against the Iraq War. However, once the Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate, you didn't hear Murtha protesting very much about the war in Iraq. He received his share of the pork barrel spending. After President Obama won the White House, we didn't hear another word out of Murtha about the Iraq War. It was all for political gain. It was a power grab.
John Murtha enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1952 and he became a drill instructor at Parris Island. He served in Korea and received a bronze star. He also served in Vietnam and received two purple hearts. Funeral arrangements are incomplete.
*Citing the news source
When Murtha stood out against the Iraq War, the Republicans poured millions of dollars into their campaigns to try to unseat him after he came out against the war. He was rarely in the public eye prior to November 2005 when he opposed the Iraq War. There were internet sites devoted to attacking Murtha. He was unprepared for the exposure. He had rarely been on television and his blunt backroom style invited ridicule. Reporters began looking for a scandal behind the millions of dollars he steered towards home-state projects in his annual defense bill.
In the spring of 2006, Murtha made himself a target with public comments which I believe were to former Clinton aid George Stephanopoulos when he was pressuring the Marine command to investigate allegations of civilian casualties at Haditah, Iraq. He was accusing the American troops there of killing innocent civilians in cold blood. That statement that Murtha made turned me against him. He was second-guessing the troops. I couldn't understand that given he supposedly understood the strain of war on the troops. However, Murtha was a politician and he was looking out to promote himself, I believe. Murtha was even a regular visitor to the Bethesda Naval and Walter Reed Army Hospitals. I found it very troubling when he tried to identify with the pain our troops were suffering but then used a knife to stab the troops in Haditha, Iraq in the back. Those troops that were on trial were later acquitted but Murtha never made any apology towards those troops that he had second-guessed. Murtha was opposed to torture and he made a behind-the-scenes effort to save an anti-torture amendment, which he did. Then Vice President Dick Cheney was strongly opposed to the anti-torture amendment. He and some House colleagues helped save the amendment.
John Murtha was elected in a special election in February of 1974. Murtha was the first of the "Watergate babies" of that year. He was also the first Vietnam Marine veteran to win a seat in Congress as well. That year during the fall elections, the Democrats gained 49 Republican seats due to the Watergate scandal that forced the disgraced president Richard Nixon to resign. Murtha established himself early on the House Appropriations Committtee--he befriended the late Appropriations Chairman Jamie Whitten (D-Miss). Murtha paid a heavy price when he was drawn into the FBI's Abscam sting operation in 1980. He was never prosecuted but was severely embarrassed when a videotape showed his exchanged with a purported sheik. He could be immensely useful to former House Speaker O'Neill but a rambunctious irritant. An aide to O'Neill said that Murtha was good at solving problems, but many of them were of his own making.
Murtha was also a supporter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was a supporter of her when she first became House Minority Whip in 2002. Murtha was Pelosi's choice to be the new House Majority Leader of the Democratic-controlled Congress, but Steny Hoyer (D-MD) overwhelmingly defeated Murtha for the post. I can't prove this, but I believe the Democrats used Murtha starting back in November 2005 because they knew they could use the Iraq War as an election issue against President Bush and the Republicans. Since Murtha was a former Marine veteran the Democrats probably felt Murtha would be a "qualified" spokesman against the Iraq War. However, once the Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate, you didn't hear Murtha protesting very much about the war in Iraq. He received his share of the pork barrel spending. After President Obama won the White House, we didn't hear another word out of Murtha about the Iraq War. It was all for political gain. It was a power grab.
John Murtha enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1952 and he became a drill instructor at Parris Island. He served in Korea and received a bronze star. He also served in Vietnam and received two purple hearts. Funeral arrangements are incomplete.
*Citing the news source
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The Sermon on the Mount (Part 5)
(Matthew 6:19-24) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth currupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. One of America's problems in today's society is materialism. We're one of the most materialistic societies in this world. In the last half century, our world has invented more gadgets and more goods to purchase than ever before in the history of mankind. However, there's nothing wrong with material wealth in and of itself. However, when material wealth becomes an object of our worship, then that's where our priorities are misguided. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24 that no man can serve two masters. Man cannot serve both God and mammon. Man will either serve one or the other. Or man will will either love one or hate the other or vice versa. We can't grant our full devotion to both God and to the riches of this world.
I was looking up the word "mammon" in Webster's dictionary and here is the definition for it: Riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit. God's saying we can't serve both God and riches. God's not suggesting that it's sinful to possess earthly goods. However, the problem lies when our wealth becomes an object of our worship. Are we satisfied with what we have? Do we need more? Can we make due on less if necessary? Do we devote our time and money working so we can further pursue extra goods or extra "adult" toys? Does our whole life revolve around obtaining more and more riches? When we allow our lives to be built around obtaining more and more riches, then we're a slave to riches. God doesn't want our lives to revolve around the pursuit wealth? Our life should revolve around serving the Lord. There are people that miss the House of God on Sunday because their whole world is built around obtaining more and more riches. And in order to obtain more wealth, they must be willing to sacrifice time to work in order to achieve their fleshly desires. There have been couples that have children where both work a full-time job in order to possess earthly goods. There have been parents that have placed their young children in daycare to serve the gods of materialism. However, I do recognize in today's society with the economic stress we're under many couples must work to pay their bills. I fully understand that. It's about come to the point unless both couples work a public job, they won't be able to pay their bills. I sympathize for those kinds of couples. However, when it comes to our responsibilities to God, our families, and the church, we should not allow the pursuit of riches prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities in those areas.
Matthew tells us we can know where our heart is by where we invest our treasures. If you invest all your time and money into purchasing the goods of this world, then that reveals our heart loves mammon. However, if we'll invest our money, time, and talents into the Kingdom of God, then that is a sign that our heart's toward Godly things. There are many things people will invest their money and time in. Some people invest their money into sports, houses, cars, boats, and the list continues. There are some people that are enslaved to their appetites. They love food. They'll invest their money in appeasing the middle section of the body. I can say this because this is an area where I have a major problem with. I know this truth too well. That's why this nation has an obesity epidemic. That's why many of our health experts are focused on reducing obesity from childhood to adulthood. There are so many areas where we can invest our money. However, the Bible plainly tells us where our treasure is that's where our heart will be. Whatever you love the most you'll invest most of your money into.
I've heard the old statement, "Nobody's going to tell me what to do. I am my own person and I'll do what I feel like doing whenever I feel like doing it." They're saying they're independent. They think they serve themselves. The truth of the matter is this: Everybody serves a master. Some people are blind and don't knowingly understand that they do. We all serve a master. We who are saved either serve Jehovah God or we've allowed ourselves to be enslaved to mammon. Lost people serve a master as well. If it was true we were independent and didn't serve nobody but ourselves, then why do we fall prey to our fleshly impulses? Why can't a person who drinks liquor stop drinking anytime he so desires? Why can't a smoker put down those cigarettes anytime he's ready? Why is it so difficult for an obese person to moderate their food intake and stop the practice of gluttony? It's because we're not our own master. We're a slave to our passions. It happens all the time. Ask Tiger Woods. If he will be honest with you, he'll admit he's a slave to his sexual passions. Nobody is that independent. We're going to serve a master.
We have two choices to make when it comes to serving a master: either we will serve God or we will serve the world. We can't serve both. If we're a slave to mammom, then we're a slave to a terrible master. The Bible says the eye of man is never satisfied. Man always must obtain more and more of whatever the world has to offer to satisfy us. The world never does satisfy. However, Jesus told the woman of Samaria in John 4:14 that if you drink of the living water you will never thirst. There will be a well of water springing up into everlasting life. What the world has to offer will never satisfy you. But if you place your trust and faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord and follow him you will be satisfied. The price you'll have to pay will be to serve him. If you serve Jesus and place your priorities in their proper order, you won't abandon your spouse and your children in doing so. However, if you serve the gods of this world, then you'll pay a terrible price. Not only will you suffer for serving mammon, but your family will be deprived of your time and attention. When you're a slave to riches, you'll do whatever it takes to obtain them even if it means abandoning God and your family. Serving mammon will cost you far more than you'll want to pay. There have been many people that have devoted their lives to riches. There's been couples that have grown old and have said they wished they devoted more time to their families than to obtaining wealth. Joshua 24:15 says to choose ye this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord. Purpose in your heart to make the right choice to serve the Lord. You'll never regret it. However, if you devote your life to serving riches, you'll be of all people the most miserable in the end.
I was looking up the word "mammon" in Webster's dictionary and here is the definition for it: Riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit. God's saying we can't serve both God and riches. God's not suggesting that it's sinful to possess earthly goods. However, the problem lies when our wealth becomes an object of our worship. Are we satisfied with what we have? Do we need more? Can we make due on less if necessary? Do we devote our time and money working so we can further pursue extra goods or extra "adult" toys? Does our whole life revolve around obtaining more and more riches? When we allow our lives to be built around obtaining more and more riches, then we're a slave to riches. God doesn't want our lives to revolve around the pursuit wealth? Our life should revolve around serving the Lord. There are people that miss the House of God on Sunday because their whole world is built around obtaining more and more riches. And in order to obtain more wealth, they must be willing to sacrifice time to work in order to achieve their fleshly desires. There have been couples that have children where both work a full-time job in order to possess earthly goods. There have been parents that have placed their young children in daycare to serve the gods of materialism. However, I do recognize in today's society with the economic stress we're under many couples must work to pay their bills. I fully understand that. It's about come to the point unless both couples work a public job, they won't be able to pay their bills. I sympathize for those kinds of couples. However, when it comes to our responsibilities to God, our families, and the church, we should not allow the pursuit of riches prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities in those areas.
Matthew tells us we can know where our heart is by where we invest our treasures. If you invest all your time and money into purchasing the goods of this world, then that reveals our heart loves mammon. However, if we'll invest our money, time, and talents into the Kingdom of God, then that is a sign that our heart's toward Godly things. There are many things people will invest their money and time in. Some people invest their money into sports, houses, cars, boats, and the list continues. There are some people that are enslaved to their appetites. They love food. They'll invest their money in appeasing the middle section of the body. I can say this because this is an area where I have a major problem with. I know this truth too well. That's why this nation has an obesity epidemic. That's why many of our health experts are focused on reducing obesity from childhood to adulthood. There are so many areas where we can invest our money. However, the Bible plainly tells us where our treasure is that's where our heart will be. Whatever you love the most you'll invest most of your money into.
I've heard the old statement, "Nobody's going to tell me what to do. I am my own person and I'll do what I feel like doing whenever I feel like doing it." They're saying they're independent. They think they serve themselves. The truth of the matter is this: Everybody serves a master. Some people are blind and don't knowingly understand that they do. We all serve a master. We who are saved either serve Jehovah God or we've allowed ourselves to be enslaved to mammon. Lost people serve a master as well. If it was true we were independent and didn't serve nobody but ourselves, then why do we fall prey to our fleshly impulses? Why can't a person who drinks liquor stop drinking anytime he so desires? Why can't a smoker put down those cigarettes anytime he's ready? Why is it so difficult for an obese person to moderate their food intake and stop the practice of gluttony? It's because we're not our own master. We're a slave to our passions. It happens all the time. Ask Tiger Woods. If he will be honest with you, he'll admit he's a slave to his sexual passions. Nobody is that independent. We're going to serve a master.
We have two choices to make when it comes to serving a master: either we will serve God or we will serve the world. We can't serve both. If we're a slave to mammom, then we're a slave to a terrible master. The Bible says the eye of man is never satisfied. Man always must obtain more and more of whatever the world has to offer to satisfy us. The world never does satisfy. However, Jesus told the woman of Samaria in John 4:14 that if you drink of the living water you will never thirst. There will be a well of water springing up into everlasting life. What the world has to offer will never satisfy you. But if you place your trust and faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord and follow him you will be satisfied. The price you'll have to pay will be to serve him. If you serve Jesus and place your priorities in their proper order, you won't abandon your spouse and your children in doing so. However, if you serve the gods of this world, then you'll pay a terrible price. Not only will you suffer for serving mammon, but your family will be deprived of your time and attention. When you're a slave to riches, you'll do whatever it takes to obtain them even if it means abandoning God and your family. Serving mammon will cost you far more than you'll want to pay. There have been many people that have devoted their lives to riches. There's been couples that have grown old and have said they wished they devoted more time to their families than to obtaining wealth. Joshua 24:15 says to choose ye this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord. Purpose in your heart to make the right choice to serve the Lord. You'll never regret it. However, if you devote your life to serving riches, you'll be of all people the most miserable in the end.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Sarah Palin Addresses Tea Party Convention
According to the The Los Angeles Times, Sarah Palin addressed the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee on what would've been former President Ronald Reagans 99th birthday if he were still alive. She gave the keynote address of the Tea Party Convention. She touched on a number of subjects including how President Barack Obama is governing the nation, the economy, the Christmas Day bomber, and the state of the conservative movement. She said it's about the people. She spoke in a very folksy manner at times. "How's that hopey, changey stuff working for you?" (She was making reference to President Obama's 2008 campaign theme on hope and change). "This isn't about money; this isn't about a title," Palin told an adoring crowd at the National Tea Party Convention. "I will live, I will die for the people of America. Whatever I can do to help, this movement is the future of politics in America." Her speech was at times earnest, taunting, folksy, and emotional. She criticized President Obama's foreign policy agenda as too conciliatory, attacked his economic stimulus package as wasteful, and choked when mentioning her love for an America where "children with special needs are welcome in this world and embraced." Palin's youngest son has Downs Syndrome.
Palin also told the crowd to "Put your faith in ideas. I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by one leader or operation," she said. "This is about the people." Palin mentioned that she applauded President Obama's decision to increase the forces in Afghanistan even though she derided his efforts at diplomacy, singling out North Korea. There was some criticism that there was profiteering taking place at the Tea Party event. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) didn't attend the convention for fear she might have some issues with the House Ethics Committee if she attended the event. Palin was given an invititation to speak at the upcoming CPAC Convention (Conservative Political Action Committee), but she declined.
Sarah Palin is a very nice and charming lady and I appreciate her making the right decision to not abort Trigg, her Down's Syndrome son. She is pro-life and I applaud her for her pro-life stance. She had a very successful stint as governor of Alaska. However, taking the reins of national politics and running for the presidency is not something I think she needs to do. I don't believe she's the right candidate to run for president in 2012 or probably ever. Do I believe she will make a run for the presidency? Absolutely! I wouldn't be surprised if she makes the decision to run for president in 2012. Everything she's involving herself with when it comes to making national appearances and promoting her latest book is an effort to gear herself for the presidency. However, I believe she could be compromised. If she were to run for president, she will be compromised to fit the party line. I don't view her as an independent willing to stand against the status quo. The speech she gave was mostly aimed at the failures of the Obama administration. However, she never once took the Republican party to task for the frauds they were when they were in control of Congress. She needed to criticize the Progressive, big spending ways of the Republicans. President Obama is undoubtedly a socialist. However, it was the fradulent Republicans along with President Bush that gave the Democrats control of Congress as well as the Obama presidency. A couple of months before the election the mortgage meltdown took place and both parties agreed to bailout Wall Street. The American people were tired of the ineptness of the Republican party and the Bush administration so they decided to place Barack Obama in power. Sarah Palin was in favor of the bank bailouts.
Another thing that's disturbing concerning the former governor was her support for President Obama increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. The problem with that is there's no commitment to victory from the Obama administration in Afghanistan. That was the same case under the previous Bush administration. Why didn't Palin take President Obama as well as former President Bush for not having a goal to win both of the wars in the Middle East? It's foolish that America's troops are still in both countries after having been there for nearly nine and seven years respectively. What's the goal and purpose for our troops to remain in Afghanistan? She should've asked that question. Also, she needed to seriously address the issue of illegal aliens in America. We had leaders of both parties in Congress that were trying to pass an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. Guess who co-authored those bills? John McCain and Ted Kennedy. Of course, Palin couldn't mention that because she was the vice-presidential candidate under McCain in 2008. Those should've been some of the issues that Palin addressed. I do agree that Obama and the Democrats need to be taken to task for their socialist policies. However, the Republicans need to be taken to task as well. What concerns me is the Republican party is going to make attempts to take over the Tea Party so they won't be a threat to the Republican agenda. If the Rockefeller-wing Republicans or the party-line Republicans take over the Tea Party, then the Tea Party will no longer be a force for change. I don't want to see mainline Republicans taking over the Tea Party. Instead, the Tea Party needs to bring the Republicans into accountability so they will be forced to pay attention to the average voter. The mainline Republicans don't want to do that. They have their own agenda and their goal is just to win. The Republican party isn't the agent of change.
Sarah Palin also will be traveling to Arizona to campaign for Senator John in his re-election bid for the senatorial race. I've heard Palin making reference to McCain being a maverick and being the agent of change. McCain isn't a maverick. He goes along with the liberal establishment himself. I'm certain Palin probably feels obligated due to having been McCain's vice-presidential candidate. However, it would better if she would stay out of it than to lend her support to McCain. McCain's re-election would be terrible for the Senate. McCain will run as a conservative since it's election year. However, I guarantee you as soon as he wins re-election he will be helping President Obama push the amnesty bill through Congress. If an amnesty bill passes in Congress, then America's way of life as we know it will be destroyed. America will become a third-world country. Palin is not an independent conservative voice. She just repeats the talking points of most Republicans. We don't need a mouthpiece for the Republican party to run for the presidency. Palin should spend her time continuing her job as a Fox News contributor and taking care of her family.
Palin also told the crowd to "Put your faith in ideas. I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by one leader or operation," she said. "This is about the people." Palin mentioned that she applauded President Obama's decision to increase the forces in Afghanistan even though she derided his efforts at diplomacy, singling out North Korea. There was some criticism that there was profiteering taking place at the Tea Party event. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) didn't attend the convention for fear she might have some issues with the House Ethics Committee if she attended the event. Palin was given an invititation to speak at the upcoming CPAC Convention (Conservative Political Action Committee), but she declined.
Sarah Palin is a very nice and charming lady and I appreciate her making the right decision to not abort Trigg, her Down's Syndrome son. She is pro-life and I applaud her for her pro-life stance. She had a very successful stint as governor of Alaska. However, taking the reins of national politics and running for the presidency is not something I think she needs to do. I don't believe she's the right candidate to run for president in 2012 or probably ever. Do I believe she will make a run for the presidency? Absolutely! I wouldn't be surprised if she makes the decision to run for president in 2012. Everything she's involving herself with when it comes to making national appearances and promoting her latest book is an effort to gear herself for the presidency. However, I believe she could be compromised. If she were to run for president, she will be compromised to fit the party line. I don't view her as an independent willing to stand against the status quo. The speech she gave was mostly aimed at the failures of the Obama administration. However, she never once took the Republican party to task for the frauds they were when they were in control of Congress. She needed to criticize the Progressive, big spending ways of the Republicans. President Obama is undoubtedly a socialist. However, it was the fradulent Republicans along with President Bush that gave the Democrats control of Congress as well as the Obama presidency. A couple of months before the election the mortgage meltdown took place and both parties agreed to bailout Wall Street. The American people were tired of the ineptness of the Republican party and the Bush administration so they decided to place Barack Obama in power. Sarah Palin was in favor of the bank bailouts.
Another thing that's disturbing concerning the former governor was her support for President Obama increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. The problem with that is there's no commitment to victory from the Obama administration in Afghanistan. That was the same case under the previous Bush administration. Why didn't Palin take President Obama as well as former President Bush for not having a goal to win both of the wars in the Middle East? It's foolish that America's troops are still in both countries after having been there for nearly nine and seven years respectively. What's the goal and purpose for our troops to remain in Afghanistan? She should've asked that question. Also, she needed to seriously address the issue of illegal aliens in America. We had leaders of both parties in Congress that were trying to pass an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. Guess who co-authored those bills? John McCain and Ted Kennedy. Of course, Palin couldn't mention that because she was the vice-presidential candidate under McCain in 2008. Those should've been some of the issues that Palin addressed. I do agree that Obama and the Democrats need to be taken to task for their socialist policies. However, the Republicans need to be taken to task as well. What concerns me is the Republican party is going to make attempts to take over the Tea Party so they won't be a threat to the Republican agenda. If the Rockefeller-wing Republicans or the party-line Republicans take over the Tea Party, then the Tea Party will no longer be a force for change. I don't want to see mainline Republicans taking over the Tea Party. Instead, the Tea Party needs to bring the Republicans into accountability so they will be forced to pay attention to the average voter. The mainline Republicans don't want to do that. They have their own agenda and their goal is just to win. The Republican party isn't the agent of change.
Sarah Palin also will be traveling to Arizona to campaign for Senator John in his re-election bid for the senatorial race. I've heard Palin making reference to McCain being a maverick and being the agent of change. McCain isn't a maverick. He goes along with the liberal establishment himself. I'm certain Palin probably feels obligated due to having been McCain's vice-presidential candidate. However, it would better if she would stay out of it than to lend her support to McCain. McCain's re-election would be terrible for the Senate. McCain will run as a conservative since it's election year. However, I guarantee you as soon as he wins re-election he will be helping President Obama push the amnesty bill through Congress. If an amnesty bill passes in Congress, then America's way of life as we know it will be destroyed. America will become a third-world country. Palin is not an independent conservative voice. She just repeats the talking points of most Republicans. We don't need a mouthpiece for the Republican party to run for the presidency. Palin should spend her time continuing her job as a Fox News contributor and taking care of her family.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Thomas Dorsey:Take My Hand Precious Lord
Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I'm tired, I'm weak, I'm lone
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
When my ways grows drear precious Lord linger near
When my life is almost gone
Hear my crey, hear my call
Hold my hand lest I fall
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
When the darkness appears and the night draws near
And the day is past gone
At the River I stand
Guide my feet, hold my hand
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I'm tired, I'm weak, Lord I'm worn
Through the storm, through the night
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home
This famous hymn was penned down by Thomas Alexander Dorsey (July 1, 1899 to January 23, 1993). He was born in Villa Rica Georgia. He was known as "the father of black gospel music." Earlier in his life he was a leading blues pianist known as Georgia Tom. His gospel music combined Christian praise with rhythms of jazz and blues. He was the music director at Pilgrim Baptist Church from 1932 until the late 1970's. The hymn was performed by Mahalia Jackson and was a favorite of Martin Luther King Jr. Dorsey also wrote another famous song named "Peace in the Valley".
Thomas Dorsey's father was a minister and his mother was a piano teacher. After formally studying music in Chicago, he became an agent for "Paramount Records". He is credited with more than 400 blues and jazz songs. He began recording gospel music alongside blues in the mid-1920's. This led to his performing at the National Baptist Convention in 1930. He also became the bandleader of two churches in the 1930's. His wife Nettie died in childbirth in 1932 along with his first son. In his grief, Dorsey penned his most famous song, "Take My Hand Precious Lord." In 2002 the Library of Congress honored his album, "Precious Lord: New Recordings of the Great Songs of Thomas A. Dorsey (1973)" by adding it to the United States National Recording Registry.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The 50th Anniversary of the Famous Sit-in at Woolworth's
Today is the 50th anniversary of the famous sit-in by four black college students at Woolworth's five-and dime store. America in 1960 was primarily segregated in the South despite the previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 and 1955, along with Rosa Park's bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama in 1957. There was a group of four determined young black college students who decided to protest the whites-only policy at the lunch counter at Woolworth's. Stools were only provided by whites to sit on. Blacks weren't served at the lunch counter. The four young college students who protested the whites-only policy were Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Billy Smith, and Clarence Henderson. They were schooled in the philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which was what the Indian leader Gandhi used in the Indian Independence Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. later adopted that philosophy when it came to fighting for the civil rights of black Americans.
On February 1, 1960, four students from an all-black North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College walked into a Woolworth's five-and-dime store with the intention of ordering lunch. However, the manger, who was Clarence Harris, decided to maintain the lunch counter's strict whites-only policy. Franklin McCain was one of the four young men who shoved history forward by refusing to budge. McCain remembers the anxiety he felt when he went to the store that Monday afternoon. He and Joseph McNeil, Billy Smith, and Clarence Henderson had launched plans to stage their protest. He stated how he felt after he sat at the lunch counter fifteen seconds after he sat down. "I had a feeling of liberation and restored manhood. I had a natural high. And I truly felt almost invincible. Mind you (I was) just sitting on a dumb stool and not having asked for service yet." McCain says. A little later an elderly woman of eighty years put her hands on his shoulder and told him that she was very proud of him and he should've done it ten years earlier.
The protest continued. The second day there were fifteen people that showed up to protest at the Woolworth's counter. On February 5, 1960, approximately 300 blacks showed up to protest the lunch counter policy at Woolworth's. The four young men who protested were not arrested. Harris, Woolworth's manager, was hoping the four black men would eventually give up after not being served at the counter. However, they were persistent in their efforts. Eventually, there was a bomb scare at the store and Harris had to close Woolworth's for approximately two weeks. Eventually, Woolworth's, along with Kress's a few blocks down, eventually desegregated their lunch counters. The persistence of the four young college students in combatting segregation behind the lunch counter paid off. Eventually other stores followed suit. And the rest is history.
On February 1, 1960, four students from an all-black North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College walked into a Woolworth's five-and-dime store with the intention of ordering lunch. However, the manger, who was Clarence Harris, decided to maintain the lunch counter's strict whites-only policy. Franklin McCain was one of the four young men who shoved history forward by refusing to budge. McCain remembers the anxiety he felt when he went to the store that Monday afternoon. He and Joseph McNeil, Billy Smith, and Clarence Henderson had launched plans to stage their protest. He stated how he felt after he sat at the lunch counter fifteen seconds after he sat down. "I had a feeling of liberation and restored manhood. I had a natural high. And I truly felt almost invincible. Mind you (I was) just sitting on a dumb stool and not having asked for service yet." McCain says. A little later an elderly woman of eighty years put her hands on his shoulder and told him that she was very proud of him and he should've done it ten years earlier.
The protest continued. The second day there were fifteen people that showed up to protest at the Woolworth's counter. On February 5, 1960, approximately 300 blacks showed up to protest the lunch counter policy at Woolworth's. The four young men who protested were not arrested. Harris, Woolworth's manager, was hoping the four black men would eventually give up after not being served at the counter. However, they were persistent in their efforts. Eventually, there was a bomb scare at the store and Harris had to close Woolworth's for approximately two weeks. Eventually, Woolworth's, along with Kress's a few blocks down, eventually desegregated their lunch counters. The persistence of the four young college students in combatting segregation behind the lunch counter paid off. Eventually other stores followed suit. And the rest is history.
February is Black History Month
Starting today and throughout the month of February will be the celebration of Black History Month. Black History month is celebrated in the media, the academia, and in numerous black organizations. The purpose of Black History Month is to celebrate the achievements of the black race in America ever since blacks first set foot in America as slaves in 1619. However, most black achievements occurred following the abolishment of slavery in 1865. I've taken an interest in black history for several years. I believe it's imperative that America as a nation study and learn the numerous achievements many blacks have made as a race. If anybody needs to know about their heritage, it's the black youth of today. Many live in single parent homes with no fatherly influence. The black youth of today need to see that they can aspire to be what they want if they're willing to pay the price, study, and work diligently. They need to be aware of some blacks that defied the odds and became successful in a society that was blantantly racist. There have been some myths that have floated around throughout the history of America that blacks weren't very intelligent or smart. Some people in the past have thought that blacks were inferior intellectually for a number of reasons; one of them being in the genes. However, blacks have proven over the last couple of centuries they can aspire to be anything they desire when they put their mind toward it. One thing that really inspires me about black history is there were blacks during the age of Reconstruction and afterwards that made great achievements when there was blatant racism directed towards blacks. There were no civil rights laws or affirmative actions laws to lend blacks a helping hand which is in contrast to today. In spite of the racial prejudice that persisted against blacks, there were some that defied the odds and achieved great things. Men such as George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Hiram Revels, and others paved the way for future blacks later on in history. They are inspiring because they show what a person can do when they set their mind to it. Blacks owe a debt of gratitude to those kinds of people.
The celebration of black history officially began as Negro History Week in February 1926. Carter G. Woodson, a graduate who received his Ph.D. at Harvard, began the celebration. Blacks in those days were noted by the term "negroes". Back in 1915, Woodson, an alumnus of the University of Chicago, went with some friends from Washington, D.C. to Chicago at a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the emancipation of blacks. There were exhibits that black people brought denoting the achievements many made since slavery ended in 1865. Woodson, along with A.L. Jackson and three others formed the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. Woodson had a desire to bring national attention to the contributions of black people throughout American history. Woodson chose the second week of February to celebrate Negro History Week because it marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator on February 12, and Frederick Douglass, a black abolitionist on February 14. Even though Woodson admired both men, he didn't enjoy the celebrations that were held in their honor because Woodson felt that black history should be about the study of the achievements of the black race as a whole; not just a select few great men.
Negro History Week started out on the second week of February. This was the era of the "New Negro" defined by the black writer Alain Locke as an African American proud of black accomplishments. Woodson was born in West Virginia to former slaves and went to high school when he was nineteen and later went to Harvard and obtained a Ph.D. in 1912. Woodson was disturbed that many history textbooks didn't mention much about the achievements of black people. When blacks were figured into the picture, it was generally in ways that reflected the inferior social position blacks were assigned at that time. He wanted to raise awareness of black achievements throughout American history. In addition to his establishing the Association for the study of Negro Life and History in 1915, he also established the Journal of Negro History as well. Historians Charles H. Wesley, Luther Porter Jackson, Lorenzo J. Greene, and L.H. Reddick were among the first black scholars to publish in this journal. When Negro History Week first started in February 1926, it was celebrated first almost exclusively in black schools and churches. This one week observance introduced black history into school curriculum. It encouraged the publication of work dealing with blacks and stimulated the black press and a few white newspapers to run related stories. In the 1960's, many college campuses starting making Negro History Week a monthlong celebration. In 1976, Negro History Week was changed to Black History Month and it's been officially a monthlong celebration since that time.
Throughout this month, I'll be featuring blogposts of different events in America that have shaped black history. I'll be mentioning about the 50th anniversary of the famous sit-in by a group of black men at Woolworth's. I'll also be featuring blogposts about famous black people that have shaped U.S. history and have achievement many things. I'll also be mentioning about some famous cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which stated that forced segregation in the schools was "inherently unequal." We'll have an enjoyable time learning about the various accomplishments of black people throughout American history. It thrills me to read about blacks that had chosen not to be a slave to victimhood and rise above the odds and make their life count. Black people can aspire to be what they desire if they will study and work diligently.
The celebration of black history officially began as Negro History Week in February 1926. Carter G. Woodson, a graduate who received his Ph.D. at Harvard, began the celebration. Blacks in those days were noted by the term "negroes". Back in 1915, Woodson, an alumnus of the University of Chicago, went with some friends from Washington, D.C. to Chicago at a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the emancipation of blacks. There were exhibits that black people brought denoting the achievements many made since slavery ended in 1865. Woodson, along with A.L. Jackson and three others formed the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. Woodson had a desire to bring national attention to the contributions of black people throughout American history. Woodson chose the second week of February to celebrate Negro History Week because it marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator on February 12, and Frederick Douglass, a black abolitionist on February 14. Even though Woodson admired both men, he didn't enjoy the celebrations that were held in their honor because Woodson felt that black history should be about the study of the achievements of the black race as a whole; not just a select few great men.
Negro History Week started out on the second week of February. This was the era of the "New Negro" defined by the black writer Alain Locke as an African American proud of black accomplishments. Woodson was born in West Virginia to former slaves and went to high school when he was nineteen and later went to Harvard and obtained a Ph.D. in 1912. Woodson was disturbed that many history textbooks didn't mention much about the achievements of black people. When blacks were figured into the picture, it was generally in ways that reflected the inferior social position blacks were assigned at that time. He wanted to raise awareness of black achievements throughout American history. In addition to his establishing the Association for the study of Negro Life and History in 1915, he also established the Journal of Negro History as well. Historians Charles H. Wesley, Luther Porter Jackson, Lorenzo J. Greene, and L.H. Reddick were among the first black scholars to publish in this journal. When Negro History Week first started in February 1926, it was celebrated first almost exclusively in black schools and churches. This one week observance introduced black history into school curriculum. It encouraged the publication of work dealing with blacks and stimulated the black press and a few white newspapers to run related stories. In the 1960's, many college campuses starting making Negro History Week a monthlong celebration. In 1976, Negro History Week was changed to Black History Month and it's been officially a monthlong celebration since that time.
Throughout this month, I'll be featuring blogposts of different events in America that have shaped black history. I'll be mentioning about the 50th anniversary of the famous sit-in by a group of black men at Woolworth's. I'll also be featuring blogposts about famous black people that have shaped U.S. history and have achievement many things. I'll also be mentioning about some famous cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which stated that forced segregation in the schools was "inherently unequal." We'll have an enjoyable time learning about the various accomplishments of black people throughout American history. It thrills me to read about blacks that had chosen not to be a slave to victimhood and rise above the odds and make their life count. Black people can aspire to be what they desire if they will study and work diligently.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Sermon on the Mount (Part 4)
(Matthew 5:43-48) "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." In this generation of Christianity, you don't find many Christian people that know how to truly love their enemies. Christian people seem to have problems with loving their own in the church. Many of the brethren in the church appear to have problems in loving one another. That's strikingly odd but that's the truth. We don't even know what it means to love our enemies today. How can we learn how to love our enemies when we won't love the brethren in the church? Today if a brother stares at us the wrong way or they don't like the same things that we like, we won't have much to do with them. We allow trivial, insignificant things to affect us when it comes to loving the brethren in the church. It's amazing. There are many church members that are at odds with one another in that local assembly. That's why there are so many quarrels and schisms in the body. There's a lack of love among the brethren. Many of us in the church don't understand the need to love one another. When the brethren are in kahootz with one another, it causes division in the body. There's a lack of unity among the brethren in our churches today. It also is a poor testimony before the world. It should be natural for the brethren to love each other. If we in the body of the local assembly can't love each other, there's no way we can love those in the world that despise and hate us.
When we read Jesus' commandment to love our enemies in Matthew 5:44, we need to have a proper perspective what it means to love our enemies. When Jesus says to love our enemies he's not saying that we must be intimate with our enemies. In order for there to be an intimate relationship, there must be common ground among two people. Naturally there's no common ground with your adversary. When understanding what Jesus is referring to, one must understand there's three types of love: Agape, Philial, and Eros. Eros is the type of love which refers to romantic love between a married couple. This type of love is based upon moods and perceptions and it comes and goes. The other type of love which is Philial, stems from the word "Philadelphia" which stands for the city of brotherly love. This type of love is towards friendships we have with other people that we enjoy to be around. The first type of love is Agape which is a Godly type of love. This type of love isn't a slave to circumstances or how one is treated. This type of love seeks the well-being of mankind in general. This is a love that must come from the Lord. It's a love that's not selfish. Agape love is the kind of love that's necessary when Jesus says to love our enemies. This type of love isn't concerned about how we're treated. We love other people regardless. We are constrained by the love of God in our lives and as a result, we love other people, which includes our enemies. These other types of love are dependent upon circumstances. Agape love is unconditional. We must love our enemies unconditionally.
When Jesus says to love our enemies, we should also pray for them. We should pray for those that despitefully use us. We should be concerned for their souls and their eternal destiny. That's a love that no man can generate himself. This shows that we belong to the Lord when we can love and pray for our enemies. There's been classic examples of those that were persecuted for Christ's sake that love their enemies. Jesus was the ultimate example. He was mocked and ridiculed on this earth by the Pharisees and Saducees. He was condemned. He was mocked by Herod. However, he humbly and faithfully was obedient unto death. When he was crucified on the cross, Jesus uttered these words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) Jesus loved the world. He loved those that mocked Him and used Him. Another classic example is Steven who was stoned in Acts. He was accused of blasphemy. In Acts 7:59-60 says, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." Stephen didn't possess animosity toward those that stoned him. Another example is David. Anyone that reads the book of I Samuel knows Saul's jealousy toward David after David slayed Goliath. Saul sought to kill David on a number of occasions. In I Samuel 24:4 you read where David cut off a piece of Saul's skirt. David's heart was smote as a result. David could have used the opportunity to kill Saul. But he didn't. Saul was still the King of Israel and David respected his position. David showed love to Saul despite Saul's jealousy toward David. Saul had no cause to desire to kill David.
One final example I want to mention is the great English Reformer and scholar William Tyndale. He was responsible for translating considerable portions of both the Old and New Testament into the Modern English of that day. He drew directly from both Greek and Hebrew translations. Much of his work eventually was incorporated into the King James 1611 translation of the Bible. He spoke against the politics of that day during the English monarchy. He had to go into hiding and carry on the translation of both the Old and New Testament. In 1535, Tyndale was seized in Antwerp and was betrayed by Henry Phillips and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels. He was tried on heresey charges in 1536 and condemned to death. He was strangled before he died. Tyndale's final words was "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes!" It was amazing. Tyndale didn't saying, "Lord destroyed all those that have persecuted me." No, he asked the Lord to illuminate the King of England's heart and mind and show him the error of his ways. That's Agape love. Agape love is concerned about the welfare of their enemies. Agape love desires for your enemies to be saved and know the truth. Tyndale showed no animosity toward the King of England. His desire was to see the work of God advanced. Praise the Lord for people like William Tyndale!
I'm thankful for all the examples we read in the Bible for those that loved their enemies and prayed for them. I'm thankful for those in church history that were martyred for their faith that had a desire to see their enemies converted. When we pray for and love our enemies, we're manifesting the love of God toward the world. God help us in this generation. We have troubling loving the brethren. Until we learn to love the brethren, there's no way we can love those that persecute and despitefully use us.
When we read Jesus' commandment to love our enemies in Matthew 5:44, we need to have a proper perspective what it means to love our enemies. When Jesus says to love our enemies he's not saying that we must be intimate with our enemies. In order for there to be an intimate relationship, there must be common ground among two people. Naturally there's no common ground with your adversary. When understanding what Jesus is referring to, one must understand there's three types of love: Agape, Philial, and Eros. Eros is the type of love which refers to romantic love between a married couple. This type of love is based upon moods and perceptions and it comes and goes. The other type of love which is Philial, stems from the word "Philadelphia" which stands for the city of brotherly love. This type of love is towards friendships we have with other people that we enjoy to be around. The first type of love is Agape which is a Godly type of love. This type of love isn't a slave to circumstances or how one is treated. This type of love seeks the well-being of mankind in general. This is a love that must come from the Lord. It's a love that's not selfish. Agape love is the kind of love that's necessary when Jesus says to love our enemies. This type of love isn't concerned about how we're treated. We love other people regardless. We are constrained by the love of God in our lives and as a result, we love other people, which includes our enemies. These other types of love are dependent upon circumstances. Agape love is unconditional. We must love our enemies unconditionally.
When Jesus says to love our enemies, we should also pray for them. We should pray for those that despitefully use us. We should be concerned for their souls and their eternal destiny. That's a love that no man can generate himself. This shows that we belong to the Lord when we can love and pray for our enemies. There's been classic examples of those that were persecuted for Christ's sake that love their enemies. Jesus was the ultimate example. He was mocked and ridiculed on this earth by the Pharisees and Saducees. He was condemned. He was mocked by Herod. However, he humbly and faithfully was obedient unto death. When he was crucified on the cross, Jesus uttered these words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) Jesus loved the world. He loved those that mocked Him and used Him. Another classic example is Steven who was stoned in Acts. He was accused of blasphemy. In Acts 7:59-60 says, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." Stephen didn't possess animosity toward those that stoned him. Another example is David. Anyone that reads the book of I Samuel knows Saul's jealousy toward David after David slayed Goliath. Saul sought to kill David on a number of occasions. In I Samuel 24:4 you read where David cut off a piece of Saul's skirt. David's heart was smote as a result. David could have used the opportunity to kill Saul. But he didn't. Saul was still the King of Israel and David respected his position. David showed love to Saul despite Saul's jealousy toward David. Saul had no cause to desire to kill David.
One final example I want to mention is the great English Reformer and scholar William Tyndale. He was responsible for translating considerable portions of both the Old and New Testament into the Modern English of that day. He drew directly from both Greek and Hebrew translations. Much of his work eventually was incorporated into the King James 1611 translation of the Bible. He spoke against the politics of that day during the English monarchy. He had to go into hiding and carry on the translation of both the Old and New Testament. In 1535, Tyndale was seized in Antwerp and was betrayed by Henry Phillips and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels. He was tried on heresey charges in 1536 and condemned to death. He was strangled before he died. Tyndale's final words was "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes!" It was amazing. Tyndale didn't saying, "Lord destroyed all those that have persecuted me." No, he asked the Lord to illuminate the King of England's heart and mind and show him the error of his ways. That's Agape love. Agape love is concerned about the welfare of their enemies. Agape love desires for your enemies to be saved and know the truth. Tyndale showed no animosity toward the King of England. His desire was to see the work of God advanced. Praise the Lord for people like William Tyndale!
I'm thankful for all the examples we read in the Bible for those that loved their enemies and prayed for them. I'm thankful for those in church history that were martyred for their faith that had a desire to see their enemies converted. When we pray for and love our enemies, we're manifesting the love of God toward the world. God help us in this generation. We have troubling loving the brethren. Until we learn to love the brethren, there's no way we can love those that persecute and despitefully use us.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Republican Party Needs to Stand Upon the Principles They Claim to Uphold
According to a Reuter's news report President Obama yesterday met in a face-to-face showdown with the Republican House leaders in Baltimore, Maryland. The event was the annual retreat of Republican members of the House of Representatives. Giving the lower poll numbers in regards to the American publics' view of what kind of job Obama is doing as president as well as the surprise election of Republican State Senator Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts, Obama felt it was necessary to engage in some-sort of "dialogue" with the Republicans to give voters the impression that he understands the "pain" many Americans are feeling. It was a very testy meeting. President Obama criticized Republicans and accused them of trying to block his policies while urging them to "join with me" in creating jobs. The session lasted for 82-minutes; 12 minutes longer than Obama's State of the Union speech on Wednesday. President Obama not only agreed to address his opponents but take their questions live on cable television was a sign he is trying to dig out of his deepest political rut since he became president a year ago. I had the privilege to see part of that session on the Fox News Channel.
President Obama sought to counter his rivals attempt to paint him as a big-spending liberal who only desires to expand the government. He accused the Republicans of portraying his now-stalled healthcare reform effort as a "Bolshevik plot." The truth is that the healthcare bill would raise our taxes around 13% and it would give the government control over one-sixth of our nation's economy. Also, there were many closed-door deals involved in persuading the more moderate Democratic House and senate members to vote for the healthcare bill. President Obama then went on to say that "I am not an ideologue." When one takes a view of the company he keeps as well as the fact he follows after Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it's apparent that he's an idelogue. Take a view of the policies he's tried to promote such as this healthcare bill, cap and trade bill, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would lift the restrictions on homosexuals not being allowed to be open about their sexuality.
Assailing Republicans from trying to obstruct him on everything from economic stimulus to healthcare reform, Obama suggested their motive was to score points with voters during the November Congressional elections. One of the questions that Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling asked was, "Will the new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25% of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President." Obama complained the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign. Georgia Rep. Tom Price charged Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering "no ideas and solutions." Obama exclaimed, "I don't think I said that."
In nine months there will be the November Congressional elections. The Republican Party must outline some type of draft on what principles they uphold as well as what they would attempt to accomplish if they win the November elections. They need to offer a clear vision just as the Republicans under Newt Gingrich in 1994 offered their "Contract With America" before the Congressional elections that fall. The Republicans in Congress today have a much larger problem than the Republicans did in 1994. The Republicans that won power in 1994 didn't have much history for being in charge of Congress for a number of years. The Republicans that won the House in 1994 won it for the first time in 40 years. The Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1986. Therefore, the voters were willing to give them a chance. Unlike the Republicans that captured the House in 1994, most of the Republicans that are in the House and Senate today were in charge for approximately twelve years in both Houses until 2007. (In the U.S. Senate the Republicans were in charge for 10.5 years) Most Americans still remember how pathetic the Republicans were before voting them out. The Republicans that were voted out in 2006 were drunk on power just like the Democrats are today as well as they violated their principles. They ruled the opposite on what they claimed their principles were.
The problem with the Republican party is hypocrisy. They're crooked just like the Democrats are crooked. I was very critical of how the Republicans, including President Bush were running the country given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and a conservative. Even though I'm opposed to the Democratic Party, I can predict how they're going to vote on issues. With the Republicans, you don't know. Many Republicans campaigned as conservatives but wound up going contrary to the principles they claimed they espouse. I believe that's why there was a voter backlash two years ago. This year there could possibly be a voter backlash against the Democrats. However, if the Republicans in both the House and Senate continue the same old policies when they were in charge a few years ago if they're re-elected again, then I predict another huge voter backlash and it probably won't take long. Last year the current Tea Party started holding rallies in Washington, D.C. and different cities across America. Many of them are disgruntled and are very disappointed at the performance of the Republican party when they were in charge for 12 years. The voters wanted some leaders that are genuine patriots that love this counry and will push for "true change" that rebuilds and strengthens America. The Tea Party members along with other Americans desire statesmen that will return this nation back to the roots that our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
The Republicans should stand against the left-wing agenda of President Obama and the socialist Democrats. However, the Republicans need to recall their hypocrisy when they had charge of both Houses of Congress. There needs to be some genuine repentance on the part of Republicans and they need to vow to not allow themselves to be bought off by special interest groups and their party bosses like the Democrats do. They need to make serious attempts to keep their campaign promises once they're elected. It's very serious. The former President Bush and the Republicans in charge for 12 years violated the principles the Republicans stated they believed. They ran up the deficit to unprecedent levels during that time, they voted for a prescription drug coverage in the Medicare bill, they voted for all kinds of wasteful pork barrel spending, they supported CAFTA, which is a trade agreement which will cause numerous manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, and some Republicans along with President Bush supported amnesty for illegal aliens. The distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans has become narrower and narrower. If the Republicans don't take a trip back to memory lane and learn the lessons from where they failed, then they'll repeat the same disaster if they capture the majority in both the House and Senate this November.
President Obama sought to counter his rivals attempt to paint him as a big-spending liberal who only desires to expand the government. He accused the Republicans of portraying his now-stalled healthcare reform effort as a "Bolshevik plot." The truth is that the healthcare bill would raise our taxes around 13% and it would give the government control over one-sixth of our nation's economy. Also, there were many closed-door deals involved in persuading the more moderate Democratic House and senate members to vote for the healthcare bill. President Obama then went on to say that "I am not an ideologue." When one takes a view of the company he keeps as well as the fact he follows after Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it's apparent that he's an idelogue. Take a view of the policies he's tried to promote such as this healthcare bill, cap and trade bill, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would lift the restrictions on homosexuals not being allowed to be open about their sexuality.
Assailing Republicans from trying to obstruct him on everything from economic stimulus to healthcare reform, Obama suggested their motive was to score points with voters during the November Congressional elections. One of the questions that Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling asked was, "Will the new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25% of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President." Obama complained the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign. Georgia Rep. Tom Price charged Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering "no ideas and solutions." Obama exclaimed, "I don't think I said that."
In nine months there will be the November Congressional elections. The Republican Party must outline some type of draft on what principles they uphold as well as what they would attempt to accomplish if they win the November elections. They need to offer a clear vision just as the Republicans under Newt Gingrich in 1994 offered their "Contract With America" before the Congressional elections that fall. The Republicans in Congress today have a much larger problem than the Republicans did in 1994. The Republicans that won power in 1994 didn't have much history for being in charge of Congress for a number of years. The Republicans that won the House in 1994 won it for the first time in 40 years. The Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1986. Therefore, the voters were willing to give them a chance. Unlike the Republicans that captured the House in 1994, most of the Republicans that are in the House and Senate today were in charge for approximately twelve years in both Houses until 2007. (In the U.S. Senate the Republicans were in charge for 10.5 years) Most Americans still remember how pathetic the Republicans were before voting them out. The Republicans that were voted out in 2006 were drunk on power just like the Democrats are today as well as they violated their principles. They ruled the opposite on what they claimed their principles were.
The problem with the Republican party is hypocrisy. They're crooked just like the Democrats are crooked. I was very critical of how the Republicans, including President Bush were running the country given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and a conservative. Even though I'm opposed to the Democratic Party, I can predict how they're going to vote on issues. With the Republicans, you don't know. Many Republicans campaigned as conservatives but wound up going contrary to the principles they claimed they espouse. I believe that's why there was a voter backlash two years ago. This year there could possibly be a voter backlash against the Democrats. However, if the Republicans in both the House and Senate continue the same old policies when they were in charge a few years ago if they're re-elected again, then I predict another huge voter backlash and it probably won't take long. Last year the current Tea Party started holding rallies in Washington, D.C. and different cities across America. Many of them are disgruntled and are very disappointed at the performance of the Republican party when they were in charge for 12 years. The voters wanted some leaders that are genuine patriots that love this counry and will push for "true change" that rebuilds and strengthens America. The Tea Party members along with other Americans desire statesmen that will return this nation back to the roots that our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
The Republicans should stand against the left-wing agenda of President Obama and the socialist Democrats. However, the Republicans need to recall their hypocrisy when they had charge of both Houses of Congress. There needs to be some genuine repentance on the part of Republicans and they need to vow to not allow themselves to be bought off by special interest groups and their party bosses like the Democrats do. They need to make serious attempts to keep their campaign promises once they're elected. It's very serious. The former President Bush and the Republicans in charge for 12 years violated the principles the Republicans stated they believed. They ran up the deficit to unprecedent levels during that time, they voted for a prescription drug coverage in the Medicare bill, they voted for all kinds of wasteful pork barrel spending, they supported CAFTA, which is a trade agreement which will cause numerous manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, and some Republicans along with President Bush supported amnesty for illegal aliens. The distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans has become narrower and narrower. If the Republicans don't take a trip back to memory lane and learn the lessons from where they failed, then they'll repeat the same disaster if they capture the majority in both the House and Senate this November.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Scott Roeder Convicted for the Murder of Dr. George Tiller
On June 7, 2009, I wrote a blogpost about the murder of Dr. George Tiller. I posed the question was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justifiable? The answer to that question is no. I stated just because Dr. Tiller was involved in the murder of untold millions of unborn babies it doesn't give the right for anyone to take the law into their own hands and murder an abortion doctor. That's why we have the authorities. The authorities are the ones that are supposed to handle murder cases. I do recognize our government is corrupt and our laws consequently allow for abortion to be committed. But the average U.S. citizen doesn't have the right to take the law in their own hands. There are a number of methods in which we can handle the abortion situation besides protesting and pressing for the laws to be changed on abortion. I'm for petitioning the government to change the abortion laws, but there's other things we can do as well. The problem we face in America for the most part when it comes to abortion is the age and social status of many of the young women who go to doctors for abortions. Many of the young women that visit these clinics are teenagers and unmarried. Their life is very unstable. They had a relationship with a boyfriend whom they didn't tend to become serious with and on top of that they had no intentions of becoming pregnant. Also, neither the girlfriend nor boyfriend draw any kind of income and it would be difficult for them to provide a stable living for the child that's inside of the mother. Therefore, the young girl feels trapped and she believes the only solution to the problem is to have an abortion. That's not true in all abortion cases but that's true in many of them. That's where the church and right to life organizations can come in. The church and right to life shelters can play a role when it comes to counseling these young women as well as present to them what other options they have besides abortion. Many of these young women who aren't equipped in raising children at their stage of life can opt to give up their child for adoption. There are many childless couples that can't bear children on their own and they would be elated at the opportunity to adopt children. Also, the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be presented to these pregnant women and the Lord could perform a work in their hearts and lives. There's more than one way to settle the abortion issue without having to murder abortion doctors as well as petitioning our legislators to change the laws. What's needed most of all in this country is a strong family unit. We need moms and dads that will live for God and raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Parents need to teach their children sexual purity and to wait until marriage before having children. That would drastically reduce the abortion rate in America. The problem's in the heart as well as the emotional turmoil many young pregnant women face.
I've started this post by digressing why many young women seek abortions, but now I'm going to the heart of the matter. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist who admitted he gunned down Dr. George Tiller, one of America's late-term abortion providers, was convicted of first-degree murder on Friday after he testified he had to stop the doctor from performing more abortions. Roeder, 51, was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault by a Wichita, Kansas jury that deliberated for just over 30 minutes. The case attracted anti-abortion protesters around the nation to support Roeder. Roeder admitted he stalked and shot to death Dr. George Tiller, 67, on May 31, 2009 as Tiller attended church in Wichita, Kansas. Roeder argued in court his actions were necessary to protect unborn babies. "Abortions were being done every day," Roeder testified. "My honest belief was if I didn't do something they would continue to die." Roeder's sentencing was set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston will seek a "hard 50" mandatory life sentence, under which Roeder will have to serve 50 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Dr. Tiller was long a top target of anti-abortion activists and had been shot down and wounded before. Dr. Tiller was one of only a few U.S. physicians willing to perform late-term abortions. There were some anti-abortion activists such as the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, who flocked to Wichita to defend Roeder's actions.
It's a tragedy that some people who claim to be pro-life would defend a U.S. citizen taking the law into their own hands to murder abortion doctors. There's no doubt that what Dr. Tiller did was murder and he will stand before God to answer for the travesties he's committed. However, two wrongs don't make a right. The Lord has established three different spheres of authority in this world. One of them is the home, the other one the church, and the other one the government. It's the responsibility of the judicial system to try those that have committed acts of murder. I know our judicial system is corrupt today, but God doesn't grant us the right to commit murder to wrong other murders. As I've said earlier, there are other methods that can be used in stopping abortion besides murdering abortion doctors.
I've started this post by digressing why many young women seek abortions, but now I'm going to the heart of the matter. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion activist who admitted he gunned down Dr. George Tiller, one of America's late-term abortion providers, was convicted of first-degree murder on Friday after he testified he had to stop the doctor from performing more abortions. Roeder, 51, was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault by a Wichita, Kansas jury that deliberated for just over 30 minutes. The case attracted anti-abortion protesters around the nation to support Roeder. Roeder admitted he stalked and shot to death Dr. George Tiller, 67, on May 31, 2009 as Tiller attended church in Wichita, Kansas. Roeder argued in court his actions were necessary to protect unborn babies. "Abortions were being done every day," Roeder testified. "My honest belief was if I didn't do something they would continue to die." Roeder's sentencing was set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston will seek a "hard 50" mandatory life sentence, under which Roeder will have to serve 50 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Dr. Tiller was long a top target of anti-abortion activists and had been shot down and wounded before. Dr. Tiller was one of only a few U.S. physicians willing to perform late-term abortions. There were some anti-abortion activists such as the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, who flocked to Wichita to defend Roeder's actions.
It's a tragedy that some people who claim to be pro-life would defend a U.S. citizen taking the law into their own hands to murder abortion doctors. There's no doubt that what Dr. Tiller did was murder and he will stand before God to answer for the travesties he's committed. However, two wrongs don't make a right. The Lord has established three different spheres of authority in this world. One of them is the home, the other one the church, and the other one the government. It's the responsibility of the judicial system to try those that have committed acts of murder. I know our judicial system is corrupt today, but God doesn't grant us the right to commit murder to wrong other murders. As I've said earlier, there are other methods that can be used in stopping abortion besides murdering abortion doctors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)