Senator Jay Rockefeller Wants the FCC to Shut Down Fox News

 

(Fox News) One of the signs of a nation that's headed towards fascism is when a government tries to remove the peoples' right to free speech.  When I speak of free speech, I'm not making reference to something that's vulgar or grossly obscene.  I'm speaking of opposing points of view that a dictatorship deems unacceptable in a society.  What is fascism?  The online definition of fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.  Another definition is oppressive, dictatorial control.  That's the direction the United States is going.  There are those in Congress, such as outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed the desire to impose the Fairness Doctrine over the airwaves.  They want the government to control what information is dispensed over the airwaves. 

Senator Jay Rockefeller, a powerful Democratic senator, pointing the finger at cable news for a politically toxic climate in Washington, unleashed a stunning tirade in which he expressed his desire to see the Federal Communications shut down Fox News and MSNBC.  "I'm tired of the right and left," according to Rockefeller Wednesday during a Senate hearing on retransmission consent.  "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, Out. Off. End. Goodbye."  "It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future," said the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Rockefeller failed to recognize that the FCC only regulates broadcast airwaves, not cable.  Rockefeller's office didn't respond to a request for an interview.

I'm a political conservative.  I don't care for news channels such as MSNBC and CNN.  As much as I don't like them, I don't recommend the FCC regulate those news channels.  I believe in the freedom of speech.  Allow the viewers to make that decision through their viewership.  If the public doesn't like some of these cable channels, then those media outlets will crumble.  I don't want a Hugo Chavez style news media.  According to my point of view, I believe Rockefeller wants a Chavez-controlled media. He doesn't want any accountability imposed upon them.  Chavez controls the media in Venezuela.  It's very scary to hear a Senator make such a statement.  Consider the name "Rockefeller."  The Rockefellers are a notorious family in U.S. History.  They want to control all facets of America society such as the media, education, the oil industry, and the list continues.  They do exert control over some of America's institutions.  The media whether it's broadcast airwaves or cable channels, aren't to be controlled by the government.  They're to be honest watchdogs of government; not lapdogs.  We are in a dangerous position where there are political figures that desire to control the dissemination of information such as Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Czar.  If we allow the government to control the media, then we'll become a fascist state.

GOP's Proposal to Defund NPR is Thwarted by House Democrats

House Minority Leader John Boehner speaks as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Rep. Mike Pence listen on Capitol Hill

(Fox News) House Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP proposal to cut federal funding to National Public Radio (NPR), which has been under fire since firing Juan Williams in October.  The proposal, which was the winning entry this week in YouCut--an anti-government spending program started by House Republicans earlier this year--failed by a vote of 239-171.  NPR praised the outcome saying, "good judgment prevailed as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of news."  "The proposal to prohibit public radio stations from using CPB grants to purchase NPR programming is an unwarranted attempt to interject federal authority into local station program decision-making," NPR said, referring to its parent organization, Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

"In an increasingly fractious media environment, public radio's value in fostering an informed society has never been more critical.  Our growing audience shows that we are meeting that need," NPR said.  "It is imperative for federal funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy remains available to all Americans and thrives well into the future."  YouCut is an online contest that allows Americans to vote for the items they want slashed from the federal budget.  The NPR proposal received 63 percent of the vote, the highest percentage for a proposal since the program begain in May.  "When NPR executives made the decision to unfairly terminate Juan Williams and to then disparage him afterward, the bias of their organization was exposed," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Doug Lamborn, who authored a bill this year to defund NPR's parent company, said in a joint statement Wednesday.  "Make no mistake, it's not the role of government to tell news organizations how to operate.  What is avoidable, however, is providing taxpayer funds to news organizations that promote a partisan point of view," they said.  "Eliminating taxpayer funding for NPR is precisely the kind of common sense cut that we have to begin making if we want to fundamentally alter the way business is conducted in Washington," they said. 

With Democrats still in charge of the House until the end of the year, the proposal was doomed to fail.  Lamborn's legislation to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), introduced in June, hasn't made it out of the committee.  Fox News says that when Republicans assume control of the House in January, they are expected to go after NPR's federal funding with a vengeance.  NPR claims that 1 to 3 percent of its $166 million budget is funded by taxpayer dollars.  However, a new report by the Congressional Research Service found that taxpayers fund at least 4% of NPR's budget, while an analyst at the conservative American Thinker estimated it was closer to 25%. 

NPR triggered a firestorm last month when it fired analyst Juan Williams over comments he made on the O'Reilly Factor when he claimed that he becomes nervous when he sees individuals dressed in Muslim garb on airplanes.  He pointed out he wasn't in support of bigotry against Muslims.  Williams commented his nervousness over individuals in Muslim garb was the result of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Naturally there wasn't much of a chance that House Democrats would support the Republican proposal of NPR during the Democrats' lame-duck session in Congress.  However, there's a great case to be made with the firing of Juan Williams.  Williams' political viewpoints are liberal.  He's no conservative.  Williams wasn't condemning Muslims in his comment he made last month.  He was just expressing anxiety.  In the midst of that NPR had the audacity to fire Williams.  That shows how left-leaning NPR is.  Congress has no business funding any type of media outlet.  The media shouldn't be a branch of the government regardless whether it's the left or right.  The media is to be independent of the government.  The media is to be a watchdog of the government--not a lapdog.  But we see networks such as MSNBC who are nothing more than lapdogs with the present administration.  If the government is going to fund a left-leaning media organization such as NPR, then they should do likewise with a conservative organization.  The Democrats claim they believe in being fair and balanced.  NPR just presents one side.  They need to fund a media outlet who presents the other side--if we're going to follow that type of logic.

NPR should be defunded.  I know Republicans such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina who are calling for the defunding of NPR.  Is DeMint willing to back that up when Republicans assume control of the House in January?  Will he fight for the bill and not just give lip service to it?  Only time will reveal.  I don't have much enthusiasm over the Republicans.  I don't believe the Republicans will be willing to stand up to fight for a bill to defund NPR.

House Ethics Panel Votes to Censure Charles Rangel

(USA Today) The House Ethics committee voted overwhelmingly Thursday to censure New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel, who represents the 15th Congressional district in New York, which covers Harlem.  He was convicted for abusing his office and engaging in financial misconduct.  The censure is the most serious punishment, outside of expulsion, that the House can impose.  The Committee approved the censure, 9-1 behind closed doors and also required Rangel to pay back taxes.  The case now moves to the full House, which would have to approve formal censure.  A vote is not likely to be expected until lawmakers return after the Thanksgiving holiday.  Censured lawmakers are required to stand on the House floor as the resolution condemning their actions is read aloud.  A total of 22 members have been censured in House history, including then-Massachusetts congressman Gerry Studds, who was found guilty of sexual misconduct, with a House page in 1983. 

Rangel, 80, appeared before the committee Thursday after walking out of a public trial earlier this week.  He said he had been "overzealous" in his effort to raise money for a non-profit college center to be named in his honor but declared that he was not "corrupt."  He's fooled himself!  "I have dedicated my life to this Congress, and my country and my community," Rangel told the 10-member ethics panel.  His voice cracking, Rangel implored the committee to make clear in its report to the House that "Charles Rangel never sought any personal gain."  Rep. Jo Bonner, the committee's top Republican, said": "Mr. Rangel should look into the mirror when he wants to know who to blame."  Some Democrats questioned whether Rangel's actions merited punishment more serious than a reprimand, the most modest sanction the House could impose.  "Censure is extreme," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC).  "It should be reserved for intentional conduct." 

Rangel, who once wielded enormous power as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was convicted Tuesday of 11 counts of breaking House rules by using his office to solicit millions of dollars in donations for the center from companies with business before his committee and housing a campaign office in a rent-stabilized New York apartment that had been set aside for residential use.  They also found that he failed to disclose assets and income in reports to Congress and failed to report and pay taxes to the IRS on rental income from his Caribbean vacation villa for 17 years.  "Public office is a public trust," said Blake Chisam, the House ethics panel's prosecutor.  Rangel "has violated that trust." 

Several Democrats hailed his storied career--from a high school dropout who was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for valor in the Korean War to one of New York's most powerful politicians.  He has served for 40 years in Congress and easily won re-election to a 21st term.  Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) , a towering civil rights figure, called Rangel "a good and decent man" who joined the 1965 voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.  No other House lawmaker has been found guilty of as many counts of rule-breaking by an ethics panel, according to Chism.

In one of the previous posts entitled, "We Get the Government We Deserve", I was mentioning one of the reasons for that is because we keep on re-electing the same old incumbents over and over.  If the citizens of Harlem had enough sense to vote Rangel out concerning all the ethics violations that he used his office for, the House wouldn't have to be voting on censure for Rangel because he would be gone by January.  We wonder why the corruption level is as high as it is in Washington, D.C.  We keep on voting for the same-old corrupt incumbents.  How can we expect there to be reform in Washington when the same old incumbents who are guilty of using their office to benefit themselves?  It's outrageous!  Congressman Barney Frank in Massachusetts just won re-election this year in the midst of the mortgage meltdown from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.  Barney is on the House Banking Committe who oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  I don't dislike Rangel.  However, he's been in office for way too long.  It's not just Democrats, but it's Republicans as well such as Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.  Rangel did serve honorably in the Korean War.  But that doesn't mean he should be re-elected especially when you read of him abusing his office and engaging in financial misconduct.  When are we ever going to learn to vote out career politicians?  When it's too late and America is no longer a sovereign country?  That's where our country is headed.

Sarah Palin Mulling a Presidential Run

(USA Today) Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin stated in an interview with Barbara Walters that she believes she could defeat President Barack Obama if she decides to run for president in 2012.  Fox News said that she was considering a run this past Wednesday.  "I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing," in an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters scheduled to air on television December 9.  "If you ran for president, could you defeat Barack Obama?"  asked Walters.  "I believe so," Palin said. 

In a magazine profile published earlier Wednesday, the former 2008 vice-presidential nominee was asked if she's considering a run for the White House in 2012.  "I am," she said.  "I'm engaged in the internal deliberations candidly, and having that discussion with my family, because my family is the most important consideration here," according to Palin in a "New York Times" magazine.  Palin also told the Times that their unfair treatment of her makes her "fear for our democracy."  If she decides to run, she'll face the challenge of convincing the public and her own party that she's qualified for the job.  Palin's unfavorable rating hit a new high last week according to a Gallup Poll survey.  Palin's longtime political rival in Alaska stated that Palin lacked the "leadership qualities" and "intellectual curiousity" to be president.  In an interview late October with the (London) Daily Telegraph, Bush senior adviser Karl Rover said that Palin lacked the "gravitas" to be president. 

I was listen to Bill O'Reilly on his "talking points" memo on radio earlier this weekend and he was giving reasons why he didn't think it was a good idea for Palin to run for president.  One of the reasons given was her lack of experience.  Most of her political experience is centered in the state of Alaska as mayor of Wassilla and governor of Alaska.  Also, he mentioned her two children, Bristol and Willow.  Both of them have problems of their own.  O'Reilly felt that Bristol was in the limelight too much and as an unwed mother, she should concentrate on her son.  Willow was involved in some type of internet controversy.  Those things don't bode well for a Palin presidency.  I happen to agree with that.  In a Fox News poll, Palin is behind Mitt Romney in being one of the top presidential contenders on the Republican side.  However, an AP poll earlier this month found Palin the most polarizing of the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.  The poll says 46% of Americans view her favorably, 49% view her unfavorably, and 5% don't know enough about her to form an opinion.  Among adults who identify themselves as Republicans or GOP-leaning Independents, 79% view her favorably. 

I don't believe Palin should run for president in 2012.  One reason for that is because she has young children.  She has a Down's Syndrome son named Track who is over 2 years old.  He needs his mother's attention more than she needs to run for president.  She also has teenage children as well that she needs to tend to.  She's already had issues with Bristol having a relationship with Levi Johnson and becoming pregnant and unmarried.  She has enough to contend with trying to take care of her family.  Another problem is I believe she could be compromised to fit the Republican establishment; which is something we don't need.  I don't think she has the wherewithal to withstand those that desire to take this country in a direction it doesn't need to go.  I believe she's a nice person and means well.  But being president of the United States is a very tall job.  Today's presidents are nothing more than puppets for the internationalists.  I don't believe she could be the agent of change as she often likes to talk about.  She was on the presidential ticket with John McCain in 2008, who was a supporter of amnesty for illegals.  I don't see her standing up to the globalist-minded party leaders in the GOP. 

I've said this before and I'll repeat this again: a lightweight Republican isn't going to defeat Obama in 2012.  Despite what Rush Limbaugh and others say about Obama, Obama could be a two-term president.  Unless states demand that he show proof of whether he's a natural-born citizen for 2012, then there's a great possibility he'll be re-elected in 2012.  I don't see any Republican candidates on the horizon that could be a challenge to Obama in '12.  Mitt Romney, the top Republican contender according to a number of polls, has flip-flopped on abortion twice, along with passing state healthcare which has proven to be more expensive as the years go by.  More Massachusetts' citizens are dissatisfied with the healthcare bill.  Those could prove to be huge odds for Romney.  The American people aren't going to vote out Obama because of his lower poll numbers prior to the midterm election nearly three weeks ago.  Sarah Palin has been an asset in this year's midterm election by campaigning for several Tea Party candidates.  The results were mixed.  Some of them won, some didn't.  Palin has a gift in campaigning for certain candidates for office.  She would be far more effective in working at a grassroots effort in helping elect candidates than running for president.  I believe the presidency would be too much of a challenge for her.

John Pistole, the TSA Chief, Defends New Patdown Procedure

(ABC News) Earlier this month in light of the mail bomb incident, I made the statement that I believe that airport security needs to be tightened.  However, I'm not supportive of the tactics that the TSA chief supports in screening passengers that board airplanes.  John Pistole, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, yesterday defended his agency's new controversial patdown procedure, one that has been described by some critics as sexual assault.  The new procedure involves screeners running their hands up the inside of passengers' thighs and touching around women's breasts.  "There is an ever-evolving nature of the terrorist threat," Pistole told a Senate committee holding a hearing on the safety of cargo.  Pistole said the government is not always ahead of the terrorists and that his agency seeks "the proper mix" between passengers' rights and protecting airplanes.  "We want to be sensitive to people's sensitivity to privacy and their being while ensuring that everybody is secure on every flight," he said.

The only people who undergo the more-intense patdowns are those who refuse to go through full-body scanners or those who somehow trip other detectors.  According to Pistole, it's only a very small percentage of all passengers.  He says the U.S.'s patdown procedure is similar to what's being used in Europe.  The testimony comes during a hectic week for the TSA, with critics ripping apart not just the patdown process but also the full-body scanners.  The government has reassured the flying public time and time again that any naked images of them at airport checkpoints would be destroyed immediately.  Now there's new attention being focused on another agency of the federal government--the U.S. Marshals Service--that in at least one case has been keeping thousands of similar naked images recorded by its body scanners. 

U.S. Marshals Save Images from Body Scanners

John DiScala, a blogger known as JohnnyJet, said the TSA should take note of this release and be careful.  (Here's what he had to say.)

"They need to realize if this was them, heads would roll.  They need to do everything in their power--and I mean everything--to prevent this from happening."  DiScala said.  "There's already a grassroots effort to ban these machines when just a year ago almost everybody wanted them.  It just shows how many people are comfortable with their bodies or being touched.  It's a real fine line and they've only got one shot at this." 

The full body scanners, formally known as Advanced Imaging Technology, provide security screeners with what are essentially nude images of travelers.  To ensure privacy, the TSA says, faces are blurred and the images are deleted once the TSA officer determines that the passenger is not a threat.  The person viewing the images is in a remote location and communicates with the on-site officer via radio.  Passengers worried that their nude photos may end up on the internet (or concerned about the radiation from the scanners) can opt to bypass the machines.  But those travelers then must undergo a more-intrusive search, including the new patdown procedure in which a same-gender TSA agent touches the inside of passengers' inner-thights and women's breasts.

The new patdown alone has generated controversy as passengers, and even some pilots, have equated it with sexual assault. Pilot unions started to advise their members to have the patdown done in private.  Then, over the weekend, a 31-year old software programmer was thrown out of San Diego International Airport after he got into an argument with a TSA screener about the new, more aggressive patdown.  "If you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested," John Tyner told the male screener.  Tyner recorded audio of the whole 30-minute incident with the TSA on his cell phone's video camera, a video that has now had hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube and been replayed on major television stations.  "The patdown is unavoidably intrusive, embarrassing, uncomfortable, but it's an unfortunate price of security these days to keep the components of bombs off planes," Flynn said.  "It's a dangerous world, and the probability of an attack on flights on any given day are extremely low, but the results of one such attack by the terrorists can be of course catastrophic." 

The Solution is Racial Profiling of Terrorists

This patdown procedure taking place in airports is in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.  There's no excuse for these type of procedures.  It's absolutely outrageous.  I know the ACLU and many civil rights groups would call me racist, but racial profiling of terrorists is the answer when it comes to airport security.  It's foolish to be profiling people that aren't likely terrorists such as a 90-year old white woman, for example.  Political correctness is killing us.  I am not advocating the abuse of racial profiling.  I believe racial profiling should be used for a purpose.  I covered that issue in a previous post in August 2009.  When it comes to making our airplanes safe, we need to profile Arab people from the Middle East.  The terrorists that hijacked the jetliners on 9/11 were Arab Muslims.  Most of the terrorism that takes place around the world are from Arab Muslims.  No, all Muslims aren't terrorists.  But the terrorists that attacked us were Arab Muslims.  Therefore we should be profiling men of Arab descent. 

We have the most incompetent, politcally correct administration I've ever seen.  When I say incompetent, actually, I believe they're incompetent purposely.  All these foolish screening procedures at airports is the government's way to become more intrusive in the lives of the American people.  They're targeting the wrong people.  The government is targeting people who pose no terrorist threat.  They don't want to be accused of "racial insensitivity."  Israel has tight airport security.  They even suggested that we (the U.S.) use profiling when screening passengers.  That's how Israel screens their passengers.  It's not that difficult, but we must lay aside all this politically correct jargon.  Janet Napolitano and John Pistole can defend this patdown procedure from dawn to dusk, but until they do the things that need to be done such as closing our borders except at checkpoints, building a border fence, and racial profiling of airline passengers, then they're wasting their time talking about keeping our airplanes safe. 

Former President George W. Bush's Interviews with Sean Hannity and Matt Lauer on His New Book "Decision Points"

Sean Hannity's Special Edition interviewing George W. Bush







George W. Bush's interview With Matt Lauer on Dateline NBC










Last week, former President George W. Bush was interviewed by several different personalities on television and radio.  Bush was out promoting his new book, "Decision Points", which was released on November 9, 2010.  He made several national television appearances and even a national tour.  He was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Great Van Susteran, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Lauer, to name a few.  In this particular book, Bush describes the critical decisions that "shaped his presidency" such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, Hurricane Katrina, the troop surge in Iraq, and the decision to support bailout of the mortgage industry following the collapse of the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers, to name a few.

I'm not going to spend the time assessing Bush's latest book but I do want to say there were a few good things that took place in the Bush administration such as the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the appointment of the U.S. Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and Bush's support of the bill banning partial-birth abortion.  Even though I had many disagreements with Bush, I will give him credit where credit is due.  Those were the areas in which I give former President Bush credit in the positive.  However, many of Bush's policies were terrible for the country.  I felt some of his policies laid the groundwork for the presidency of Barack Obama.  Bush waged two wars but didn't finish them before his presidency ended.  Bush never did anything to close the borders except at certain checkpoints.  He should've done so considering what took place on 9/11.  Bush also signed into law the Patriot Act which could set up a dictatorship if the wrong person assumes the office of president.  Bush was also a fiscal socialist when he bailed out the mortgage industry following the revelation of the collapse of the mortgage industry due to risky loans that were made to homeowners who didn't possess the ability to pay for their homes.  It amazes me how Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh think Bush was so great a president when his policies weren't constitutional in many areas. 

I know many conservative voters are very upset over President Obama and the direction he's taking this country.  Voters need to understand that President Obama is just as much of a puppet as George W. Bush was.  They're both controlled by the "puppetmasters" whomever those people may be.  I believe President Obama is socialist-minded but I don't believe for a second he dreamed up the agenda that's taking place in America.  President Obama is just playing his role like the previous president was playing his role.  I do believe former President George W. Bush probably will go down as one of the worst presidents in our nation's history.  Many of his policies helped place America in the condition she's in today.

Yes! I Can!

(Philippians 4:13) "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."  Two years ago when President Barack Obama was campaigning on the theme of "hope and change" he would utter a cliche which said "Yes we can." According to his mentality, that was his way of hoodwinking the American people and instead he was in actuality saying, "Yes, we can and will transform America into a socialist nation." That's Obama's idea of "Yes, we can". Last Friday on the Glenn Beck program on Fox News he stated that he was adopting a new slogan which says, "Yes, I can!" I thought that would be a very fitting title to the post with this passage of scripture in the book of Philippians. 

One of the most popular quotes is Philippians 4:13. Christians quote this quite often. Some people have magnets with that scripture on their refrigerator. It's very easy to quote that scripture. Believing that scripture is a different story. I remember an evangelist by the name of Dr. Stinnett Ballew who preached a message seven years ago entitled, "It's Beyond Me." That's a very true statement. That's why Philippians 4:13 states I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. There are things that we can do in the spiritual realm only because of Christ. There are some things that's impossible in the natural realm, but it can be accomplished in the spiritual realm.  For example, God has given us the privilege of prayer.  We can petition our requests to God.  We can pray for somebody that's on the verge of dying.  Through the power of prayer, we can prayer for the individual that's lying on their deathbed and if it's God's will for them to be healed, He will raise that person from their deathbed.  We read much in the Bible about the power of prayer.  That's true.  However, our prayers our only as powerful as the prayers that God hears and answers.  If we're praying in the Spirit (I'm not speaking about praying in tongues), then there's power in prayer.  It's imperative that when we're praying, we're in tune with God.  Anytime we're praying and God's on the other end, then great things can happen.  Just recently there was a young woman in our church who has lupus.  She's been in the hospital since August.  Back in September, the doctors gave her very little chance of survival.  However, due to the merging of the prayers of the church and God's will, she's been steadily improving in the last couple of months.  She still has a long way to go to physical recovery, but the Lord performed a great miracle in our midst.  To God be the glory!  God answers prayer!  Through the prayer of God's people, God can do great things.

In order to make that scripture a reality in our own personal lives we must "let go and let God."  We must be obedient to God's will.  We must follow His commandments.  I need to clarify that Philippians 4:13 doesn't apply to foolish stunts.  You must use some sense.  For example, don't defy gravity and attempt to jump out the window and think you can fly in the air like Superman.  If you try that trick, you'll fall to the ground and break every bone in your body.  God's not going to allow us to defy the forces of gravity to perform a foolish stunt.  God's not making reference to being able to perform foolish stunts through Christ's strength.  God wants to show the world His glory.  He'll show the world His Glory through us as we follow Him.  He desires for us to be a willing vessel.  Psalms 37:4 says that we are to delight ourselves in the Lord and he will give us the desires of our heart.  If we delight ourselves in the Lord, then our own personal will be change.  Our will is going to mirror God's will.  Our desires will be His desires.  There are some pastors who desire for the church to go in a certain direction concerning God's will for the church.  There are many pastors that try to steer their congregation in a certain direction, but they have church members that won't yield themselves to follow the pastor's direction, and as a result, they won't fulfill Philippians 4:13 as a congregation.  We can quote that scripture from dawn to dusk, but if we aren't willing to yield ourselves unto obedience to God, then that scripture won't be proven to the world.  If we're not willing to submit our will to the Lord, then quoting that scripture will be meaningless.  It's through our obedience to His word will be able to do all things through Christ.  Our will and our way has to be submitted unto the Lord.  If a congregation will submit their will and ways unto the Lord, then the pastor won't have a difficult time leading God's flock.  The problem is there are too many church members that aren't willing to allow Philippians 4:13 to become a reality in their life.  We won't submit ourselves to God and we won't trust God.  We must submit to God and have faith in the Lord in order to be able to do all things in Christ which strengtheneth me.

The Bible is replete with examples of those that trusted God and as a result, they were able to do great things through Christ that would be considered humanly impossible.  In Genesis 21:2-3, you read about the birth of Isaac.  Isaac was the promise that God gave to Abraham.  God told Abraham and his wife Sarah in a few chapters back that they would begat a son.  They didn't believe it because of their age.  However, God's no respector of age.  God eventually made good on his promise and Isaac was born.  In Joshua 6:3-5, the Lord gave instructions for the children of Israel to march around Jericho and blow their trumpets.  God was going to perform a miracle and allow the walls to tumble down.  God's instructions to the children of Israel didn't appear to make sense naturally speaking.  How is marching around Jericho and blowing the trumpets going to cause the walls to tumble down?  God's ways are higher than man's.  The Israelites obeyed God and in verse 20 the walls came tumbling.  They played a part in that happening due to their obedience to God's instruction.  Another example was the prophet Elijah in I Kings 17 when he went to the widow of Zarephath.  There was a famine in that land.  He came over and told the widow to use the cruise of oil and the meal to make him a cake.  The widow did as instructed in verses 10-16.  The cruise wasted not and there was plenty remaining until it rained.  God rewarded her obedience.  She proved she could do all things through Christ.  She was going to make what was left for her and her son and then they were going to die.  However, God had other plans.  God worked through her when she followed the instructions of the prophet Elijah. 

There might be some areas in your life you're having trouble in trusting God with.  You may be having an issue with finances or are trying to make a decision about some direction in your life.  You may be praying about doing something that's virtually impossible in the flesh.  You may be struggling with trusting God in a particular area.  God may desire to perform great things in your midst.  In order for that to take place, you must trust Him.  You must submit to the Lord and trust Him.  Until we're willing to do those two things Philippians 4:13 won't become a reality in our lives.  We must present ourselves as a willing vessel in order for us to do all things through Christ. Instead of the attitude, "No, I can't", let's exchange "Yes, I can" in place of it.  Any person that's saved has the ability to do all things through Christ.  Christ is the one that enables us.  It's not through our own flesh, but through Christ.  Matthew 11:28-30 says to come unto him all that labour and are heavy laden and He will give us rest.  We must come to that point in our life is we're going to trust that we can do all things through Christ.  We must lay our burdens and all our cares at his feet.  If we will do that it will make a difference how much lighter our burden is.  It will enable us to trust Christ and allow Him to do what he desires in and through us.  What a blessing it is to grasp that truth!  We can do all things through Christ if we will just allow him to have His way in our hearts and lives. 

The 100th Anniversary of Southern Gospel Music

Southern gospel music, as a distinct genre, was established around 1910 when the first professional quartet was formed to sell songbooks for the James D. Vaughan Music Publishing Company.  Just recently the National Quartet Convention in Louisville, KY commemorated the 100th anniversary of southern gospel music by featuring old quartets to sing at the event.  In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of southern gospel music, I'm going to post some clips of various gospel greats over the last several decades.  I hope you enjoy them.  

Dottie Rambo "He Ain't Never Done Me Nothing But Good"  (This song came from her 1968 album "It's the Soul of Me."  She performed this album at RCA Studios in Nashville, Tennessee.  She used an all-black choir to record this album.  Dottie was a very talented songwriter.  She not only wrote and recorded traditional gospel music, but she also wrote and recorded black gospel as this song is.  She wrote another famous black gospel entitled, "I Go to the Rock")



Dottie Rambo "Don't Take My Cross Away"



Dottie Rambo "Behold the Lamb"  (Dottie Rambo confessed that prior to this particular setting she had never sung this song before.  Even though she wrote this song, she only harmonized this song.  This was her first time to sing this song.  When she sung with the Singing Rambos, Reba, her daughter sang the verses to this song.  Dottie does a great job singing this song for the first time.)



Dottie Rambo "I Just Came to Talk With You Lord"



Dottie Rambo and Jesse Dixon "I've Never Been This Homesick Before"



The Singing Rambos "Tears Will Never Stain the Streets of That City"



The Singing Rambos "I Call Him Lord"



The Singing Ramobs "Remind Me, Dear Lord"




Ben Speer "Beautiful Star of Bethlehem"



Speer Family "After While"



Dad Speer "Never Grow Old"



Vestel Goodman "These are They"



The Happy Goodmans (featuring Rusty Goodman) "The Lighthouse"



The Cathedrals "I'll Have a New Life"



The Cathedrals "Somebody Touched Me"



The Cathedrals "Sinner Saved by Grace"



The Cathedrals "Jesus Have Mercy on Me"



The Cathedrals "Plan of Salvation"



Dallas Holm "Rise Again"



The Cathedrals "Blood Washed Band"



The Inspirations "The Unseen Hand"



The Happy Goodmans "Living by Faith"



Howard and Vestel Goodman "When They Ring the Bells of Heaven"



The Sego Brothers and Naomi "Palms of Victory"

How are We Americans Utilizing the Freedom We've Been Given?

(Galatians 5:13) "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."  On Friday, November 12, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted a special show about veterans commemorating Veteran's Day the day before on November 11.  He had a group of military cadets from the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Beck was discussing the meaning of "Thanksgiving."  Thanksgiving, separated into two words  are "thanks" and "giving".  He also mentioned about the sacrifices of the veterans over the 234 year course of American history.  Beck was asking some of the cadets what their motivation was for joining the military.  Some of them had family members who served in the military.  It was very refreshing to see some of the members who had a willingness to join the military and sacrifice for our nation's freedoms.

Most of us today don't recognize how blessed we are in America.  Our freedoms are blood-bought and God-given.  It took the blood of soldiers on the battlefields to secure our freedoms in America.  We fail to recognize the sacrifice that was involved to purchase our freedom.  There's also a cost to maintain our freedom.  Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay to maintain our freedoms.  Freedom isn't cheap.  It's costly.  Somebody had to pay for it.  I was mentioning earlier about Beck pointing out that "Thanksgiving" is divided into two words.  How thankful are we in America today?  If we're very thankful, it will be reflected in our giving.  Of course, giving comes in many forms.  It comes in the form of time, our treasure, our talents, our sacrifice, etc.  One of the problems that's evident amongst many Americans, including many who claim to be Christians is a lack of thankfulness.  It's evident in our attitudes and selfishness.  We live in a generation who complains more and whines more probably than any generation that's existed in America.  Why?  Those in the age range of the Baby Boomers all the way down to the present generation have been given much in life.  People in my generations knows what it's like to be prosperous.  From a material standpoint, the younger generations knows more about prosperity than their older counterparts.  The World War II generation grew up during the Great Depression.  They didn't grow up with the conveniences and gadgets we possess today.  That generation had chores assigned to them when they lived at home.  They didn't have the luxury to enjoy the things the younger generation enjoys today.  It was due to the sacrifices of the Word War II generation from the battlefields of Europe and Japan to the technological boom that America has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity.  Many people in the younger generations didn't grow up having to sacrifice like the World War II generation had to.  Some of that generation remembers when they didn't have indoor plumbing, for example.  Some had to walk to school. 

We're a spoiled generation.  I've heard the saying that prosperity ruins people.  That's sadly true.  The reason is because we don't know how to appreciate things like we should when we weren't given the responsibility to work for the things we have.  That's why our attitude about life in general is so immature.  The younger generation didn't have to grow up sacrificing.  We've been given much.  We take things for granted.  However, as a result of all the blessings bestowed upon us, we not only have much to be thankful for, much is required of us.  Luke 12:48 says, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."  Those who have been given much; much is expected from them. 

This leads to the question in this particular blogpost title?  How are we as Americans utilizing the freedom we've been given?  What are we doing as Americans?  Galatians 5:13 says we aren't to use liberty as an occasion to the flesh, but by love we are to serve one another.  We're to use freedom to honor and serve God.  We're to use freedom for constructive causes.  God's blessed us abundantly.  We're such a spoiled and lazy generation.  We've been blessed far more than what we've contributed with our time, our talents, our treasure, and our service.  We have much to give.  We owe much.  There's not a generation in America that's been blessed in the manner like we have.  We have more material goods than we know what to do with.  There are Christians in impoverished nations such as Haiti and certain parts of Africa that possess more joy than those that claim to be Christians in America.  I will point out that materialism doesn't bring joy and happiness.  I would never try to insinuate that materialism brings happiness.  However, it's a shame we can possess so much and yet be so unthankful.  All the possessions we have reminds me of a God that's mindful of us and loves us.  And yet we aren't thankful. 

What do I mean what I say "thankful".  Our mentality of showing thanks is saying "thank you".  That's just the tip of the iceberg.  Thankfulness goes far beyond thanking someone for what we've been given.  A person with a truly thankful spirit will take good care of what they've been given.  They will not take for granted with what they've been entrusted with.  In today's society, we're given so many trinkets and gadgets and within a few days we've abused or misplaced what we've been given.  It shows our lack of thankfulness.  It shows we take much for granted.  We're a blessed nation.  We have a resposibility to give back to our nation.  We're to give our time, treasure, talents, and our service to our country, to name a few.  It's important how we utilize the freedom we've been entrusted with.  Our freedom was purchased with a huge price.

Within a couple of weeks, it will be Thanksgiving once again.  Between now and Thanksgiving Day I'll be featuring blogposts about the meaning of Thanksgiving.  We need to remember our nation's early heritage.  I'll be featuring a blogpost about the first Thanksgiving in 1620.  Stay tuned for these upcoming posts.

Trade Goals are Stymied at G-20 Summit in Seoul

(USA Today) Currencies, cars, and cows all blocked U.S. administration goals in bilateral meetings ahead of the Group of 20 summit of the world's top economies that kicked off Thursday night in the South Korean capital.  President Obama and Chinese leader Hu Jintao spent most of their 80-minute huddle discussing the often contentious issue of the Chinese yuan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.  But no breakthrough emerged on faster appreciation of a currency Washington says is deliberately undervalued to aid Chinese exporters.  Despite extensive, last-minute negotiations, Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung Bak announced that a long-awaited free-trade agreement still needs work.  The sticking points: greater market access for U.S. automobile and beef exports to Korea, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said.

According to Fox News, the group of 20 meeting of leading rich and developing nations ended Friday in South Korea with no solutions to longstanding tensions over trade and currency.  The U.S. couldn't persuade other countries to pressure China to stop manipulating its currency or limit their own trade surpluses and deficits.  The U.S. was charged with doing some currency manipulation of its own by pumping $600 billion into its economy.  Eswar Prasad, Professor of trade policy at Cornell University, said trade disputes could intensify.  He worries that there may be more "open conflicts on currency matters."  He's in essence implying that more explicit forms of protectionism could set back this "global recovery".  It was considered a diplomatic setback for the United States.  Last week the Federal Reserve stated that it would pump $600 billion to jolt the U.S. economy back to life.  The Fed says it plans to buy treasury bonds to lower long-term interest rates, spur economic growth, and create jobs.  Consequently, the Fed's intent to monetize the debt could hike inflation and in doing so could wipe out our economy.  However foreigners saw a more sinister intent: to flood world markets with dollars, driving down the value of the U.S. currency and giving U.S. exporters a price edge. 

One of the things that was evident during this G-20 summit in Seoul is that the world leaders such as Germany, China, Japan, to name a few, view America as devoid of leadership.  They don't have confidence in America's economic policies.  America is buried in debt over $13 trillion and ever growing.  There are no real signs that our political leaders are serious about reducing unnecessary spending.  We have the man-child of the universe who appears to be clueless when it comes to economic issues.  President Obama has never owned a business nor met payroll.  He's worked in the government all his life whether it be community organizer, state legislator, U.S. Senator, or president.  The United States isn't in control of its economic destiny.  The Federal Reserve controls the United States' economic destiny.  The Fed is the one responsible for pumping $600 billion into our economy.  The Fed is the one who's responsible for trying to monetize our debt.  The Fed is unconstitutional.  Nothing was solved in regards to the United States' trade deficits.  Unless we renegotiate some of our trade agreements, then the manufacturing base in the United States isn't going to recover.  If we have any hopes of reigning in spending and reducing the debt, then America needs to regain its manufacturing base.  It will be the jobs that are created through the private sector which will enable new revenue to be collected from the government.