Saturday, June 30, 2007

this is why people don't like congress!

Sen. George Voinovich (R.-OH) was a guest on The Sean Hannity Show last Wednesday (6-27). In the interest of intellectual honesty, please allow me to summarize my feelings about Sen. Voinovich this way:

I can't remember a time when I have heard an elected public official, Republican or Democrat, display more arrogance, rudeness, and downright ignorance than what I heard from Voinovich. Forrest Gump says, "stupid is as stupid does," and Voinovich gave the perfect illustration on Wednesday. You can add "condescending" and "arrogant" to Forrest's folksy little saying, as well. Listen to the interview yourself at

Some observations:

1. Clearly, Voinovich has never heard of the Fairness Doctrine, and doesn't know what it is (listen to Hannity's first question). I can understand that. Analysis of the Fairness Doctrine has only been in EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA! The pros and the cons of the Fairness Doctrine have only been debated on EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE RADIO SHOW and EVERY SINGLE BLOG and EVERY SINGLE TV NEWS SHOW IN AMERICA!! Sorry. I got a little carried away there with the caps. HOW IN THE WORLD (sorry!) can George Voinovich not know what the Fairness Doctrine is? I am stunned beyond belief at his utterly clueless, ignorant answer to Hannity's question. "I'm for the Fairness Doctrine, whatever that is." GOOD GRIEF!

2. Voinovich, when asked by Hannity if he was in favor of a cloture vote on the immigration bill (which would end debate and allow Democrats to pass the bill) Voinovich at first said "no." He said that no Senator should hide behind a cloture vote. Then, in the same breath, he said that the bill deserved an up or down vote. Uh....what? That's like saying "I stand firmly on both sides of this issue." Hannity was clearly confused by the answer, as you can probably tell from his follow up questions.

3. As the interview went on, it became more and more clear that Voinovich had no idea what was in the bill, or what was contained in the many amendments. Although he cast a vote on Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R.-TX) amendment, he clearly had no clue whatsoever what the amendment said, or whether the amendment passed. As Hannity pushed him on those points, Voinovich became aggressively hostile. He accused Hannity of trying to "intimidate" him, and he lashed out at all of the ordinary Americans--we the people--who DARED to call his office and express their opinions on the issue. He vowed to ignore them.

4. About 5 minutes into the interview, Voinovich began to unravel. He couldn't answer any of Hannity's questions, particularly the question about how much money the amnesty bill would cost the American taxpayer, because he had no idea what was in the bill. He tried to run over Hannity and recite his own talking points, and Hannity wouldn't let him. Voinovich came completely unhinged, and hung up on Hannity.

I would like to believe that Voinovich is an exception to the rule, and that most of our federal legislators aren't as arrogantly stupid as he is. One lives in hope!

new blog alert

Some of you might be interested to know that I am starting a new blog called Easter People. It can be found at

I will still be doing Christian Conservatives; there won't be any changes in the way I do this blog. It's just that I felt compelled to have a blog devoted entirely to God's Holy Word, with no politics added.

Check it out if you're interested.

1 corinthians 12

1-3 What I want to talk about now is the various ways God's Spirit gets worked into our lives. This is complex and often mis-understood, but I want you to be informed and knowledgeable. Remember how you were when you didn't know God, led from one phony god to another, never knowing what you were doing, just doing it because everybody else did it? It's different in this life. God wants us to use our intelligence, to seek to understand as well as we can. For instance, by using your heads, you know perfectly well that the Spirit of God would never prompt anyone to say "Jesus be damned!" Nor would anyone be inclined to say "Jesus is Master!" without the insight of the Holy Spirit.

4-11 God's various gifts are handed out everywhere; but they all originate in God's Spirit. God's various ministries are carried out everywhere; but they all originate in God's Spirit. God's various expressions of power are in action everywhere; but God himself is behind it all. Each person is given something to do that shows who God is: Everyone gets in on it, everyone benefits. All kinds of things are handed out by the Spirit, and to all kinds of people! The variety is wonderful:

wise counsel
clear understanding
simple trust
healing the sick
miraculous acts
distinguishing between spirits
interpretation of tongues.

All these gifts have a common origin, but are handed out one by one by the one Spirit of God. He decides who gets what, and when.

12-13 You can easily enough see how this kind of thing works by looking no further than your own body. Your body has many parts—limbs, organs, cells—but no matter how many parts you can name, you're still one body. It's exactly the same with Christ. By means of his one Spirit, we all said good-bye to our partial and piecemeal lives. We each used to independently call our own shots, but then we entered into a large and integrated life in which he has the final say in everything. (This is what we proclaimed in word and action when we were baptized.) Each of us is now a part of his resurrection body, refreshed and sustained at one fountain—his Spirit—where we all come to drink. The old labels we once used to identify ourselves—labels like Jew or Greek, slave or free—are no longer useful. We need something larger, more comprehensive.

14-18 I want you to think about how all this makes you more significant, not less. A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but-similar parts arranged and functioning together. If Foot said, "I'm not elegant like Hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to this body," would that make it so? If Ear said, "I'm not beautiful like Eye, limpid and expressive; I don't deserve a place on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it.

19-24 But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own. Can you imagine Eye telling Hand, "Get lost; I don't need you"? Or, Head telling Foot, "You're fired; your job has been phased out"? As a matter of fact, in practice it works the other way—the "lower" the part, the more basic, and therefore necessary. You can live without an eye, for instance, but not without a stomach. When it's a part of your own body you are concerned with, it makes no difference whether the part is visible or clothed, higher or lower. You give it dignity and honor just as it is, without comparisons. If anything, you have more concern for the lower parts than the higher. If you had to choose, wouldn't you prefer good digestion to full-bodied hair?

25-26 The way God designed our bodies is a model for understanding our lives together as a church: every part dependent on every other part, the parts we mention and the parts we don't, the parts we see and the parts we don't. If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing. If one part flourishes, every other part enters into the exuberance.

27-31 You are Christ's body—that's who you are! You must never forget this. Only as you accept your part of that body does your "part" mean anything. You're familiar with some of the parts that God has formed in his church, which is his "body":
apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers, healers, helpers, organizers, those who pray in tongues. But it's obvious by now, isn't it, that Christ's church is a complete Body and not a gigantic, unidimensional Part? It's not all Apostle, not all Prophet, not all Miracle Worker, not all Healer, not all Prayer in Tongues, not all Interpreter of Tongues. And yet some of you keep competing for so-called "important" parts.

But now I want to lay out a far better way for you.

leviticus 13

1-3 God spoke to Moses and Aaron: "When someone has a swelling or a blister or a shiny spot on the skin that might signal a serious skin disease on the body, bring him to Aaron the priest or to one of his priest sons. The priest will examine the sore on the skin. If the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears more than skin deep, it is a serious skin disease and infectious. After the priest has examined it, he will pronounce the person unclean.

4-8 "If the shiny spot on the skin is white but appears to be only on the surface and the hair has not turned white, the priest will quarantine the person for seven days. On the seventh day the priest will examine it again; if, in his judgment, the sore is the same and has not spread, the priest will keep him in quarantine for another seven days. On the seventh day the priest will examine him a second time; if the sore has faded and hasn't spread, the priest will declare him clean—it is a harmless rash. The person can go home and wash his clothes; he is clean. But if the sore spreads after he has shown himself to the priest and been declared clean, he must come back again to the priest who will conduct another examination. If the sore has spread, the priest will pronounce him unclean—it is a serious skin disease and infectious.

9-17 "Whenever someone has a serious and infectious skin disease, you must bring him to the priest. The priest will examine him; if there is a white swelling in the skin, the hair is turning white, and there is an open sore in the swelling, it is a chronic skin disease. The priest will pronounce him unclean. But he doesn't need to quarantine him because he's already given his diagnosis of unclean. If a serious disease breaks out that covers all the skin from head to foot, wherever the priest looks, the priest will make a thorough examination; if the disease covers his entire body, he will pronounce the person with the sore clean—since it has turned all white, he is clean. But if they are open, running sores, he is unclean. The priest will examine the open sores and pronounce him unclean. The open sores are unclean; they are evidence of a serious skin disease. But if the open sores dry up and turn white, he is to come back to the priest who will reexamine him; if the sores have turned white, the priest will pronounce the person with the sores clean. He is clean.

18-23 "When a person has a boil and it heals and in place of the boil there is white swelling or a reddish-white shiny spot, the person must present himself to the priest for an examination. If it looks like it has penetrated the skin and the hair in it has turned white, the priest will pronounce him unclean. It is a serious skin disease that has broken out in the boil. But if the examination shows that there is no white hair in it and it is only skin deep and has faded, the priest will put him in quarantine for seven days. If it then spreads over the skin, the priest will diagnose him as unclean. It is infectious. But if the shiny spot has not changed and hasn't spread, it's only a scar from the boil. The priest will pronounce him clean.

24-28 "When a person has a burn on his skin and the raw flesh turns into a reddish-white or white shiny spot, the priest is to examine it. If the hair has turned white in the shiny spot and it looks like it's more than skin deep, a serious skin disease has erupted in the area of the burn. The priest will pronounce him unclean; it is a serious skin disease and infectious. But if on examination there is no white hair in the shiny spot and it doesn't look to be more than skin deep but has faded, the priest will put him in quarantine for seven days. On the seventh day the priest will reexamine him. If by then it has spread over the skin, the priest will diagnose him as unclean; it is a serious skin disease and infectious. If by that time the shiny spot has stayed the same and has not spread but has faded, it is only a swelling from the burn. The priest will pronounce him clean; it's only a scar from the burn.

29-37 "If a man or woman develops a sore on the head or chin, the priest will offer a diagnosis. If it looks as if it is under the skin and the hair in it is yellow and thin, he will pronounce the person ritually unclean. It is an itch, an infectious skin disease. But if when he examines the itch, he finds it is only skin deep and there is no black hair in it, he will put the person in quarantine for seven days. On the seventh day he will reexamine the sore; if the itch has not spread, there is no yellow hair in it, and it looks as if the itch is only skin deep, the person must shave, except for the itch; the priest will send him back to quarantine for another seven days. If the itch has not spread, and looks to be only skin deep, the priest will pronounce him clean. The person can go home and wash his clothes; he is clean. But if the itch spreads after being pronounced clean, the priest must reexamine it; if the itch has spread in the skin, he doesn't have to look any farther, for yellow hair, for instance; he is unclean. But if he sees that the itch is unchanged and black hair has begun to grow in it, the itch is healed. The person is clean and the priest will pronounce him clean.

38-39 "When a man or woman gets shiny or white shiny spots on the skin, the priest is to make an examination; if the shiny spots are dull white, it is only a rash that has broken out: The person is clean.

40-44 "When a man loses his hair and goes bald, he is clean. If he loses his hair from his forehead, he is bald and he is clean. But if he has a reddish-white sore on scalp or forehead, it means a serious skin disease is breaking out. The priest is to examine it; if the swollen sore on his scalp or forehead is reddish-white like the appearance of the sore of a serious skin disease, he has a serious skin disease and is unclean. The priest has to pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.

45-46 "Any person with a serious skin disease must wear torn clothes, leave his hair loose and unbrushed, cover his upper lip, and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' As long as anyone has the sores, that one continues to be ritually unclean. That person must live alone; he or she must live outside the camp.

47-58 "If clothing—woolen or linen clothing, woven or knitted cloth of linen or wool, leather or leatherwork—is infected with a patch of serious fungus and if the spot in the clothing or the leather or the woven or the knitted material or anything made of leather is greenish or rusty, that is a sign of serious fungus. Show it to the priest. The priest will examine the spot and then confiscate the material for seven days. On the seventh day he will reexamine the spot. If it has spread in the garment—the woven or knitted or leather material—it is the spot of a persistent serious fungus and the material is unclean. He must burn the garment. Because of the persistent and contaminating fungus, the material must be burned. But if when the priest examines it the spot has not spread in the garment, the priest will command the owner to wash the material that has the spot, and he will confiscate it for another seven days. He'll then make another examination after it has been washed; if the spot hasn't changed in appearance, even though it hasn't spread, it is still unclean. Burn it up, whether the fungus has affected the back or the front. If, when the priest makes his examination, the spot has faded after it has been washed, he is to tear the spot from the garment. But if it reappears, it is a fresh outbreak—throw whatever has the spot in the fire. If the garment is washed and the spot has gone away, then wash it a second time; it is clean.

59 "These are the instructions regarding a spot of serious fungus in clothing of wool or linen, woven or knitted material, or any article of leather, for pronouncing them clean or unclean."

Friday, June 29, 2007

how about that new michael moore flick?

Michael Moore is pretty amazing, isn't he? He's got this new movie out, which advances the premise that France, Britain, Canada and Cuba all have superior health care systems to the United States. It just doesn't get any more dishonest than that, sports fans! Let's go over some easily verifiable facts, shall we?

1. If America's health care system is so bad, why do people from every country of the world move heaven and earth to come to America when they are sick? Remember the T.B. guy who put hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow humans at risk getting back to the U.S.A. because he thought he was going to die in France? What about all of those Cuban refugees who swim with the sharks every year to get to America? Why would they do that if Cuba was so great?

2. Did you know that Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year?

3. Did you know that Canada, along with only Cuba and North Korea, forbids its citizens from privately paying doctors for treatment? Vancouver’s Timely Medical Alternatives, Inc. arranges for Canadians to be treated in American hospitals. Thus its clients can be operated on within seven days rather than six to 10 months under Canadian government medicine.

4. Moore talks a lot about how 45 million Americans don't have health insurance. Did you know that 26 million of those people make at least $50,000 per year, or that 18 million of those people are young adults in their 20's who don't necessarily want to spend for health insurance because they want to accumulate "things" first?

Here in the Hoosier State, now being run by RINOS and other assorted liberals, a comprehensive health care system was just rammed through the legislature by our Republican, non-conservative governor. It's being paid for by an obscenely high cigarette tax. Now all of the uninsured can get insurance.

Guess what? It turns out that most of the uninsured are there by choice. They don't want health insurance. The governor's office just announced a new "outreach" program to "convince" the uninsured to come out of the shadows and, by golly, accept the socialized health care that the government wants them to have! I wonder how many millions of dollars that outreach program will cost?

more on the defeat of the amnesty bill

I said in a previous post that the Senate amnesty bill was defeated as a result of conservatives all across America uniting to slap the Senate back in their place, and that is true, to a point. By stopping there, however, I am guilty of ignoring the millions of non-conservative Americans who also united to defeat the bill.

Did you know that the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that only 30% of Americans supported the bill? Democracy Corps reported only 28% supported and Zogby numbers revealed only 3% of Americans approve of the way Congress was handling immigration. That's not just conservatives opposing the bill! In fact, there's not one single demographic within the American citizenship that had a majority in favor of the bill. Blacks, whites, males, females, young, old, Christian, non-Christian.....all opposed the bill.

Interestingly, the only group of people in America who support amnesty are Hispanics (Surprise!). A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll revealed that Hispanics, by nearly 3 to 1, identify as a Democrat or left. The only majority of people residing in America who opposed the immigration bill because it’s “not doing enough” were illegal aliens. Almost every Democratic Senator supported the bill (again...Surprise!).

Where do we go from here? Well, if we had a president who didn't have his head up a very inappropriate body part, our Chief Executive would hold a press conference and say something like this:

The comprehensive immigration bill that I supported is dead, but we still have the problem of illegal immigration. The problem didn't vanish just because the proposed legislation went away. Accordingly, I am now taking the following actions:

First, I am ordering National Guard units to our southern border immediately to assist Border Patrol in locking down the border. I am ordering that the Army Corps of Engineers immediately build the border fence that has been approved by Congress, and I am ordering the Border Patrol to hire personnel sufficient to triple their numbers on the border. The flow of illegals across our border must be stopped cold. That's what the American people want and need. They have spoken in a loud voice, and they will have what they want.

Second, I am ordering all federal enforcement agencies to fully comply with all of the enforcement guidelines in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act. Employers who knowingly employ illegals will be punished to the full extent of the law, starting today.

Third, I will see to it that any city or any state that offers sanctuary to illegals will immediately lose all federal funding. It isn't right for the American taxpayers to send their hard-earned money to parts of the country that show such blatant disregard for the law.

Once the border has been secured, then we will revist the other aspects of comprehensive reform. That is what the American people want, and we will listen.

That's what Pres. Bush should say. Will he say that? Of course not! I have found that, with most issues, when our president has the choice between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, he picks wrong 8 out of 10 times. Illegal immigration falls within the 80%.

And by the way--Pres. Bush should immediately pardon the Border Patrol agents who are currently doing hard time in a federal lockup. Again, though, that falls within the 80%, and that is a tragedy.

1 corinthians 11

1-2 It pleases me that you continue to remember and honor me by keeping up the traditions of the faith I taught you. All actual authority stems from Christ.

3-9 In a marriage relationship, there is authority from Christ to husband, and from husband to wife. The authority of Christ is the authority of God. Any man who speaks with God or about God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of Christ, dishonors Christ. In the same way, a wife who speaks with God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of her husband, dishonors her husband. Worse, she dishonors herself—an ugly sight, like a woman with her head shaved. This is basically the origin of these customs we have of women wearing head coverings in worship, while men take their hats off. By these symbolic acts, men and women, who far too often butt heads with each other, submit their "heads" to the Head: God.

10-12 Don't, by the way, read too much into the differences here between men and women. Neither man nor woman can go it alone or claim priority. Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God—that is true. But the head on a woman's body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her "head," her husband. The first woman came from man, true—but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let's quit going through these "who's first" routines.

13-16 Don't you agree there is something naturally powerful in the symbolism—a woman, her beautiful hair reminiscent of angels, praying in adoration; a man, his head bared in reverence, praying in submission? I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception.

17-19 Regarding this next item, I'm not at all pleased. I am getting the picture that when you meet together it brings out your worst side instead of your best! First, I get this report on your divisiveness, competing with and criticizing each other. I'm reluctant to believe it, but there it is. The best that can be said for it is that the testing process will bring truth into the open and confirm it.

20-22 And then I find that you bring your divisions to worship—you come together, and instead of eating the Lord's Supper, you bring in a lot of food from the outside and make pigs of yourselves. Some are left out, and go home hungry. Others have to be carried out, too drunk to walk. I can't believe it! Don't you have your own homes to eat and drink in? Why would you stoop to desecrating God's church? Why would you actually shame God's poor? I never would have believed you would stoop to this. And I'm not going to stand by and say nothing.

23-26 Let me go over with you again exactly what goes on in the Lord's Supper and why it is so centrally important. I received my instructions from the Master himself and passed them on to you. The Master, Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, took bread. Having given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, broken for you. Do this to remember me.After supper, he did the same thing with the cup: This cup is my blood, my new covenant with you. Each time you drink this cup, remember me.What you must solemnly realize is that every time you eat this bread and every time you drink this cup, you reenact in your words and actions the death of the Master. You will be drawn back to this meal again and again until the Master returns. You must never let familiarity breed contempt.

27-28 Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Master irreverently is like part of the crowd that jeered and spit on him at his death. Is that the kind of "remembrance" you want to be part of? Examine your motives, test your heart, come to this meal in holy awe.

29-32 If you give no thought (or worse, don't care) about the broken body of the Master when you eat and drink, you're running the risk of serious consequences. That's why so many of you even now are listless and sick, and others have gone to an early grave. If we get this straight now, we won't have to be straightened out later on. Better to be confronted by the Master now than to face a fiery confrontation later.

33-34 So, my friends, when you come together to the Lord's Table, be reverent and courteous with one another. If you're so hungry that you can't wait to be served, go home and get a sandwich. But by no means risk turning this Meal into an eating and drinking binge or a family squabble. It is a spiritual meal—a love feast.

The other things you asked about, I'll respond to in person when I make my next visit.

leviticus 12

1-5 God spoke to Moses: "Tell the People of Israel, A woman who conceives and gives birth to a boy is ritually unclean for seven days, the same as during her menstruation. On the eighth day circumcise the boy. The mother must stay home another thirty-three days for purification from her bleeding. She may not touch anything consecrated or enter the Sanctuary until the days of her purification are complete. If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean for fourteen days, the same as during her menstruation. She must stay home for sixty-six days for purification from her bleeding.

6-7 "When the days for her purification for either a boy or a girl are complete, she will bring a yearling lamb for a Whole-Burnt-Offering and a pigeon or dove for an Absolution-Offering to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. He will offer it to God and make atonement for her. She is then clean from her flow of blood.
"These are the instructions for a woman who gives birth to either a boy or a girl.

8 "If she can't afford a lamb, she can bring two doves or two pigeons, one for the Whole-Burnt-Offering and one for the Absolution-Offering. The priest will make atonement for her and she will be clean."

the ann coulter "scandal"

The liberaliar mainstream media has been reporting that Ann Coulter said, on Good Morning America, that she wished that John Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack. That is a bald-faced lie. Coulter didn't say that. I think it's high time to talk about the actual facts concerning this incident, even though I am well aware that facts, logic and reason make liberaliars nauseous!

First, take a look at the two links I have provided. The first link is to Ann Coulter's column explaining exactly what she said. The second link is to the actual video of her Good Morning America interview so that you can see for yourself.

Now, let's talk about what really happened. Coulter was asked about her remarks at the CPAC convention, where she basically called John Edwards a "faggot." She denies she called him that, but the record shows that she did, and I think it was terrible for her to say that. Well, as she was falsely denying that she called Edwards that awful word, Coulter "spun" the subject a little, and referred to Bill Maher's comment that he wished Dick Cheney would get killed in a terrorist attack. That was a comment, by the way, that didn't elicit so much as a peep from the liberaliar media. Coulter said that she had learned her lesson from Maher, and that, in the future, if she said anything about Edwards that she would just say that she wished that terrorists would kill him.

Her point was that Bill Maher had said something a whole lot worse than what she said, and that he wasn't criticized at all. It is instructive to point out that the Good Morning America interviewer wasn't bothered in the least by Coulter's comments. He knew what she meant.

Well, it took the liberaliar machine exactly 36 hours to manufacture a scandal from this non-story. The liberaliar machine is now advancing the lie that Ann Coulter said that she wishes John Edwards would get killed by terrorists.

Go ahead. Look at the video. If you have a brain that isn't ravaged by the cancer of liberalism you will see that, once again, the liberals are lying. Coulter didn't say that, and this story didn't appear in the mainstream media until the Edwards campaign team told the media what their talking points should be.

I have a few questions concerning this whole non-story:

1. Why didn't John Edwards himself confront Coulter, instead of having his wife fight his battles for him? Is the Breck Girl afraid to tangle with the Blonde Bully?

2. If John Edwards is afraid of Ann Coulter (and we already know that he is afraid of Britt Hume) how in the world can we trust him to display courage against Islamofascism?

3. Ann Coulter says a whole lot of things that are mean, spiteful and hateful. That's her schtick. She's a bully and she's a fairly hateful person. Although I agree with her about 90% of the time on the issues of the day, I am strongly opposed to the way that she states her beliefs most of the time. I have always been intellectually honest about that. Having said that, I don't see where her latest statements fit that template. Coulter was attempting to show that a radical, godless liberaliar like Bill Maher could say something truly hateful and that the liberal intelligentsia would ignore it simply because Maher is a liberal. Of course, the thoroughly corrupt and dishonest liberaliar intelligentsia, including John Edwards' bodyguard---oops...I mean his cancer-stricken wife---felt compelled to distort the story. Question 1: Why doesn't John Edwards have the cujones to fight his own battles? Question 2: Doesn't John Edwards love his wife? I love my wife, and I would never, not in a million years, use her in the role of political attack dog if she was stricken with cancer. Does John Edwards covet the White House more than he loves his wife?

4. The liberaliar mainstream media goes out of their way to ignore Mike Huckabee. Their reasoning is that he is a "second-tier candidate." Yet they bend over backwards to publicize John Edwards, who has as much chance of being elected president as I do. Or Ron Paul. What's up with that? Of course, we all know the answer. The mainstream media whores for the lunatic fringe of the American left. That just happens to be where the Breck Girl resides.

One important point---I know why Coulter keeps inflaming the Edwards supporters. She wants to keep the Edwards campaign alive because it drains support from Hillary Health Care and Barak Huessein Obama Osama Shama Lama Ding Dong.

Funny how the not-so-intelligent intelligentsia is playing into that strategy!

Thursday, June 28, 2007

this was a good week for america!

Fellow conservatives, we won a couple of important battles this week. The war isn't over, and we can't afford to rest, but we should be proud of our victories of the last week.

First, the amnesty for illegal immigrants bill was crushed today. Senate liberals from both sides of the aisle fought like crazed dogs to stop debate through cloture, and to railroad the bill through to a vote, but the vote for cloture fell 14 votes short of passing. That means that the amnesty bill is probably dead until after the 2008 elections. This is a stunning victory for principled conservatives!

Do you know why we won this battle? Because principled conservatives rallied each other to action through the so-called "non-traditional" media. Conservative talk radio and the conservative blogs alerted America to the very serious dangers of the amnesty bill, and America responded. Our voices were heard loud and clear! The lesson here is that, if we the people get off our duffs and participate vigorously in the political life of our country, good things will happen. Believe it!

Second, the Supreme Court took a great big bite out of the very unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law. McCain-Feingold makes it a crime for any incorporated group -- whether it's a for-profit business or a nonprofit group like Wisconsin Right to Life -- to use its general treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications."

"Electioneering communications" is a lying politician's cute term for any broadcast communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is aired in the candidate's area within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) challenged the constitutionality of this prohibition. WRTL had planned to run ads shortly before the 2004 federal elections asking Wisconsin residents to call their two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, to urge them to oppose the filibustering of federal judicial nominees. Each ad included the following language: "Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl to tell them to oppose the filibuster." The ads also referred viewers to a website which listed the Senators' positions on the filibusters.

Wisconsin Right to Life was prohibited from exercising this political speech by McCain-Feingold. So the group filed a lawsuit, arguing that, to the extent McCain-Feingold applied to these ads, McCain-Feingold unconstitutionally limited freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 1st Amendment rights of Wisconsin Right to Life had been violated. Today's Bonus Question: Guess which 4 justices voted to ignore the 1st Amendment? ..............If you answered Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer, you win two free tickets to the new movie Chairman Mao Was Really a Pretty Good Guy. Those wacky liberal fascists just don't like the 1st Amendment very much, do they?

Now, let's take a brief break from the post-game celebration for a little reality check. We won a couple of important battles, but the forces of liberalism will not give up. Here's what we can look forward to in the future:

1. Liberals from both parties are absolutely livid over the role that conservative talk radio played in the immigration debate. Trent Lott, a man whose political career was absolutely saved by conservative talk radio (right after he demonstrated, at Strom Thurmond's birthday bash, that he is NOT smarter than a fifth-grader) sounded like he was ready to order federal storm troopers to arrest Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity for their role in sinking the amnesty bill. Look for "bipartisan consensus" (I would rather stick needles in my eyes than hear some smarmy politician use those two words) on the Fairness Doctrine. That will be a defining "future of the republic" battle that conservatives must win. Failure is not an option. Well, unless we want to see America become just like the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez! Make no mistake, if the liberal jihad against conservative talk radio succeeds, conservative blogging will be the next target. You can take that to the bank!

2. Look for Congressional liberals from both parties to look for a way to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. I guarantee there will be debate in Congress sometime in the next two years about legislation to fine-tune McCain-Feingold so that it passes judicial muster.

OK, students, we have arrived at the "teachable moment." The Big Lesson we can learn from all this is that liberals absolutely can't stand unfettered freedom of expression in the political arena. They are absolutely committed to the idea of government regulation of expression in any area where their hold on the reins of government might be compromised. Liberals will use Any Means Necessary to squash the rights of we the people to express dissenting opinions against their cockamamie agenda. And make no mistake, those liberals can be found in both major parties!

Go ahead and celebrate. We deserve that much. Just don't forget that the playoffs aren't over, to borrow from the sports vernacular. We won this round, but we have more battles left. Stay on top of your game!

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

like a bad case of athlete's foot, the fairness doctrine keeps coming back

Liberaliars have a time-tested formula they like to use to trick Americans into supporting their anti-American agenda. They create programs/laws/agencies, etc. that will implement the liberaliar agenda, but they attach a name to that program/law/agency that says just the opposite. It's very dishonest, but highly effective.

This is the tactic being used by liberals with the so-called Fairness Doctrine. There is absolutely nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine, but then, liberaliars don't give two hoots about fairness.

To explain by way of example, the Fairness Doctrine would require a radio station that carries Rush Limbaugh for 3 hours to also carry 3 hours of liberal opinion. That's called "balance." Here's the question, though. The Rush Limbaugh Show has no problems securing advertising. Radio stations make money off of El Rushbo. What happens if the radio station can't sell any advertising for the 3 hours of liberal opinion? Answer--they have two choices. Eat the cost of airing the liberal opinion, or drop Limbaugh so they don't have to air the liberal opinion.

You see the liberal strategy here, don't you? Liberalism cannot survive in the marketplace of ideas on its own. Most people recognize liberalism for what it is---lies, lies, and more lies. That's why conservative talk radio flourishes. It is truthful, it is intelligent, and people gravitate towards smart truth.

So naturally, liberals want to kill conservative talk radio. You see, liberals have no use for freedom of speech or freedom of the press!

Read the following article for thoughtful analysis on the coming fight over the Fairness Doctrine:

Go to the following link to see a video clip of Rep. Mike Pence (R.--IN) announcing plans to legislatively outlaw the Fairness Doctrine:

Here is an interesting quote about the Fairness Doctrine:

"It's time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of a story, they're in a better position to make a decision."--Sen. Dick Durbin (D.--IL)---Yes Dick, you are old-fashioned. Karl Marx wanted to stamp out free speech as well!

Beware the Fairness Doctrine! There is nothing fair about it!

important information about the senate amnesty bill

I'm going to quote some excerpts from the article linked above, with comments from me added on.

S. 1639 would grant immediate amnesty (in the form of a "probationary" Z visa) to between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens. According to Section 601 (f)(2) of the bill, the amnesty must begin within 180 days after the bill is signed—no border enforcement triggers need to be met.--- Do you see the part about no border enforcement triggers needing to be met? This Senate bill is the same bait and switch that was pulled on us by both parties last year. That border fence they approved still hasn't been funded.

Under Section 601 (h)(1), the bill allows the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or a terrorist.....The 24-hour requirement is particularly inexplicable, considering that the ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—the agency that would implement the amnesty—recently released a report revealing that, even without the tripling of the workload that the amnesty will bring, FBI name checks on aliens seeking benefits routinely take 90 days or more to complete.--- This tells me that the Senate doesn't want to find out background data about these people. They just want to get them inside our borders as quickly as possible.

The amnesty under S. 1639 extends even to absconders—fugitives who had their day in court, were issued an order of removal by an immigration judge, and ignored the order. Approximately 636,000 absconders now roam the country, having defied the law twice—first when they broke immigration laws and again when they ignored the removal orders. That number has grown by an average of 68,184 a year from September 2003 to September 2006.

Since 2001, tracking down and removing these absconders has been a top priority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agency has made recent progress by increasing its Fugitive Operations Teams from 18 in 2005 to 61 at present. S. 1639 would bring this effort to an end, rewarding absconders who have successfully evaded federal law enforcement with another bite at the apple.---This is what happens when we let liberals join the GOP! Make a mental note to never vote for another liberal ever again!

Aside from the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens who would receive amnesty, the biggest beneficiaries of this legal morass are the immigration lawyers who would bill millions of dollars representing their clients as the cases drag on. That is not entirely surprising, because the American Immigration Lawyers Association reportedly played a central role in drafting the Senate bill. It is also a natural consequence when a bill is drafted behind closed doors and shielded from the normal process of committee scrutiny.---Any bill crafted behind closed doors by a pack of lawyers is bound to be bad for America.

The following GOP Senators voted to revive the amnesty bill:

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burr, N.C.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va

There will be a cloture vote on Thursday in the Senate. The principled conservatives who oppose the amnesty bill want to keep debating the bill in an attempt to fix it and, in the mean time, keep it from being voted on in its present form. A vote for cloture, which requires 60 votes, would end all debate, send the bill to the floor for an up or down vote (probably on Friday), at which time the bill would pass. The really sleazy part of this is that a GOP Senator could vote for cloture, and then vote against the bill on Friday. That way the GOP Senator could assure passage of the bill without having to actually vote for the bill. That's called CYA with the constituents. I call it garbage! Watch the news closely. Any Republican who votes for cloture should be targeted by the voters for removal the next time they face re-election.

the united nations finally admits (quietly) that there really is a natural climate cycle

The U.N. admits that there really is a natural climate cycle (sometimes it's hot, sometimes it's cold) but they're not going to let the facts get in the way of a good liberal lie! They're still proceeding as if we have an impending global disaster heading our way and that The New Global Action Heroes (AKA Liberals) are the world's only hope.

I wish these people would just go away, but I know that they won't. That means that it's up to us to defeat their lies with the truth.

the renewable fuels, consumer protection and energy efficiency act of 2007

Imagine that! This is a "consumer protection" law that doesn't protect the consumer. This is an "energy efficiency" law that isn't efficient. This is a "renewable fuels" bill that attempts to stop us from using a fuel source that is both cheap and plentiful, and instead forces us to use the world's biggest food source for fuel, making both food and fuel scarcer and more expensive. Only from the la-la world of liberalism coud we get such a cockamamie law!

Here are some "inconvenient truths" that the liberaliars hope you don't know about:

1. The world has more than enough oil for everybody, and that includes America. If America's liberaliars would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and off our several coasts, and if liberaliars would allow the building of new oil refineries, we could produce enough oil that we wouldn't have to rely on foreign sources.

2. Using oil as our primary fuel source is better for the environment than is using corn for ethanol. Burning ethanol produces more harmful smog pollutants than does oil. Also, ethanol can't be transported via pipeline, so it must be transported by truck. This increases the number of large vehicles on our roads, which increases demand for fuel. More oil and more ethanol must be burned. That's not a good thing!

3. If we as Americans converted our entire corn production to fuel instead of food, two things would happen. First, we still wouldn't have enough fuel, and we would still have to import oil. Second, food prices would skyrocket worldwide and starvation would become a worldwide crisis to an extent that the world has never seen.

4. If the bill passes, the net result is that food and fuel prices would both spiral out of control, AND each American household would have to be assessed an additional $200 per year to support taxpayer-funded food and fuel subsidy programs. What a bargain!

OK, all you liberaliars out there, we have arrived at The Teachable Moment! Here is the lesson that we need to learn from the facts layed out in the article linked above, and the facts that I have presented to you:

Liberalism creates bad public policy. Government should stay out of the free market. Oil is plentiful, and it would be much cheaper if the government wouldn't tax it so heavily. Conversion to ethanol will absolutely result in the deaths of millions of people worldwide, and the devastation of the worldwide economy.

That's OK, though, isn't it? So long as liberaliars run the show, what's wrong with a little global poverty and famine?

See to take action.

1 corinthians 10

1-5 Remember our history, friends, and be warned. All our ancestors were led by the providential Cloud and taken miraculously through the Sea. They went through the waters, in a baptism like ours, as Moses led them from enslaving death to salvation life. They all ate and drank identical food and drink, meals provided daily by God. They drank from the Rock, God's fountain for them that stayed with them wherever they were. And the Rock was Christ. But just experiencing God's wonder and grace didn't seem to mean much—most of them were defeated by temptation during the hard times in the desert, and God was not pleased.

6-10 The same thing could happen to us. We must be on guard so that we never get caught up in wanting our own way as they did. And we must not turn our religion into a circus as they did—"First the people partied, then they threw a dance." We must not be sexually promiscuous—they paid for that, remember, with 23,000 deaths in one day! We must never try to get Christ to serve us instead of us serving him; they tried it, and God launched an epidemic of poisonous snakes. We must be careful not to stir up discontent; discontent destroyed them.

11-12 These are all warning markers—danger!—in our history books, written down so that we don't repeat their mistakes. Our positions in the story are parallel—they at the beginning, we at the end—and we are just as capable of messing it up as they were. Don't be so naive and self-confident. You're not exempt. You could fall flat on your face as easily as anyone else. Forget about self-confidence; it's useless. Cultivate God-confidence.

13 No test or temptation that comes your way is beyond the course of what others have had to face. All you need to remember is that God will never let you down; he'll never let you be pushed past your limit; he'll always be there to help you come through it.

14 So, my very dear friends, when you see people reducing God to something they can use or control, get out of their company as fast as you can.

15-18 I assume I'm addressing believers now who are mature. Draw your own conclusions: When we drink the cup of blessing, aren't we taking into ourselves the blood, the very life, of Christ? And isn't it the same with the loaf of bread we break and eat? Don't we take into ourselves the body, the very life, of Christ? Because there is one loaf, our many-ness becomes one-ness—Christ doesn't become fragmented in us. Rather, we become unified in him. We don't reduce Christ to what we are; he raises us to what he is. That's basically what happened even in old Israel—those who ate the sacrifices offered on God's altar entered into God's action at the altar.

19-22 Do you see the difference? Sacrifices offered to idols are offered to nothing, for what's the idol but a nothing? Or worse than nothing, a minus, a demon! I don't want you to become part of something that reduces you to less than yourself. And you can't have it both ways, banqueting with the Master one day and slumming with demons the next. Besides, the Master won't put up with it. He wants us—all or nothing. Do you think you can get off with anything less?

23-24 Looking at it one way, you could say, "Anything goes. Because of God's immense generosity and grace, we don't have to dissect and scrutinize every action to see if it will pass muster." But the point is not to just get by. We want to live well, but our foremost efforts should be to help others live well.

25-28 With that as a base to work from, common sense can take you the rest of the way. Eat anything sold at the butcher shop, for instance; you don't have to run an "idolatry test" on every item. "The earth," after all, "is God's, and everything in it." That "everything" certainly includes the leg of lamb in the butcher shop. If a nonbeliever invites you to dinner and you feel like going, go ahead and enjoy yourself; eat everything placed before you. It would be both bad manners and bad spirituality to cross-examine your host on the ethical purity of each course as it is served. On the other hand, if he goes out of his way to tell you that this or that was sacrificed to god or goddess so-and-so, you should pass. Even though you may be indifferent as to where it came from, he isn't, and you don't want to send mixed messages to him about who you are worshiping.

29-30 But, except for these special cases, I'm not going to walk around on eggshells worrying about what small-minded people might say; I'm going to stride free and easy, knowing what our large-minded Master has already said. If I eat what is served to me, grateful to God for what is on the table, how can I worry about what someone will say? I thanked God for it and he blessed it!

31-33 So eat your meals heartily, not worrying about what others say about you—you're eating to God's glory, after all, not to please them. As a matter of fact, do everything that way, heartily and freely to God's glory. At the same time, don't be callous in your exercise of freedom, thoughtlessly stepping on the toes of those who aren't as free as you are. I try my best to be considerate of everyone's feelings in all these matters; I hope you will be, too.

leviticus 11

1-2 God spoke to Moses and Aaron: "Speak to the People of Israel. Tell them, Of all the animals on Earth, these are the animals that you may eat:

3-8 "You may eat any animal that has a split hoof, divided in two, and that chews the cud, but not an animal that only chews the cud or only has a split hoof. For instance, the camel chews the cud but doesn't have a split hoof, so it's unclean. The rock badger chews the cud but doesn't have a split hoof and so it's unclean. The rabbit chews the cud but doesn't have a split hoof so is unclean. The pig has a split hoof, divided in two, but doesn't chew the cud and so is unclean. You may not eat their meat nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

9-12 "Among the creatures that live in the water of the seas and streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But anything that doesn't have fins and scales, whether in seas or streams, whether small creatures in the shallows or huge creatures in the deeps, you are to detest. Yes, detest them. Don't eat their meat; detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that doesn't have fins and scales is detestable to you.

13-19 "These are the birds you are to detest. Don't eat them. They are detestable: eagle, vulture, osprey, kite, all falcons, all ravens, ostrich, nighthawk, sea gull, all hawks, owl, cormorant, ibis, water hen, pelican, Egyptian vulture, stork, all herons, hoopoe, bat.

20-23 "All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.

24-25 "You will make yourselves ritually unclean until evening if you touch their carcasses. If you pick up one of their carcasses you must wash your clothes and you'll be unclean until evening.

26 "Every animal that has a split hoof that's not completely divided, or that doesn't chew the cud is unclean for you; if you touch the carcass of any of them you become unclean.

27-28 "Every four-footed animal that goes on its paws is unclean for you; if you touch its carcass you are unclean until evening. If you pick up its carcass you must wash your clothes and are unclean until evening. They are unclean for you.

29-38 "Among the creatures that crawl on the ground, the following are unclean for you: weasel, rat, all lizards, gecko, monitor lizard, wall lizard, skink, chameleon. Among the crawling creatures, these are unclean for you. If you touch them when they are dead, you are ritually unclean until evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that becomes unclean no matter what it's used for, whether it's made of wood, cloth, hide, or sackcloth. Put it in the water—it's unclean until evening, and then it's clean. If one of these dead creatures falls into a clay pot, everything in the pot is unclean and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of these carcasses falls on is unclean—an oven or cooking pot must be broken up; they're unclean and must be treated as unclean. A spring, though, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but if you touch one of these carcasses you're ritually unclean. If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, you must treat it as unclean.

39-40 "If an animal that you are permitted to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass is ritually unclean until evening. If you eat some of the carcass you must wash your clothes and you are unclean until evening. If you pick up the carcass you must wash your clothes and are unclean until evening.

41-43 "Creatures that crawl on the ground are detestable and not to be eaten. Don't eat creatures that crawl on the ground, whether on their belly or on all fours or on many feet—they are detestable. Don't make yourselves unclean or be defiled by them, because I am your God.

44-45 "Make yourselves holy for I am holy. Don't make yourselves ritually unclean by any creature that crawls on the ground. I am God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Be holy because I am holy.

46-47 "These are the instructions on animals, birds, fish, and creatures that crawl on the ground. You have to distinguish between the ritually unclean and the clean, between living creatures that can be eaten and those that cannot be eaten."

liberaliars lying about the word "liberal"

This is a fascinating column written by the liberaliar columnist for the Miami Herald, Leonard Pitts. The title of his column is "It's Time To Rebrand the L-Word." He has two main points. First, he contends that the word "liberal" has been turned into a "dirty word" of sorts due to relentless misinformation being foisted on the public by conservatives. Second, Pitts says that most Americans are, in fact, quite liberal and that liberal public policy has been largely accepted by most Americans.


On the Liberaliar Scale, liberal lies range in size and scope from little bitty liberal lies to great big whoppers. Leonard Pitts goes beyond the scale to whatever is a thousand times bigger than a whopper liberal lie when he makes these points. In short, he is just plain wrong if he believes that most Americans are liberals. That's a lie, and I will prove it.

First, it is important to note that Pitts bases his belief on studies done by a group called Media Matters For America. He quotes senior fellow Paul Waldman from that group:

"We've been told by conservatives and by mainstream media for years that this is a conservative country but if you actually look at the facts you find that this is a myth.''

I wonder why Pitts failed to mention in his column that Media Matters is a front group for Hillary Clinton. Hillary advised David Brock on the creation of Media Matters, and arranged for massive funding for the group. She continues to consult with the group.

Hillary helped create Media Matters because she needed a group that could pretend to be an independent watchdog over conservative talk radio. She needed a group that she could control from behind the curtains that would attack conservative thought and opinion in the non-traditional media on a daily basis. When you say "Media Matters," you should really be saying "political action group for the Clinton machine." With that fact in mind, you can see why I am skeptical of anything that group says.

Let's pretend for a minute, though, that Media Matters was actually a credible media watchdog outfit. Let's pretend for a moment that they weren't really just a bunch of crooked liberaliars. I love pretending! OK, now that we are securely in the Great Nation of Imagi-Nation, let's look at what Media Matters says about the "myth" of America being a conservative nation. Here are some indisputable facts:

1. Look at American National Election Studies has been surveying American adults since 1972 about their political attitudes. They have found that, depending on the year, anywhere from 16-23% of Americans self-identify as being left of center politically and 30-33% self-identify as being right of center politically. 23-26% self-identify as being moderate. I suppose that a blue-state public school is the only place in the world where math students would be taught that 16-23% constitutes a "majority." Just ask the people, and they will tell you that they are conservative.

2. When we the people are surveyed on our attitudes concerning various public policies, the surveys show that Americans are decidedly non-liberal. For instance, abortion on demand for women of any age with no limits or constraints whatsoever is a liberal position. A majority of Americans oppose that position. That's not to say that most Americans want a federal law outlawing abortion. They don't. But a majority of Americans want legal restraints on abortion and they oppose the liberal worship of the sacrament of abortion.

Surveys show that most Americans oppose gay marriage. Surveys show that most Americans oppose the legalization of all drugs. Surveys show that Americans oppose higher taxes. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Talk to people all across America, and they will tell you that they oppose liberal public policy.

3. When we the people actually have the opportunity to vote on issues, the conservative position almost always wins. For example, gay marriage has been defeated in each and every state where the people had a chance to vote. That includes such so-called liberal states as Oregon and Washington. Gay marriage is defeated when Americans get to vote. Gay marriage wins when unelected activist judges unconstitutionally subsitute their will for the will of the people. Go ahead and look it up. You'll see that I am right.

What's the bottom line here? The bottom line here is that Media Matters, and their willing pawn from the Miami Herald, are liberaliars. Most Americans are conservative. America is a conservative nation. Liberalism is a dangerous, deceitful philosophy that people will never accept unless they are coerced.

Isn't that what fascism is all about?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

today's weather forecast

We have outdoor activities planned for today and this evening, so naturally I turned on the local weather forecast to see if it's going to rain. These are the exact words the highly trained weather professional used to describe our rain chances:

We will have widely scattered showers. It could rain anywhere at any time.

Wow! Anywhere at any time. Now that's a weather forecast, right there! I'm glad all that weather training and all of that million dollar Doppler gadgetry could give me such a precise forecast!

And then it hit me. If the highly trained weather professionals can't tell me if it's going to rain today in my corner of the globe, how in the world could I expect them to accurately forecast the temperature for the next 50 years for the entire globe? Answer---they can't!

Global warming is such a farce!

Maybe Channel 8 should hire Brother Gore and his Travelin' Salvation Show to do weather!

1 corinthians 9

1-2 And don't tell me that I have no authority to write like this. I'm perfectly free to do this—isn't that obvious? Haven't I been given a job to do? Wasn't I commissioned to this work in a face-to-face meeting with Jesus, our Master? Aren't you yourselves proof of the good work that I've done for the Master? Even if no one else admits the authority of my commission, you can't deny it. Why, my work with you is living proof of my authority!

3-7 I'm not shy in standing up to my critics. We who are on missionary assignments for God have a right to decent accommodations, and we have a right to support for us and our families. You don't seem to have raised questions with the other apostles and our Master's brothers and Peter in these matters. So, why me? Is it just Barnabas and I who have to go it alone and pay our own way? Are soldiers self-employed? Are gardeners forbidden to eat vegetables from their own gardens? Don't milkmaids get to drink their fill from the pail?

8-12 I'm not just sounding off because I'm irritated. This is all written in the scriptural law. Moses wrote, "Don't muzzle an ox to keep it from eating the grain when it's threshing." Do you think Moses' primary concern was the care of farm animals? Don't you think his concern extends to us? Of course. Farmers plow and thresh expecting something when the crop comes in. So if we have planted spiritual seed among you, is it out of line to expect a meal or two from you? Others demand plenty from you in these ways. Don't we who have never demanded deserve even more?

12-14 But we're not going to start demanding now what we've always had a perfect right to. Our decision all along has been to put up with anything rather than to get in the way or detract from the Message of Christ. All I'm concerned with right now is that you not use our decision to take advantage of others, depriving them of what is rightly theirs. You know, don't you, that it's always been taken for granted that those who work in the Temple live off the proceeds of the Temple, and that those who offer sacrifices at the altar eat their meals from what has been sacrificed? Along the same lines, the Master directed that those who spread the Message be supported by those who believe the Message.

15-18 Still, I want it made clear that I've never gotten anything out of this for myself, and that I'm not writing now to get something. I'd rather die than give anyone ammunition to discredit me or impugn my motives. If I proclaim the Message, it's not to get something out of it for myself. I'm compelled to do it, and doomed if I don't! If this was my own idea of just another way to make a living, I'd expect some pay. But since it's not my idea but something solemnly entrusted to me, why would I expect to get paid? So am I getting anything out of it? Yes, as a matter of fact: the pleasure of proclaiming the Message at no cost to you. You don't even have to pay my expenses!

19-23 Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn't take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I've become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn't just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it!

24-25 You've all been to the stadium and seen the athletes race. Everyone runs; one wins. Run to win. All good athletes train hard. They do it for a gold medal that tarnishes and fades. You're after one that's gold eternally.

26-27 I don't know about you, but I'm running hard for the finish line. I'm giving it everything I've got. No sloppy living for me! I'm staying alert and in top condition. I'm not going to get caught napping, telling everyone else all about it and then missing out myself.

leviticus 10

1-2 That same day Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, took their censers, put hot coals and incense in them, and offered "strange" fire to God—something God had not commanded. Fire blazed out from God and consumed them—they died in God's presence.

3 Moses said to Aaron, "This is what God meant when he said, To the one who comes near me, I will show myself holy; Before all the people, I will show my glory."
Aaron was silent.

4-5 Moses called for Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel, Aaron's uncle. He said, "Come. Carry your dead cousins outside the camp, away from the Sanctuary." They came and carried them off, outside the camp, just as Moses had directed.

6-7 Moses then said to Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, "No mourning rituals for you—unkempt hair, torn clothes—or you'll also die and God will be angry with the whole congregation. Your relatives—all the People of Israel, in fact—will do the mourning over those God has destroyed by fire. And don't leave the entrance to the Tent of Meeting lest you die, because God's anointing oil is on you."
They did just as Moses said.

8-11 God instructed Aaron: "When you enter the Tent of Meeting, don't drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, lest you die. This is a fixed rule down through the generations. Distinguish between the holy and the common, between the ritually clean and unclean. Teach the People of Israel all the decrees that God has spoken to them through Moses."

12-15 Moses spoke to Aaron and his surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, "Take the leftovers of the Grain-Offering from the Fire-Gifts for God and eat beside the Altar that which has been prepared without yeast, for it is most holy. Eat it in the Holy Place because it is your portion and the portion of your sons from the Fire-Gifts for God. This is what God commanded me. Also, you and your sons and daughters are to eat the breast of the Wave-Offering and the thigh of the Contribution-Offering in a clean place. They are provided as your portion and the portion of your children from the Peace-Offerings presented by the People of Israel. Bring the thigh of the Contribution-Offering and the breast of the Wave-Offering and the fat pieces of the Fire-Gifts and lift them up as a Wave-Offering. This will be the regular share for you and your children as ordered by God."

16-18 When Moses looked into the matter of the goat of the Absolution-Offering, he found that it had been burned up. He became angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and asked, "Why didn't you eat the Absolution-Offering in the Holy Place since it is most holy? The offering was given to you for taking away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before God. Since its blood was not taken into the Holy Place, you should have eaten the goat in the Sanctuary as I commanded."

19 Aaron replied to Moses, "Look. They sacrificed their Absolution-Offering and Whole-Burnt-Offering before God today, and you see what has happened to me—I've lost two sons. Do you think God would have been pleased if I had gone ahead and eaten the Absolution-Offering today?"

20 When Moses heard this response, he accepted it.

Monday, June 25, 2007

the dishonesty of the liberaliar media

Nobody with a normal level of wisdom or intelligence disputes the fact that the mainstream media serves as the P.R. wing of the Liberaliar Marxist Democrat Party. The evidence is out in the open, "in plain sight" as the police would say, for anyone with eyes to see.

For those who need more evidence, take a look at the links I provided. Facts, logic and reason all show that America's mainstream media will do whatever is necessary, by hook or by crook, to destroy the GOP, and conservatism in particular. There is no lie the media will not tell in order to accomplish their mission. Of course, the actions of the liberaliar media are destructive to America, but that's OK. The mission is more important than the nation, according to the liberaliar dogma.

The dishonesty of the mainstream media can't be fixed in a free society like America, and sadly, the modern GOP lacks the courage to combat the lies. The solution lies in we the people ignoring the traditional media and looking to more honest, non-traditional sources for our news. Many of the best sources are linked to on the right hand sidebar of my blog. is another great source. And of course, you will always hear the truth from my humble blog.

It is now the responsibility of us to seek the truth. It's not so hard if you look in the "right" places.

the imus double standard

The link will take you to an article from the American Conservative Union, written by Donald Devine. Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.

His article is a good one, as it examines the blatant hypocrisy of liberaliars as illustrated by the Don Imus flap. The mainstream media has moved beyond the Imus scandal (which is why El Rushbo calls them "the drive-by media") but conservatives, I think, need to continue talking about it.

There is one basic truth about the liberaliar thought process that was so beautifully illustrated by the reaction to Imus' comments, that it bears re-examination. What is that truth?

Liberaliars are the supreme arbiters of what constitutes acceptable free speech and unacceptable prohibited speech.

That's it, sports fans. That is the liberal thought process, and the Imus story proves it. Read the following excerpt from Devine's column linked above:

Just why was Imus fired? Was it for saying “hos”? That word was almost required in rap to reach stardom and was ubiquitous across the radio spectrum. So it was not the words. Was it because it was directed at a minority, “nappy headed”? But all rap music insults the same minority females, if not those with a popular basketball team. Was it because his words were said in a derogatory way? But that is the whole point of this misogynous “music.” Why was Imus different?

It is fun to watch the liberals explain. A feature article in Time magazine takes 2,700 words trying to decide, as the title asked, “Who Can Say What”? In one sense, it argued, everyone does it—citing Michael Richards’ “nigger”, Isaiah Washington’s “faggot”, Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” and Mel Gibson’s “f…ing Jew.” These offenders all suffered damage as Imus did. But “Borat” called Alan Keyes “a genuine chocolate face,” The Sarah Silverman Program parodied “God’s black friend” and “South Park” even used the “niggers” word. Yet, Time says these latter terms were used “legitimately” as “brilliant commentary, even art.” How explain this when the words were pretty much the same?

Time says Imus “crossed a line” but admits Dick Gregory and Lenny Bruce are allowed to cross the same line because they are “socially conscious.” The motion picture academy elite can give an Oscar to hos in the “Hard Out Here for a Pimp” song and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can say “faggot” because these are “good-natured” usages. It is all pretty confusing for the non-artist except that socially conscious and good-natured seem to translate as “liberal.” At the end, Time finally concludes: “making jokes about difference — race, gender, sexual orientation, the whole list — is ultimately about power. You need to purchase the right to do it through some form of vulnerability, especially if you happen to be a rich, famous white man.” The price is higher for being rich, famous or white because they have power.

Not really, since it is not the rich and famous part that is important to these moderators of taste. Although it escapes Time’s notice, it is obvious that the rappers are rich and famous but still get a bye.

I don't know about you, but my wooden conservative head is spinning right now, just trying to comprehend all of the liberaliar gobbledygook! Time took 2700 words to attempt to explain "Who Can Say What." I can explain it a lot more succinctly:

If the person speaking is an accepted member of the liberaliar cause, that person can say absolutely anything they want with no fear of reprisals. If the person speaking is not a liberaliar in good standing, the 1st Amendment protections for free speech do not apply.

Do you want examples? How about Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" comments? How about Robert "KKK" Byrd and his frequent uses of the "N" word? How about racist liberal cartoonists Ted Rall and Jeff Danziger? How about all of the racist bile spewed by liberals towards Clarence Thomas? There are literally thousands of examples like that, all perfectly acceptable to the liberaliar intelligentsia.

What's the lesson here? The lesson is that each and every vote for a liberal politician is a vote against the 1st Amendment, free speech, and freedom. Vote for a liberal and be prepared to kiss your "unalienable rights" goodbye!

1 corinthians 8

1-3 The question keeps coming up regarding meat that has been offered up to an idol: Should you attend meals where such meat is served, or not? We sometimes tend to think we know all we need to know to answer these kinds of questions—but sometimes our humble hearts can help us more than our proud minds. We never really know enough until we recognize that God alone knows it all.

4-6 Some people say, quite rightly, that idols have no actual existence, that there's nothing to them, that there is no God other than our one God, that no matter how many of these so-called gods are named and worshiped they still don't add up to anything but a tall story. They say—again, quite rightly—that there is only one God the Father, that everything comes from him, and that he wants us to live for him. Also, they say that there is only one Master—Jesus the Messiah—and that everything is for his sake, including us. Yes. It's true.

7 In strict logic, then, nothing happened to the meat when it was offered up to an idol. It's just like any other meat. I know that, and you know that. But knowing isn't everything. If it becomes everything, some people end up as know-it-alls who treat others as know-nothings. Real knowledge isn't that insensitive.
We need to be sensitive to the fact that we're not all at the same level of understanding in this. Some of you have spent your entire lives eating "idol meat," and are sure that there's something bad in the meat that then becomes something bad inside of you. An imagination and conscience shaped under those conditions isn't going to change overnight.

8-9 But fortunately God doesn't grade us on our diet. We're neither commended when we clean our plate nor reprimanded when we just can't stomach it. But God does care when you use your freedom carelessly in a way that leads a fellow believer still vulnerable to those old associations to be thrown off track.

10 For instance, say you flaunt your freedom by going to a banquet thrown in honor of idols, where the main course is meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't there great danger if someone still struggling over this issue, someone who looks up to you as knowledgeable and mature, sees you go into that banquet? The danger is that he will become terribly confused—maybe even to the point of getting mixed up himself in what his conscience tells him is wrong.

11-13 Christ gave up his life for that person. Wouldn't you at least be willing to give up going to dinner for him—because, as you say, it doesn't really make any difference? But it does make a difference if you hurt your friend terribly, risking his eternal ruin! When you hurt your friend, you hurt Christ. A free meal here and there isn't worth it at the cost of even one of these "weak ones." So, never go to these idol-tainted meals if there's any chance it will trip up one of your brothers or sisters.

leviticus 9

1-2 On the eighth day, Moses called in Aaron and his sons and the leaders of Israel. He spoke to Aaron: "Take a bull-calf for your Absolution-Offering and a ram for your Whole-Burnt-Offering, both without defect, and offer them to God.

3-4 "Then tell the People of Israel, Take a male goat for an Absolution-Offering and a calf and a lamb, both yearlings without defect, for a Whole-Burnt-Offering and a bull and a ram for a Peace-Offering, to be sacrificed before God with a Grain-Offering mixed with oil, because God will appear to you today."

5-6 They brought the things that Moses had ordered to the Tent of Meeting. The whole congregation came near and stood before God. Moses said, "This is what God commanded you to do so that the Shining Glory of God will appear to you."

7 Moses instructed Aaron, "Approach the Altar and sacrifice your Absolution-Offering and your Whole-Burnt-Offering. Make atonement for yourself and for the people. Sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, just as God commanded."

8-11 Aaron approached the Altar and slaughtered the calf as an Absolution-Offering for himself. Aaron's sons brought the blood to him. He dipped his finger in the blood and smeared some of it on the horns of the Altar. He poured out the rest of the blood at the base of the Altar. He burned the fat, the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver from the Absolution-Offering on the Altar, just as God had commanded Moses. He burned the meat and the skin outside the camp.

12-14 Then he slaughtered the Whole-Burnt-Offering. Aaron's sons handed him the blood and he threw it against each side of the Altar. They handed him the pieces and the head and he burned these on the Altar. He washed the entrails and the legs and burned them on top of the Whole-Burnt-Offering on the Altar.

15-21 Next Aaron presented the offerings of the people. He took the male goat, the Absolution-Offering for the people, slaughtered it, and offered it as an Absolution-Offering just as he did with the first offering. He presented the Whole-Burnt-Offering following the same procedures. He presented the Grain-Offering by taking a handful of it and burning it on the Altar along with the morning Whole-Burnt-Offering. He slaughtered the bull and the ram, the people's Peace-Offerings. Aaron's sons handed him the blood and he threw it against each side of the Altar. The fat pieces from the bull and the ram—the fat tail and the fat that covers the kidney and the lobe of the liver—they laid on the breasts and Aaron burned it on the Altar. Aaron waved the breasts and the right thigh before God as a Wave-Offering, just as God commanded.

22-24 Aaron lifted his hands over the people and blessed them. Having completed the rituals of the Absolution-Offering, the Whole-Burnt-Offering, and the Peace-Offering, he came down from the Altar. Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting. When they came out they blessed the people and the Glory of God appeared to all the people. Fire blazed out from God and consumed the Whole-Burnt-Offering and the fat pieces on the Altar. When all the people saw it happen they cheered loudly and then fell down, bowing in reverence.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

a message for america from

This is a great ad from the good people at ( The ad mentions that the approval rating for Congress is 29%, but the latest poll shows that they have dropped all the way to 14% (see That's a bit of news that the mainstream media will do their best to hide!

It's no surprise that the American people are so dissatisfied with the Democrat-controlled Congress. When liberals are elected to positions of power they automatically screw things up. It's just their way. There hasn't been this kind of opportunity to expand the conservative movement since the closing days of the Carter debacle!

By the way, when you go to the link for, scroll down to see the videos of the "Surrender Is Not An Option" rallies, complete with "Surrender Monkeys." Fantastic!

Friday, June 22, 2007

the media assault.....the major findings

Here are the numbers (from

I. Americans believe the nation is in moral decline,and that the news and entertainment media
are major contributors to the slide.

74%, including majorities of every major demographic group, say they believe moral
values in America are weaker than they were 20 years ago.

48% say moral values are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.

68%, including majorities of virtually every demographic group, say the media –
entertainment and news alike – are having a detrimental effect on moral values in America..

64% agree the news and entertainment media exercise powerful influence over
American moral values. In fact,the substantial majority (74 percent) who believe moral
values are weaker than twenty years ago consider the media to be the second greatest
influence on moral values after parents and families.

II. Consensus remains high on the importance of classical virtues like industry, truthfulness,
thrift, and charity.

Industry: 88% believe in consistently doing their best n the job.

Truthfulness: 51% say lying is always wrong, and 46% accept lying only to
protect someone else’s feelings.

Thrift: A solid majority, 59%, believe in saving for the future even if it means making
sacrifices now. An additional 38% will save when they can. Thus the great majority
of Americans embrace the concept of delayed gratification.

Charity: 94% of American adults believe in giving to others. 45% say they give
regardless of their circumstances, and 49% say they help when they can. Religious
beliefs exercise great influence over attitudes toward charity: religious people are far more
committed to giving than secular people.

III. But what happens when the rubber meets the road? While Americans say they believe in the classical virtues,they often fail to follow through. Significant numbers admit they are willing to act dishonestly in everyday life.

33% of American adults say they would cheat the government by working under the
table while receiving unemployment benefits.

25% admit they would cheat a restaurant that left items off a bill.

25% believe the use of illegal drugs by adults is acceptable.

IV. Personal and societal sexual moral standards are crumbling.

16% say sex between unmarried adults is never wrong, and 49% more say it
depends on the situation. 65% of Americans will excuse sex outside marriage.

Only 67% believe premarital sex among high school kids is always wrong.

Only 49% think homosexuality is wrong. A mere 14% say homosexuality is right, but 26 percent say it depends on the situation.

51% describe themselves as "pro-choice," though only 8 percent believe abortion is
"morally right."

45% say divorce should be legal for any reason at any time.

IV. America is losing its fear of God.

87% of Americans say they believe in God and 52% say they believe the Bible is
God’s authoritative word.

But only 36% believe people should live by God ’s principles. 15% say they will live by their own principles even if they conflict with God ’s principles, and 45% prefer to combine God’s teachings and their own values.

In defiance of the Bible ’s prohibition against taking innocent life, 51% describe
themselves as "pro-choice," and 53% are willing to tolerate physician-assisted suicide.

28% are willing to exclude religious principles from government simply because the
principles are religious in origin. An additional 35% will exclude religious principles
from government on certain issues.

Regular churchgoing has dipped below 50 percent among American adults.

That's a lot of numbers. You can go to the report itself and get a whole lot more detail, but the numbers I quoted above come from the Executive Summary.

One other major fact bears repeating, however. "Heavy" TV viewers (4 hours or more per evening) three times more likely to identify with the Progressive views than were "light" TV viewers (1 hour or less per evening). Further, the vast majority of heavy TV viewers (over 70%) disagree with the belief that TV has been one of the causes or moral decay in America.

Read for yourself the reports I have linked to from this post, my previous post, and my June 14 post. It seems pretty clear that the most efficient way to become a godless liberaliar is to stay glued to the TV every night!

the media assault on american values

On June 14, I posted my thoughts concerning a report issued by the Culture and Media Institute entitled The Media Assault On American Values (see the above link). I summarized the more basic findings in that report, but today I want to go deeper. I have studied the findings and read the report, and there is more to discuss.

First--just who is the Culture and Media Institute? From their website:

The mission of the Culture and Media Institute is to preserve and help restore America’s culture, character, traditional values, and morals against the assault of the liberal media elite, and to promote fair portrayal of social conservatives and religious believers in the media. CMI, the cultural division of the Media Research Center, is dedicated to correcting misconceptions in the media about social conservatism and religious faith.

As the media and entertainment industry grow more aggressive in assailing people and institutions that hold traditional values, CMI is drawing on MRC’s vast resources to counterpunch with a unique mix of timely facts, analyses and arguments.

Next, it is important to note that the Media Assault report is actually the second in a series of reports presenting the most important findings of CMI’s major survey of American cultural and moral attitudes, the National Cultural Values Survey. The first report was entitled America: A Nation in Moral and Spiritual Confusion, and it was simply a summary of the survey's overall findings. I was fascinated with the findings of this report.

First, the survey found that almost all Americans can be categorized in one of three different value groups--Orthodox, Progressive and Independent. These three distinct groups are based upon the respondent's views on the role of religion in everyday life.

The Orthodox (approximately 33% of American adults) are the ones usually referred to as "the religious right" by the media. They believe in God and they believe that our laws should reflect our Christian heritage. The Orthodox worldview sees issues as black and white, with no shades of grey.

The Progressives (about 17% of American adults) are fundamentally secular and believe in freedom from religion as the basis of all public policy. A full 33% of all Progressives do not believe in God. Progressives believe that morality and ethics are relative and situational.

The Independents (about 50% of American adults) could also be described by the political term "moderate." I would use the term "wishy-washy." 91% of Independents believe in God, but they don't necessarily allow that belief to "interfere with" their opinions on political and cultural issues. They tend to side with the Orthodox on issues of politics and social issues, but they tend to side with the Progressives on issues of honesty and character.

Very interesting! Now, for the major findings--see the next post.

yesterday in history

How foolish was I yesterday? Periodically, I post "Today in History" items that I find interesting, and also because I've received feedback that others find it interesting as well. Then, I foolishly let June 21 slide by with no comment! Let's correct that today, on the 22nd.

June 21, 1788--- The U.S. Constitution was officially ratified when New Hampshire became the ninth and last state necessary to vote for ratification. See

June 21, 1964--- In Neshoba County in central Mississippi, three civil rights field workers disappeared after investigating the burning of an African American church by the Ku Klux Klan. Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, both white New Yorkers, had traveled to heavily segregated Mississippi in 1964 to help organize civil rights efforts on behalf of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). The third man, James Chaney, was a local African American man who had joined CORE in 1963. The disappearance of the three young men garnered national attention and led to a massive FBI investigation that was code-named MIBURN, for "Mississippi Burning." Exactly 41 years later, on June 21, 2005, Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty of three counts of manslaughter for the murders of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner. Eighty-year-old Killen, known as an outspoken white supremacist and part-time Baptist minister, was sentenced to 60 years in prison.

These three dates in history--June 21 of 1788, 1968 and 2005--are linked, in my opinion. One of the key building blocks in the foundation of America, and the Constitution that governs America, is the rule of law. Our government is constrained by the rule of law. Our elected officials are constrained by the rule of law. Man's conduct towards others is ruled by law. It is this rule of law that helps to preserve freedom in America. We are free because no man, even a man holding high public office, is allowed to violate the law.

The rule of law is a principle that was codified by the Constitution. That is the principle that was flouted by the men in power in Neshoba County back in 1964. That is the principle that was reasserted by the civil rights victories of the 1960's, and by the 2005 verdict that brought Edgar Ray Killen to justice.

There has never, in the history of the world, been a nation with a perfect record of upholding the rule of law. By the same token, there has never been a nation as successful as the United States of America in upholding that principle, or in correcting past violations of that principle. It is for that reason, among others, that there has never been a nation of people as free as the people of America. We are truly blessed, and we should be thankful.

1 corinthians 7

1 Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations?

2-6 Certainly—but only within a certain context. It's good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to "stand up for your rights." Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

7 Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

8-9 I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me. But if they can't manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single.

10-11 And if you are married, stay married. This is the Master's command, not mine. If a wife should leave her husband, she must either remain single or else come back and make things right with him. And a husband has no right to get rid of his wife.

12-14 For the rest of you who are in mixed marriages—Christian married to non-Christian—we have no explicit command from the Master. So this is what you must do. If you are a man with a wife who is not a believer but who still wants to live with you, hold on to her. If you are a woman with a husband who is not a believer but he wants to live with you, hold on to him. The unbelieving husband shares to an extent in the holiness of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is likewise touched by the holiness of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be left out; as it is, they also are included in the spiritual purposes of God.

15-16 On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse walks out, you've got to let him or her go. You don't have to hold on desperately. God has called us to make the best of it, as peacefully as we can. You never know, wife: The way you handle this might bring your husband not only back to you but to God. You never know, husband: The way you handle this might bring your wife not only back to you but to God.

17 And don't be wishing you were someplace else or with someone else. Where you are right now is God's place for you. Live and obey and love and believe right there. God, not your marital status, defines your life. Don't think I'm being harder on you than on the others. I give this same counsel in all the churches.

18-19 Were you Jewish at the time God called you? Don't try to remove the evidence. Were you non-Jewish at the time of your call? Don't become a Jew. Being Jewish isn't the point. The really important thing is obeying God's call, following his commands.

20-22 Stay where you were when God called your name. Were you a slave? Slavery is no roadblock to obeying and believing. I don't mean you're stuck and can't leave. If you have a chance at freedom, go ahead and take it. I'm simply trying to point out that under your new Master you're going to experience a marvelous freedom you would never have dreamed of. On the other hand, if you were free when Christ called you, you'll experience a delightful "enslavement to God" you would never have dreamed of.

23-24 All of you, slave and free both, were once held hostage in a sinful society. Then a huge sum was paid out for your ransom. So please don't, out of old habit, slip back into being or doing what everyone else tells you. Friends, stay where you were called to be. God is there. Hold the high ground with him at your side.

25-28 The Master did not give explicit direction regarding virgins, but as one much experienced in the mercy of the Master and loyal to him all the way, you can trust my counsel. Because of the current pressures on us from all sides, I think it would probably be best to stay just as you are. Are you married? Stay married. Are you unmarried? Don't get married. But there's certainly no sin in getting married, whether you're a virgin or not. All I am saying is that when you marry, you take on additional stress in an already stressful time, and I want to spare you if possible.

29-31 I do want to point out, friends, that time is of the essence. There is no time to waste, so don't complicate your lives unnecessarily. Keep it simple —in marriage, grief, joy, whatever. Even in ordinary things—your daily routines of shopping, and so on. Deal as sparingly as possible with the things the world thrusts on you. This world as you see it is on its way out.

32-35 I want you to live as free of complications as possible. When you're unmarried, you're free to concentrate on simply pleasing the Master. Marriage involves you in all the nuts and bolts of domestic life and in wanting to please your spouse, leading to so many more demands on your attention. The time and energy that married people spend on caring for and nurturing each other, the unmarried can spend in becoming whole and holy instruments of God. I'm trying to be helpful and make it as easy as possible for you, not make things harder. All I want is for you to be able to develop a way of life in which you can spend plenty of time together with the Master without a lot of distractions.

36-38 If a man has a woman friend to whom he is loyal but never intended to marry, having decided to serve God as a "single," and then changes his mind, deciding he should marry her, he should go ahead and marry. It's no sin; it's not even a "step down" from celibacy, as some say. On the other hand, if a man is comfortable in his decision for a single life in service to God and it's entirely his own conviction and not imposed on him by others, he ought to stick with it. Marriage is spiritually and morally right and not inferior to singleness in any way, although as I indicated earlier, because of the times we live in, I do have pastoral reasons for encouraging singleness.

39-40 A wife must stay with her husband as long as he lives. If he dies, she is free to marry anyone she chooses. She will, of course, want to marry a believer and have the blessing of the Master. By now you know that I think she'll be better off staying single. The Master, in my opinion, thinks so, too.
Free Counter