...Actually, statistically, McCain would be expected to live through at least one term. The average life expectancy for a US President in the 20th Century (disregarding the two extremes, those who were assassinated, and the two most recent - Bush and Clinton) is 76.04 years. McCain is currently 72-years-old. Ronald Reagan, arguably one of the greatest US Presidents who was instrumental in the fall of communism, was 77 years-old when he left office. To consider the advances of modern medicine, from Richard Nixon to George H.W. Bush (who is still alive), the average lifespan is 85.74. Dick Chaney had had four heart attacks before he took office, and he is about to complete his second term as Vice President of the United States.
If Palin were running for president, yes, I would vote for her over John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader. Yes, I would be voting for McCain's running mate rather than him. As the post mentioned, conservatives have been taken for granted by candidates like John McCain. Hopefully, the party will realize that it will be successful by nominating conservative candidates like Palin and not McCain.
Statistically, .01% of the blog entry referenced the fact that she was "hot". To suggest that the author would vote for her because of her appearance one would have to only ready the first three sentences, which were really a "tongue-in-cheek" rhetorical device.
The post really introduced the folly of those who support Barack Obama, a candidate for President, that attempt to discredit the qualifications and experience of Sara Palin, a candidate for Vice President. A quick comparison reveals that her resume has more pertinent and relevant entries then their nomination for the highest executive office. It would stand to reason that Obama supporters would want to keep the whole "experience and qualifications" thing on the "down-low" because the discussion just opens the door for scrutiny of their inexperienced and unqualified candidate.
Sara Palin is pro-life. She believes that it is wrong to stab a baby in the head, crush its bones, and suck it out with a vacuum. Barack Obama, not only supports abortion, but while a state senator in the Illinois Legislature, he voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. This legislation would have said that BABIES who survived induced labor in order to be aborted should receive medical attention instead of the inhumane practice of leaving them to die...
Think about that for a second, we live in a society where it was necessary to implement a law that says that a baby that survived an attempt to kill it, and was actually born should receive medical attention, and we have people who fought it, that said that it is "okay" to neglect it and let it die...God help us...I'm sick and am done writing for now...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Look Out!!
She's hot! She's conservative! She's an athlete! She's a member of the NRA! Did I say that she was hot?!!!
I wasn't sure what I was going to do with my vote in November. Like many other conservatives, I have had it with the pseudo-conservatism of John McCain and the George Bush. McCain was impressive at the Saddleback debate, but this was the first time. Was this genuine, or was this a move to the right trying to "solidify his base".
I'm tired of being "solidified", but I can't vote for Obama. The US fought communism for over forty years after the end of World War II. I don't really want to become what many have died to prevent.
With McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential running mate, I may have to put off my "don't-take-conservatives-for-granted" vote that I had been planning for the Republicans this year for another four years. Furthermore, just two days has shown that the race is going to be entertaining. McCain (or his advisers) have made a brilliant pick, one that will surely expose the inadequacies and dangers of the Democrat ticket.
Don't get me wrong; I don't have my "hopes up". Many of the Obama supporters with which I have talked blindly and religiously follow him and/or the Democrat party. John McCain could air an add showing irrefutable evidence of Barack Obama robbing a bank, and these people would either say that he was Robbin Hood getting ready to redistribute to the poor, or that it was a right-wing conspiracy. It will be interesting, and it already has been, however, to listen to the "talking heads" stretch, bend, and snap what is truth in order to get their candidate elected. In the words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "[their] hypocracy knows no bounds."
I will spend more time on this in later entries: What is up is down. What is down is up. I even heard the "moderate" Bill O'Riley say on Friday that he cannot take this "B.S." anymore, that what is being said is an insult to average intelligence. For example, is there really a "thinking" person that doesn't see the lunacy of an Obama supporter saying that Sarah Palin lacks the necesary experience for the office of Vice-President?
Let's say neither of these individuals had entered politics (Palin and Obama). Each submits a resume for an executive job at a Fortune 500 company (i.e, a CEO position). I'm not going to take the time here to list what would appear in the two documents, but I can't imagine that it would be disputed that she is going to get the job. She is much more qualified and has much more experience to run a company than Obama, yet his supporters are already clamoring that she doesn't stack up. We are talking about the biggest executive postions that exist, the President and Vice-President of the United States.
What will be fully evident is the demonization of conservatism by a group of people who could care less about "the people" and are only concerned about their own aquiessence and retainment of power. Conservatives are accused of hating minorities...Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez. They are said to oppress women...Sarah Palin, Condaliza Rice.
The truth is, is that conservatism treats people fairly. It doesn't examine skin color or race. It looks for excellence. If the best candidate is a women, then she's hired. If the most qualified has black skin, then he get's the job. Conservatives don't factor race and skin color in their decisions. Everyone is a human being. Everyone is God's creation. What is fair and just, is what will be done. Let's see what happens now that McCain has changed the complexion of the presidential race!!!
I wasn't sure what I was going to do with my vote in November. Like many other conservatives, I have had it with the pseudo-conservatism of John McCain and the George Bush. McCain was impressive at the Saddleback debate, but this was the first time. Was this genuine, or was this a move to the right trying to "solidify his base".
I'm tired of being "solidified", but I can't vote for Obama. The US fought communism for over forty years after the end of World War II. I don't really want to become what many have died to prevent.
With McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential running mate, I may have to put off my "don't-take-conservatives-for-granted" vote that I had been planning for the Republicans this year for another four years. Furthermore, just two days has shown that the race is going to be entertaining. McCain (or his advisers) have made a brilliant pick, one that will surely expose the inadequacies and dangers of the Democrat ticket.
Don't get me wrong; I don't have my "hopes up". Many of the Obama supporters with which I have talked blindly and religiously follow him and/or the Democrat party. John McCain could air an add showing irrefutable evidence of Barack Obama robbing a bank, and these people would either say that he was Robbin Hood getting ready to redistribute to the poor, or that it was a right-wing conspiracy. It will be interesting, and it already has been, however, to listen to the "talking heads" stretch, bend, and snap what is truth in order to get their candidate elected. In the words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "[their] hypocracy knows no bounds."
I will spend more time on this in later entries: What is up is down. What is down is up. I even heard the "moderate" Bill O'Riley say on Friday that he cannot take this "B.S." anymore, that what is being said is an insult to average intelligence. For example, is there really a "thinking" person that doesn't see the lunacy of an Obama supporter saying that Sarah Palin lacks the necesary experience for the office of Vice-President?
Let's say neither of these individuals had entered politics (Palin and Obama). Each submits a resume for an executive job at a Fortune 500 company (i.e, a CEO position). I'm not going to take the time here to list what would appear in the two documents, but I can't imagine that it would be disputed that she is going to get the job. She is much more qualified and has much more experience to run a company than Obama, yet his supporters are already clamoring that she doesn't stack up. We are talking about the biggest executive postions that exist, the President and Vice-President of the United States.
What will be fully evident is the demonization of conservatism by a group of people who could care less about "the people" and are only concerned about their own aquiessence and retainment of power. Conservatives are accused of hating minorities...Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez. They are said to oppress women...Sarah Palin, Condaliza Rice.
The truth is, is that conservatism treats people fairly. It doesn't examine skin color or race. It looks for excellence. If the best candidate is a women, then she's hired. If the most qualified has black skin, then he get's the job. Conservatives don't factor race and skin color in their decisions. Everyone is a human being. Everyone is God's creation. What is fair and just, is what will be done. Let's see what happens now that McCain has changed the complexion of the presidential race!!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Voting Rights?
I had AM radio on as I drove home from work this evening. Michael Savage was on. He said something that to a supporter of freedom sounded outrageous at first, but then, after considering the statement and accompanying argument, it was difficult to dismiss it as insane "right-wing" paranoia.
He said that people on government welfare should suspend their right to vote while receiving the assistance, that instead of "one man/one vote" it should be "one working man/one vote".
Taking away the right of a US citizen to vote? This sounds fascist...communist...
When considering his point, that a welfare population that votes actually leads to a fascist state, a socialistic state, it was intriguing.
Listen to the rhetoric coming from today's politicians, today's presidential candidates. It has become a contest of who can give out the most "goodies". Who is going to raise the minimum wage? Who will be the greatest Robin Hood by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to "the poor" via social programs. How many of today's voters look to the government to provide for them. Rather than seeing a hardworking, risk-taking entrepreneur such as Bill Gates as someone who has earned what he has, how many Americans see him as a "lucky" aristocrat that has the ability to "suck up all the money" and keep the serfs working on the Manor? Instead of striving to be like him, they want to take from him.
These ideas run parallel to those espoused by Karl Marx. It was and is this type of thinking to which those that live in countries such as China and Cuba subscribe. These ideas have allowed the elite to control their populations by convincing them that the elimination of freedoms is necessary to facilitate a "fair" environment in which everyone gets their "fair share".
So am I saying that we shouldn't take care of those in need? By no means. It is a "slippery slope", however, to designate the government to do the job.
I would challenge anyone to find one place in scripture where Jesus or any of the apostles (i.e., Paul) even suggested that it was the job of the Roman Government to assist the poor, the widows, the children. No, they were constantly assigning this responsibility to "believers", those who follow Christ.
"But what if the Church doesn't do its job?", so many people say. Fine, have the government do it, but also remember the trade off. Consider all the helpless government dependents today. Do they always vote for what is best for the country? Do they make logical, informed and judicial decisions as to who gets their votes? Sadly, the answer is often "no." They selfishly and egocentrically cast their support to whoever will continue to provide for them, even when those who make the promises promote agendas that contradict the pursuit of liberty and freedom. It is only natural, a human instinct to survive.
What should be done then? My distrust for those in government's abuse of powers will not allow me to agree with Michael Savage, that voting rights should be taken away from those who don't work. People must know, however, that freedom comes at a cost. Karl Marx sold his communist ideas by promising a utopia where those who can, take care of those who can't. Reality says that there is another form of existence: those who can, but don't.
Ultimately, the price of freedom is the acceptance that "bad" things will happen. The charity may not extend far enough to help every starving child, every person who truly can't provide for his or herself. We can't have it both ways though. We cannot promote Thomas Jefferson as a hero when he said "...life, liberty, and happiness" while trying to juggle the teachings of Karl Marx that said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This effort inevitably results in a electorate that slowly surrenders freedom after freedom, slowly creeps from a free nation to the "boiled frog" that wakes up one day under a compassionate tyranny.
He said that people on government welfare should suspend their right to vote while receiving the assistance, that instead of "one man/one vote" it should be "one working man/one vote".
Taking away the right of a US citizen to vote? This sounds fascist...communist...
When considering his point, that a welfare population that votes actually leads to a fascist state, a socialistic state, it was intriguing.
Listen to the rhetoric coming from today's politicians, today's presidential candidates. It has become a contest of who can give out the most "goodies". Who is going to raise the minimum wage? Who will be the greatest Robin Hood by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to "the poor" via social programs. How many of today's voters look to the government to provide for them. Rather than seeing a hardworking, risk-taking entrepreneur such as Bill Gates as someone who has earned what he has, how many Americans see him as a "lucky" aristocrat that has the ability to "suck up all the money" and keep the serfs working on the Manor? Instead of striving to be like him, they want to take from him.
These ideas run parallel to those espoused by Karl Marx. It was and is this type of thinking to which those that live in countries such as China and Cuba subscribe. These ideas have allowed the elite to control their populations by convincing them that the elimination of freedoms is necessary to facilitate a "fair" environment in which everyone gets their "fair share".
So am I saying that we shouldn't take care of those in need? By no means. It is a "slippery slope", however, to designate the government to do the job.
I would challenge anyone to find one place in scripture where Jesus or any of the apostles (i.e., Paul) even suggested that it was the job of the Roman Government to assist the poor, the widows, the children. No, they were constantly assigning this responsibility to "believers", those who follow Christ.
"But what if the Church doesn't do its job?", so many people say. Fine, have the government do it, but also remember the trade off. Consider all the helpless government dependents today. Do they always vote for what is best for the country? Do they make logical, informed and judicial decisions as to who gets their votes? Sadly, the answer is often "no." They selfishly and egocentrically cast their support to whoever will continue to provide for them, even when those who make the promises promote agendas that contradict the pursuit of liberty and freedom. It is only natural, a human instinct to survive.
What should be done then? My distrust for those in government's abuse of powers will not allow me to agree with Michael Savage, that voting rights should be taken away from those who don't work. People must know, however, that freedom comes at a cost. Karl Marx sold his communist ideas by promising a utopia where those who can, take care of those who can't. Reality says that there is another form of existence: those who can, but don't.
Ultimately, the price of freedom is the acceptance that "bad" things will happen. The charity may not extend far enough to help every starving child, every person who truly can't provide for his or herself. We can't have it both ways though. We cannot promote Thomas Jefferson as a hero when he said "...life, liberty, and happiness" while trying to juggle the teachings of Karl Marx that said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This effort inevitably results in a electorate that slowly surrenders freedom after freedom, slowly creeps from a free nation to the "boiled frog" that wakes up one day under a compassionate tyranny.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Sensible
...What Would Jesus Do?
He made sense.
He was God, He was the great Creator of the universe, yet still He made sense. Jesus could have said, "...because I said so". He could have wiped the entire human race out of existence for questioning his authority...
He didn't. He constantly validated His teaching with a masterful command of logic and reason. Jesus was not dogmatic. Time after time, He was questioned, drilled, "raked over the coals" for what He said. Often His replies were so powerful that those who heard were left speechless.
Consider John chapter eight where the woman is about to be stoned by the crowd for adultery. The pharisees tried to "trap" Jesus by asking Him if He would suggest that they should not carry out "the Law" and stone her. Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." One by one, stones dropped to the ground instead of off the woman's head.
Why? Is it because the people had a "change of heart". Some maybe, but the scripture later reveals that the Pharisees where among those who sought to kill Jesus for exchanges like this. Why? Because he "made sense." He made so much sense that while their selfish desires sought to kill the woman, their intellect could not find a valid warrant to contend with Jesus' answer.
Contrast this with what happens in the building called "the church" on Sunday mornings. While there is no Biblical or historical evidence to support the argument, congregations are expected to be sitting in a pew every Sunday morning and to pray for those who are not. It is strongly implied that attending Sunday morning services is an imperative part of Christianity. "To honor the Sabbath" is offered as justification, yet a Biblical study of "the Sabbath" would reveal that attending Church on Sunday morning does not come close to the clearly defined tenets of "Sabbath honoring".
Speaking of "the Sabbath", consider again where the "synagogue rulers" in response to Jesus healing a crippled woman, told those gathered there, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." (Luke 13:14 NIV) Jesus rebuked them saying, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" (Luke 13:15-16 NIV). Finally, verse 17 says, "When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated..."
Why were they humiliated? Why didn't they respond? Jesus "made sense". That is why. He wasn't dogmatic. He didn't twist and take scripture out of context to fit to validate his teachings. His argument was so clear and effective, that the discussion stopped.
Contrast this with some of the church's burdensome teachings. Pews, alters, musical styles, service attendance, etc., etc., things that have no scriptural basis are crammed down the throats of those who attend in dogmatic fashions that often do not resemble anything logical. How many of today's Christians are "afraid" to invite someone to a service for fear that he or she will hear half of the service spent on one of these inconsistencies with the implication that any disagreement means that one must not know Jesus.
No one would ever be hesitant to invite one to hear Jesus. Of all those throughout history with the authority to be dogmatic, He never was. Why does those in the building called "the church" do any different?
He made sense.
He was God, He was the great Creator of the universe, yet still He made sense. Jesus could have said, "...because I said so". He could have wiped the entire human race out of existence for questioning his authority...
He didn't. He constantly validated His teaching with a masterful command of logic and reason. Jesus was not dogmatic. Time after time, He was questioned, drilled, "raked over the coals" for what He said. Often His replies were so powerful that those who heard were left speechless.
Consider John chapter eight where the woman is about to be stoned by the crowd for adultery. The pharisees tried to "trap" Jesus by asking Him if He would suggest that they should not carry out "the Law" and stone her. Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." One by one, stones dropped to the ground instead of off the woman's head.
Why? Is it because the people had a "change of heart". Some maybe, but the scripture later reveals that the Pharisees where among those who sought to kill Jesus for exchanges like this. Why? Because he "made sense." He made so much sense that while their selfish desires sought to kill the woman, their intellect could not find a valid warrant to contend with Jesus' answer.
Contrast this with what happens in the building called "the church" on Sunday mornings. While there is no Biblical or historical evidence to support the argument, congregations are expected to be sitting in a pew every Sunday morning and to pray for those who are not. It is strongly implied that attending Sunday morning services is an imperative part of Christianity. "To honor the Sabbath" is offered as justification, yet a Biblical study of "the Sabbath" would reveal that attending Church on Sunday morning does not come close to the clearly defined tenets of "Sabbath honoring".
Speaking of "the Sabbath", consider again where the "synagogue rulers" in response to Jesus healing a crippled woman, told those gathered there, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." (Luke 13:14 NIV) Jesus rebuked them saying, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" (Luke 13:15-16 NIV). Finally, verse 17 says, "When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated..."
Why were they humiliated? Why didn't they respond? Jesus "made sense". That is why. He wasn't dogmatic. He didn't twist and take scripture out of context to fit to validate his teachings. His argument was so clear and effective, that the discussion stopped.
Contrast this with some of the church's burdensome teachings. Pews, alters, musical styles, service attendance, etc., etc., things that have no scriptural basis are crammed down the throats of those who attend in dogmatic fashions that often do not resemble anything logical. How many of today's Christians are "afraid" to invite someone to a service for fear that he or she will hear half of the service spent on one of these inconsistencies with the implication that any disagreement means that one must not know Jesus.
No one would ever be hesitant to invite one to hear Jesus. Of all those throughout history with the authority to be dogmatic, He never was. Why does those in the building called "the church" do any different?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
