A veteran Justice Department section chief has been transferred out of the DC office to the US Attorney's office in South Carolina after he recommended going forward on a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party for disrupting a Pennsylvania polling place in last year's elections. The complaint was later dismissed by Obama administration political appointees in the Justice Department. I have to think that being sent from DC to SC is a serious demotion....
Is anyone worried about our freedoms yet?
Here is an excerpt from the article:
Justice Department insiders said Mr. Coates' transfer was not unexpected, despite the fact that many within the department consider the veteran prosecutor as key to efforts by Justice to apply federal civil rights laws in a fair and neutral manner.
Members of the Civil Rights Commission also have questioned whether the decision to drop the New Black Panther Party complaint constituted a departure from long-standing enforcement policy and whether the dismissal might lead to more voter intimidation.
Click on the title to read the entire article.
---Katie
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Would The Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Here a well-known Science Fiction author, a democrat, a newspaper columnist laments the state of journalism that has allowed Democrats to get away with actions that Republicans would never be allowed to get away with. And we are all suffering from their lack of oversight. How I wish everyone had heeded his message 14 months ago.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
Please click on the title to read the entire article. Our political leaders are willing to destroy our country to feed their own greed and lust for power. We need to wake up!
---Katie
-----------------------
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
Please click on the title to read the entire article. Our political leaders are willing to destroy our country to feed their own greed and lust for power. We need to wake up!
---Katie
-----------------------
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?
This article is from one of my favorite writers, Walter Williams. My favorite quote from the article has to be, "For the most part, white bigots are no longer respected among whites and I look forward to the day when black bigots are no longer respected among blacks." I think the outright bigotry of some blacks toward whites it the dirty little secret that the left chooses to ignore in discussions about race. And yes, Walter Williams is black....
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?
by Walter E. Williams
Former president Jimmy Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." That's from a man who earlier referred to Obama as "This black boy" on the Jim Lehrer "News Hour." New York Times social critic Maureen Dowd said, in reference to Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting "Liar" during Obama's address on health care before the joint session of Congress, "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said he "began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about 'the Constitution' and 'taking our country back.'" Kurtz asked whether the massive tea parties and other public protests reflect a "distinct discomfort with the country's first black president." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, New York Gov. David Paterson, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and other leftists claim that racism is behind criticism of President Obama.
(snip - click on the title to read the whole article!)
Americans should disavow and not fall prey to the racial rope-a-dope being played on us by the nation's race hustlers.
-------
Thank goodness for reasonable people in the media!
----Katie
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?
by Walter E. Williams
Former president Jimmy Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." That's from a man who earlier referred to Obama as "This black boy" on the Jim Lehrer "News Hour." New York Times social critic Maureen Dowd said, in reference to Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting "Liar" during Obama's address on health care before the joint session of Congress, "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said he "began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about 'the Constitution' and 'taking our country back.'" Kurtz asked whether the massive tea parties and other public protests reflect a "distinct discomfort with the country's first black president." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, New York Gov. David Paterson, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and other leftists claim that racism is behind criticism of President Obama.
(snip - click on the title to read the whole article!)
Americans should disavow and not fall prey to the racial rope-a-dope being played on us by the nation's race hustlers.
-------
Thank goodness for reasonable people in the media!
----Katie
Monday, September 28, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Does Disagreeing With Obama Make You a Racist?
Of course it does!
(To check out the very funny blogger that created the flow chart, click on the title!)
---Katie
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Rest In Peace
The photo above is of Jim Pouillon, an anti-abortion protester who was shot and killed outside Owosso High School in Owosso, Michigan, early Friday morning. Am waiting for Obama's statement.....
---Katie
Expecting your "Bound Conscience" to Be Respected?
Check out this quote from a "revisionist" blog. If you think you are going to be allowed to continue objecting to sexually active, unmarried pastors (gay or straight) and rostered leaders in the ELCA, think again!
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." —Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
So I guess the only thing they won't tolerate is intolerance....hmmm.
Click on the title for the discussion over at Stand Firm.
Hat tip to Eric Swensson!
----Katie
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." —Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
So I guess the only thing they won't tolerate is intolerance....hmmm.
Click on the title for the discussion over at Stand Firm.
Hat tip to Eric Swensson!
----Katie
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
A View from the Other Side
I've had people ask me how the ELCA can justify their recent actions. Here is one pastor's point of view.
Dear Friends,
You have read two eloquent pastoral letters in this issue, one from Mark Hanson, the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, and one from B. Penrose Hoover, our own bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod. As your pastor, I feel that I also ought to share my thoughts with you about what was decided at the churchwide assembly regarding ordination of gay and lesbian persons in long-term committed same sex relationships.
In his “Prefaces to the Old Testament, “ Martin Luther said, “Here [in the Scriptures] you will find the swaddling cloths and manger in which Christ lies.” In “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, he said, “Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching.”
No matter which side of the debate one might take, As Lutherans we see the Bible first and foremost for what it teaches us about Jesus. And I believe that what Jesus taught, preached and lived is very instructive to us in this situation.
First, Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. He did, however say a great deal about self-righteousness. In Matthew 7 we read, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” .
Second, Jesus could, and did challenge long accepted and deeply held religious beliefs and practices. He healed on the Sabbath; in the gospel lesson for August 30 he challenges the practices of ritual washing and declared that there were no forbidden foods. In the next few verses he healed the daughter of a gentile, a foreigner.
Third, Jesus chose as his followers, tax collectors and other sinners. He accepted women as worthy of respect in a time when they were considered chattels. Indeed, in John’s gospel a woman, Mary Magdalene, was the first person to see the risen Lord on Easter Sunday.
From this we learn that Jesus was not afraid to challenge accepted practices. He was not afraid to make waves. He was not afraid to befriend those who were considered to be outcasts by the religious people of the day.
Yet, Jesus preached a high, even impossible standard of morality. He taught that all of us are liars, adulterers, and murderers, if we’ve every even thought about those things. He spoke very plainly against divorce and remarriage. He taught that we must love our enemies and forgive endlessly.
For me, what we learn first from Jesus in regard to the decisions of the churchwide assembly, is that we are all sinners, and that we are all desperately in need of God’s grace. No matter where we stand on these issues, none of us is good enough to judge those who are on the other side. Second, we are already doing things that are contrary to the literal interpretation of Scripture. It’s hard now to remember, but ordination of women was just as controversial 40 years ago as are the issues we are facing today. We also accept divorced and remarried people as members of the clergy because we believe in God’s forgiveness and grace. We can do these things because we believe that as times change, the Holy Spirit can and does speak to us in new ways.
Third, as a very practical matter, these new rulings do not change the process by which a congregation calls a pastor. Authority to call a pastor rests with the congregation. No congregation will be forced to call a pastor that they do not feel is right for them, for any reason.
You will hear many things said about these issues in the coming weeks and months. However each of us may feel about these issues, let us remember the life and teachings of or Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and struggle to act in love to God through love to neighbor, as he would have us do.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Pat
-----
One thing I will take the time to dispute - congregations who consistently refuse to call a openly gay pastor will face displeasure and negative consequences from their synod. Perhaps it will not be right away, but eventually synods will not tolerate that type of discrimination any more than they tolerate churches who will not call a minority or a woman.
---Katie
Dear Friends,
You have read two eloquent pastoral letters in this issue, one from Mark Hanson, the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, and one from B. Penrose Hoover, our own bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod. As your pastor, I feel that I also ought to share my thoughts with you about what was decided at the churchwide assembly regarding ordination of gay and lesbian persons in long-term committed same sex relationships.
In his “Prefaces to the Old Testament, “ Martin Luther said, “Here [in the Scriptures] you will find the swaddling cloths and manger in which Christ lies.” In “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, he said, “Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching.”
No matter which side of the debate one might take, As Lutherans we see the Bible first and foremost for what it teaches us about Jesus. And I believe that what Jesus taught, preached and lived is very instructive to us in this situation.
First, Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. He did, however say a great deal about self-righteousness. In Matthew 7 we read, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” .
Second, Jesus could, and did challenge long accepted and deeply held religious beliefs and practices. He healed on the Sabbath; in the gospel lesson for August 30 he challenges the practices of ritual washing and declared that there were no forbidden foods. In the next few verses he healed the daughter of a gentile, a foreigner.
Third, Jesus chose as his followers, tax collectors and other sinners. He accepted women as worthy of respect in a time when they were considered chattels. Indeed, in John’s gospel a woman, Mary Magdalene, was the first person to see the risen Lord on Easter Sunday.
From this we learn that Jesus was not afraid to challenge accepted practices. He was not afraid to make waves. He was not afraid to befriend those who were considered to be outcasts by the religious people of the day.
Yet, Jesus preached a high, even impossible standard of morality. He taught that all of us are liars, adulterers, and murderers, if we’ve every even thought about those things. He spoke very plainly against divorce and remarriage. He taught that we must love our enemies and forgive endlessly.
For me, what we learn first from Jesus in regard to the decisions of the churchwide assembly, is that we are all sinners, and that we are all desperately in need of God’s grace. No matter where we stand on these issues, none of us is good enough to judge those who are on the other side. Second, we are already doing things that are contrary to the literal interpretation of Scripture. It’s hard now to remember, but ordination of women was just as controversial 40 years ago as are the issues we are facing today. We also accept divorced and remarried people as members of the clergy because we believe in God’s forgiveness and grace. We can do these things because we believe that as times change, the Holy Spirit can and does speak to us in new ways.
Third, as a very practical matter, these new rulings do not change the process by which a congregation calls a pastor. Authority to call a pastor rests with the congregation. No congregation will be forced to call a pastor that they do not feel is right for them, for any reason.
You will hear many things said about these issues in the coming weeks and months. However each of us may feel about these issues, let us remember the life and teachings of or Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and struggle to act in love to God through love to neighbor, as he would have us do.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Pat
-----
One thing I will take the time to dispute - congregations who consistently refuse to call a openly gay pastor will face displeasure and negative consequences from their synod. Perhaps it will not be right away, but eventually synods will not tolerate that type of discrimination any more than they tolerate churches who will not call a minority or a woman.
---Katie
Confessions of a Lutheran Refugee
This is a good read. I don't completely agree with the view of women's ordination, because I believe that you can find scriptural support for both sides of the issue.
Confessions of a Lutheran Refugee
Lars Walker
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (as you doubtless know) decided, last month, to bless same-sex relationships, and to allow open homosexuals (if monogamous) to serve as clergy. I'm sure this action will lead to a perceptible (possibly dramatic) exodus of conservative churches and individuals from the denomination. I approve of this, and encourage it.
Still, I can already hear the accusations coming from the ELCA liberals and homosexual activists—“This isn’t about truth! It’s about hate! You people just can’t get past your homophobia!”
And in a sense, I understand the criticism. One might reasonably ask, “Why now? Has this problem come up all of a sudden (like the unpredicted tornado that knocked the cross off the steeple of Central Lutheran Church, a convention venue, during deliberations)? Why strain out this camel, when you’ve swallowed so many camels already?”
Please click on the title to read the rest.
----Katie
Confessions of a Lutheran Refugee
Lars Walker
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (as you doubtless know) decided, last month, to bless same-sex relationships, and to allow open homosexuals (if monogamous) to serve as clergy. I'm sure this action will lead to a perceptible (possibly dramatic) exodus of conservative churches and individuals from the denomination. I approve of this, and encourage it.
Still, I can already hear the accusations coming from the ELCA liberals and homosexual activists—“This isn’t about truth! It’s about hate! You people just can’t get past your homophobia!”
And in a sense, I understand the criticism. One might reasonably ask, “Why now? Has this problem come up all of a sudden (like the unpredicted tornado that knocked the cross off the steeple of Central Lutheran Church, a convention venue, during deliberations)? Why strain out this camel, when you’ve swallowed so many camels already?”
Please click on the title to read the rest.
----Katie
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Damage at Central Lutheran
Here is the article from Central Lutheran's website and pictures of the damage:
Tornadic winds do damage at Central
Historic steeple damaged; Outdoor food venues destroyed
A rare downtown tornado passed close enough to Central this afternoon to completely destroy the two outdoor food venues set up for the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, The Carillon Cafe and Pub Central. The winds came quickly and swiftly at about 2:00 p.m. today. There were no public events in session at Central when the tornado passed. The Assembly was in legislative session across the street at the Minneapolis Convention Center. There were about 75 persons inside Central when the storm struck. They were all ushered safely to the Lower Narthex by Central's security team. There were no injuries.
The Carillon Cafe had served nearly 800 persons the last two days and Pub Central was full last evening for its opening day. Those hospitality offerings to guests of the Assembly are canceled. The Great Lutheran "Potluck Favorites" Supper, scheduled for Thursday, previously to be served from the North Plaza, will now take place at the Minneapolis Convention Center beginning at 5:30 p.m. The supper immediately precedes the National Lutheran Choir Hymn Festival at Central, beginning at 8:00 p.m. All other Assembly week events at Central will go ahead as planned.
The Lutherans Concerned North America Eucharist will take place as scheduled tonight at 7:30 p.m.
"We give thanks to God that no one was injured by today's tornado," said the Rev. Rick Nelson, Central's senior pastor. "I also thank God for the extreme talent and seemingly endless energies of our magnificent staff, particularly all related to events, security, and maintenance around this place; and also the Convention Center catering staff who’ve been scrambling outside to make for safe and clean passage. All of them are wonderful servants of God, and faithful practitioners of grace."
Photos by Joe Bjordal
---Katie
This Does Make Me Ponder....
I have been watching the ELCA Churchwide Assembly proceedings via live feed at elca.org. Today a tornado touched down in the area of the convention center. As voting members were discussing an amendment to the sexuality social statement which would have strengthened and supported wording regarding marriage, family and children, an amendment which was defeated, unfortunately, the winds knocked the cross off the steeple of nearby Central Lutheran Church, a church which has been ardent in its support of changing ministry standards and would be the location of the Goodsoil event that evening. Apparently part of the roof of the convention center was damaged as well.
I am a right wing nut for seeing any correlation between these events.
yeah
---Katie
I am a right wing nut for seeing any correlation between these events.
yeah
---Katie
Whole Foods CEO Ticks off the Liberals
How dare he suggest free market solutions to the healthcare "crisis" when we are so close to getting government control of the whole thing!!!!
Check it out by clicking on the title....and shop at Whole Foods!
---Katie
Check it out by clicking on the title....and shop at Whole Foods!
---Katie
Can you "Come Out" more than once?
I guess so....
Ninety-five Lutherans come out during ELCA vote on gay pastors
by Andy Birkey
As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) meets in Minneapolis to vote on the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian clergy, proponents are making sure the stories of gay and lesbian pastors are heard. Advocates are distributing a document in which 95 members of the Lutheran clergy — a number that references Martin Luther’s 95 Theses — announce that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The booklet, “One Table, Many Blessings” (pdf), shares how the ban on openly gay clergy has affected their lives.
Click on the title to read the entire article.
The Goodsoil folks did this at the last assembly as well. I can't say that the same people are in the two booklets because I don't have a copy from last time, but come on, folks, it is old news that Anita Hill is gay. Jen Nagel's ordination was in the news a lot last year. I think the press treating this as, "Oh, wow, look at all these pastors' coming out!" is a little, well, dramatic, if not disingenuous.
---Katie
Ninety-five Lutherans come out during ELCA vote on gay pastors
by Andy Birkey
As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) meets in Minneapolis to vote on the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian clergy, proponents are making sure the stories of gay and lesbian pastors are heard. Advocates are distributing a document in which 95 members of the Lutheran clergy — a number that references Martin Luther’s 95 Theses — announce that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The booklet, “One Table, Many Blessings” (pdf), shares how the ban on openly gay clergy has affected their lives.
Click on the title to read the entire article.
The Goodsoil folks did this at the last assembly as well. I can't say that the same people are in the two booklets because I don't have a copy from last time, but come on, folks, it is old news that Anita Hill is gay. Jen Nagel's ordination was in the news a lot last year. I think the press treating this as, "Oh, wow, look at all these pastors' coming out!" is a little, well, dramatic, if not disingenuous.
---Katie
ELCA Getting Noticed
I've been keeping up with the ELCA Churchwide Assembly via the live feed at ELCA.org, twitter (#CWA09), and over at ALPB, where Richard Johnson is doing his usual excellent job. I thought rather than just post his stuff here, I'd post things I found outside the usual channels. Here is an article from the Get Religion blog:
Let's Get Ready to Rumble
Posted by Mollie
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is having it’s biennial convention this week and we’re seeing coverage about the most politically exciting topic that will be debated — homosexuality.
There have already been a couple of good stories. It may seem like such a minor thing but I’m impressed that Patrick Condon of the Associated Press had an anecdotal lede with someone opposed to changing the church’s teaching on whether clergy who are in same-sex relationships should be on the church roster. Here it is:
FRIDLEY, Minn. — The Rev. Dave Glesne stood before the members of Redeemer Lutheran Church a few weeks ago and told them there might be some painful decisions in the near future.
Glesne is against letting people in same-sex relationships serve as pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and he says his congregation is behind him. They’re worried this suburban Minneapolis church could find itself on the losing side as leaders of the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination vote on whether to take that step at their biennial national convention, which starts Monday in Minneapolis.
“Of course the question was asked: What will we do, Pastor Dave, if this goes?” Glesne said. “The conversation we had left me no doubt that we will definitely have a discussion about leaving the ELCA.”
I’m just so used to seeing the heartbreaking stories from the other perspective and only from the other perspective that it’s a refreshing change and reminds us that there will be heartbreak and loss no matter who wins the theological debate. In fact, that’s a major theme of the story and includes some great quotes from people on opposing sides.
Click on the title to read the entire article.
---Katie
Let's Get Ready to Rumble
Posted by Mollie
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is having it’s biennial convention this week and we’re seeing coverage about the most politically exciting topic that will be debated — homosexuality.
There have already been a couple of good stories. It may seem like such a minor thing but I’m impressed that Patrick Condon of the Associated Press had an anecdotal lede with someone opposed to changing the church’s teaching on whether clergy who are in same-sex relationships should be on the church roster. Here it is:
FRIDLEY, Minn. — The Rev. Dave Glesne stood before the members of Redeemer Lutheran Church a few weeks ago and told them there might be some painful decisions in the near future.
Glesne is against letting people in same-sex relationships serve as pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and he says his congregation is behind him. They’re worried this suburban Minneapolis church could find itself on the losing side as leaders of the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination vote on whether to take that step at their biennial national convention, which starts Monday in Minneapolis.
“Of course the question was asked: What will we do, Pastor Dave, if this goes?” Glesne said. “The conversation we had left me no doubt that we will definitely have a discussion about leaving the ELCA.”
I’m just so used to seeing the heartbreaking stories from the other perspective and only from the other perspective that it’s a refreshing change and reminds us that there will be heartbreak and loss no matter who wins the theological debate. In fact, that’s a major theme of the story and includes some great quotes from people on opposing sides.
Click on the title to read the entire article.
---Katie
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
And we want government controlled healthcare...
Three of the four words on this sign are misspelled.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Picture of Obama
This picture shows Obama not bothering to help his "friend" Henry Louis Gates, while the man Obama and Gates called "racist," Crowley, assists the frail Gates down the steps. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.....
---Katie
Friday, July 10, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Cap and Trade Carbongate?
The House just passed the Waxman Cap and Trade Bill which will increase energy costs for everyone....is it all based on faulty information?
Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?
Read more in this editorial from IBDeditorials.com - click on the title!
And if your congresscritter voted for that thing, vote the s*b out!
----Katie
Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?
Read more in this editorial from IBDeditorials.com - click on the title!
And if your congresscritter voted for that thing, vote the s*b out!
----Katie
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Speaking of Bombs....
Were you aware that a series of small bombs have been detonated in NY? Neither was I...
Small Bomb Goes Off Outside Upper East Side Starbucks
New York Daily News ^ | Barry Paddock and Jonathan Lemire
A small improvised explosive device detonated outside an Upper East Side Starbucks early Monday morning, shattering the coffee shop's windows and raising fears of terrorism.
The bomb tore a hole in a wooden bench outside the coffee chain's outpost at Third Ave. and E. 92nd St. when it exploded at 3:30 a.m.
No one was injured in the blast, but it terrified residents who had been fast asleep early on Memorial Day.
"I heard a giant noise -- a big, giant noise, like a crash -- and there was a flash," said Jordan Kovnot, 26, a law student who lives above the Starbucks. "It made me jump up."
"It felt like an earthquake," said Adrianna Ebans, 28, who was among more than a dozen residents evacuated from the apartments above the Starbucks. "We were all really scared."
Scores of detectives are crawling over the blast site, looking for surveillance video and trying to determine the nature of the low-grade explosive device, which investigators believe was either placed on or taped to the bench.
"We don't know the motive. Obviously it's a cause for concern," said Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. "We're going to do an in-depth investigation."
No one had claimed credit for the blast, nor was it called in ahead of time, said Kelly.
Kelly -- who noted that Starbucks branches have been victimized in other cities by protestors angry at the chain's global reach -- said investigators were also exploring whether this morning's blast was connected to other previous small explosions in the city.
Click on the title....
Move along folks, nothing to see here....
---Katie
Small Bomb Goes Off Outside Upper East Side Starbucks
New York Daily News ^ | Barry Paddock and Jonathan Lemire
A small improvised explosive device detonated outside an Upper East Side Starbucks early Monday morning, shattering the coffee shop's windows and raising fears of terrorism.
The bomb tore a hole in a wooden bench outside the coffee chain's outpost at Third Ave. and E. 92nd St. when it exploded at 3:30 a.m.
No one was injured in the blast, but it terrified residents who had been fast asleep early on Memorial Day.
"I heard a giant noise -- a big, giant noise, like a crash -- and there was a flash," said Jordan Kovnot, 26, a law student who lives above the Starbucks. "It made me jump up."
"It felt like an earthquake," said Adrianna Ebans, 28, who was among more than a dozen residents evacuated from the apartments above the Starbucks. "We were all really scared."
Scores of detectives are crawling over the blast site, looking for surveillance video and trying to determine the nature of the low-grade explosive device, which investigators believe was either placed on or taped to the bench.
"We don't know the motive. Obviously it's a cause for concern," said Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. "We're going to do an in-depth investigation."
No one had claimed credit for the blast, nor was it called in ahead of time, said Kelly.
Kelly -- who noted that Starbucks branches have been victimized in other cities by protestors angry at the chain's global reach -- said investigators were also exploring whether this morning's blast was connected to other previous small explosions in the city.
Click on the title....
Move along folks, nothing to see here....
---Katie
Homegrown Islamic Jihad in the Bronx: Now We Are All Israelis
From the Chesler Chronicles:
Riverdale, in the Bronx, is a gloriously leafy, hilly, and peaceful suburb. I have visited its extraordinary gardens and gracious homes which overlook the Hudson river. More often, I’ve visited a close friend and her family who live there. I have studied, dined, and prayed with them. I have attended lectures at Riverdale synagogues. Riverdale is as close to me, both personally, psychologically, and geographically, as was the World Trade Center.
In response to a gruesome series of Islamic-Palestinian synagogue bombings in Europe, police officers guarded Europe’s synagogues and Jewish Centers. Now, synagogues all over New York City, tend to have barricades or some kind of police presence outside. We are now all Israelis: Not just the Jews, but the world’s civilians.
And thus, four African-American converts to Islam, all of whom converted to Islam in prison, have been arrested by the FBI just as they attempted to bomb two Riverdale synagogues, (the Riverdale Jewish Center and the Riverdale Temple), in the Bronx and a New York National Guard air base in Newburgh, New York where they lived and attended a mosque.
Click on the title to read the rest of the article by Phyllis Chesler.
------------
This is pretty ominous. African-Americans who converted to Islam in prison plotted to bomb synagogues in New York. Most media reports of this incident did not include the race or religion of the suspects. The article goes on to quote statistics of prison conversions to Islam, to note that the funding for this recruitment comes from the Saudis, and to suggest that we "reform our prison system, including a reform of our drug laws, so that we jail fewer inmates and do not provide such a fertile breeding ground for anti-American and anti-Jewish Islamic terrorism."
One item I found interesting is that Islam is possibly presented to inmates as a "religion of many colors, as especially friendly to men of African descent with jihad presented as a way to overcome oppression." It is probably not presented that Islamic leaders were instrumentally involved in the African slave trade to America and even today keep slaves and persecute black Africans (Christians and Animists?) in Darfur.
Quite an informative article.
---Katie
Riverdale, in the Bronx, is a gloriously leafy, hilly, and peaceful suburb. I have visited its extraordinary gardens and gracious homes which overlook the Hudson river. More often, I’ve visited a close friend and her family who live there. I have studied, dined, and prayed with them. I have attended lectures at Riverdale synagogues. Riverdale is as close to me, both personally, psychologically, and geographically, as was the World Trade Center.
In response to a gruesome series of Islamic-Palestinian synagogue bombings in Europe, police officers guarded Europe’s synagogues and Jewish Centers. Now, synagogues all over New York City, tend to have barricades or some kind of police presence outside. We are now all Israelis: Not just the Jews, but the world’s civilians.
And thus, four African-American converts to Islam, all of whom converted to Islam in prison, have been arrested by the FBI just as they attempted to bomb two Riverdale synagogues, (the Riverdale Jewish Center and the Riverdale Temple), in the Bronx and a New York National Guard air base in Newburgh, New York where they lived and attended a mosque.
Click on the title to read the rest of the article by Phyllis Chesler.
------------
This is pretty ominous. African-Americans who converted to Islam in prison plotted to bomb synagogues in New York. Most media reports of this incident did not include the race or religion of the suspects. The article goes on to quote statistics of prison conversions to Islam, to note that the funding for this recruitment comes from the Saudis, and to suggest that we "reform our prison system, including a reform of our drug laws, so that we jail fewer inmates and do not provide such a fertile breeding ground for anti-American and anti-Jewish Islamic terrorism."
One item I found interesting is that Islam is possibly presented to inmates as a "religion of many colors, as especially friendly to men of African descent with jihad presented as a way to overcome oppression." It is probably not presented that Islamic leaders were instrumentally involved in the African slave trade to America and even today keep slaves and persecute black Africans (Christians and Animists?) in Darfur.
Quite an informative article.
---Katie
Monday, May 11, 2009
Switched at Birth
How weird would this be....
HEPPNER, Ore. — Two baby girls switched at birth 56 years ago have finally found out about the mistake.
DeeAnn Angell of Fossil and Kay Rene Reed of Condon learned about the mistake from an 86-year-old woman who was a former neighbor.
The former neighbor said that one of the girls' mothers, Marjorie Angell, insisted back in 1953 that she had been given the wrong baby after nurses returned from bathing them.
But her concerns were brushed off.
With both sets of parents dead, the Reed and Angell siblings compared notes and family stories, learning that rumors of a mix-up had been around for years.
Kay Rene Reed decided to get some DNA testing done, and that confirmed the mistake.
But she and DeeAnn say there just have to move forward with their lives now, and they celebrated their latest birthday together earlier this month.
----
Wow.
---Katie
HEPPNER, Ore. — Two baby girls switched at birth 56 years ago have finally found out about the mistake.
DeeAnn Angell of Fossil and Kay Rene Reed of Condon learned about the mistake from an 86-year-old woman who was a former neighbor.
The former neighbor said that one of the girls' mothers, Marjorie Angell, insisted back in 1953 that she had been given the wrong baby after nurses returned from bathing them.
But her concerns were brushed off.
With both sets of parents dead, the Reed and Angell siblings compared notes and family stories, learning that rumors of a mix-up had been around for years.
Kay Rene Reed decided to get some DNA testing done, and that confirmed the mistake.
But she and DeeAnn say there just have to move forward with their lives now, and they celebrated their latest birthday together earlier this month.
----
Wow.
---Katie
Charlie Crist for Senate?
I sure hope not, but it looks like he is running. Conservatives need to get behind someone else, perhaps former House Speaker Marco Rubio who looks like he will be Crist's conservative challenger for the nomination. It is still early in the game, but we don't need another RINO representing Florida! Crist is not a real conservative and does not support limiting government power and spending. Please note that he campaigned in FL for passage of Obama's stimulus package. Enough said.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Massacre Prevented by Armed Citizen
Wonder how much press this will get - not nearly as much as it would have if the thugs had not been prevented from proceeding with what they apparently intended to do!
Click on the title for the entire article.
A group of college students were in an apartment when two armed intruders burst in through a patio door, separated the men and women, and demanded everyone's cell phones and wallets. They they started counting bullets (cartridges for the gun informed). One thug asked the other how many bullets he had - the answer was he had enough.
At that point, one of the students grabbed a gun out of his backpack and shot at the thug who was watching the men, who then ran out of the apartment. The student then ran to the room where the other thug was preparing to rape the student's girlfriend. He told the girls to get down and started shooting. The thug jumped out the window and expired shortly thereafter, near his own apartment.
We have had several tragedies recently where multiple people were killed by a gunman. Here we have a massacre prevented by an armed citizen. I wish this would get as much press as the other incidents, but since it advances the idea that people can and should be able to defend themselves with deadly force, we probably won't hear much about it.
Perhaps 20/20 could do an expose on everything that this young man did wrong and why he should not have been armed....
---Katie
Click on the title for the entire article.
A group of college students were in an apartment when two armed intruders burst in through a patio door, separated the men and women, and demanded everyone's cell phones and wallets. They they started counting bullets (cartridges for the gun informed). One thug asked the other how many bullets he had - the answer was he had enough.
At that point, one of the students grabbed a gun out of his backpack and shot at the thug who was watching the men, who then ran out of the apartment. The student then ran to the room where the other thug was preparing to rape the student's girlfriend. He told the girls to get down and started shooting. The thug jumped out the window and expired shortly thereafter, near his own apartment.
We have had several tragedies recently where multiple people were killed by a gunman. Here we have a massacre prevented by an armed citizen. I wish this would get as much press as the other incidents, but since it advances the idea that people can and should be able to defend themselves with deadly force, we probably won't hear much about it.
Perhaps 20/20 could do an expose on everything that this young man did wrong and why he should not have been armed....
---Katie
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
How Others Think.... (ELCA)
There are some interesting insights in this piece for anyone who has ever asked, "How can these people think this is a good idea?"
How others think . . .
by Rev. Frederick W. Baltz, WordAlone board member, Galena, Ill.
When people in the churches hear what is coming before the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly in August they often ask: "How can anyone believe we should make such a change when the Bible is clear?"
Allow me to offer an opinion about that, after wondering myself for a long time now.
First, if we assume those who would change our ministry standards are completely unbiblical in their approach, we are mistaken. Listen and you will often hear them talk about being prophetic, and about "justice issues." Their biblical platform is to a large extent the Old Testament prophets. Not the Isaiahs or Jeremiahs as much as the Amoses and the Hoseas. Making the huge mistake of believing anyone can be called to the prophetic ministry by desire, rather than by call, they have set out to be prophets, and prophets as they understand them must have someone evil to oppose. That would be us.
There is another understanding of the prophetic ministry that makes it above all the proclamation of the Gospel. In that respect we are all prophets, as Joel 2:28-32 put it, followed by Peter in Acts 2:17-21, "I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."(Acts 2.18b) But "the prophetic" for many in the ELCA now seems to mean "the political."
Another biblical contact point for those who would change the ministry standards is their criticism of Pharisees. Pharisees are understood by them as any people who quote some tradition of the elders and oppose the changes Jesus would surely want to make. Pharisees are said to be hypocritical and not to be respected for their different points of view. They would say that you can spot Pharisees; they are always the ones against change. Again, that would be us.
Why do I so often sense a judgmental anger among people whom I know want the ministry standards changed? How do people who are at least nominally Lutherans have such little difficulty condemning others as sinners whose beliefs about homosexuality don't match their own? I truly believe a substantial number of people in ELCA leadership circles believe the denomination would be far better off without its conservatives, or, to them, Pharisees. If so, they are not particularly concerned that the ELCA might split this summer. In fact, they may hope it does! The Pharisees would be gone!
It is important to try to understand how others think. Only in that way can we work out differences and reach agreement. If others in the ELCA think about us as I'm afraid they do, reaching agreement doesn't look promising.
(This came from the Word Alone Network mailing list. For more information and articles on ELCA topics, click on the title!)
--------
Hmmm. I think I remember being called a Pharisee from the pulpit once...or twice.
---Katie
How others think . . .
by Rev. Frederick W. Baltz, WordAlone board member, Galena, Ill.
When people in the churches hear what is coming before the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly in August they often ask: "How can anyone believe we should make such a change when the Bible is clear?"
Allow me to offer an opinion about that, after wondering myself for a long time now.
First, if we assume those who would change our ministry standards are completely unbiblical in their approach, we are mistaken. Listen and you will often hear them talk about being prophetic, and about "justice issues." Their biblical platform is to a large extent the Old Testament prophets. Not the Isaiahs or Jeremiahs as much as the Amoses and the Hoseas. Making the huge mistake of believing anyone can be called to the prophetic ministry by desire, rather than by call, they have set out to be prophets, and prophets as they understand them must have someone evil to oppose. That would be us.
There is another understanding of the prophetic ministry that makes it above all the proclamation of the Gospel. In that respect we are all prophets, as Joel 2:28-32 put it, followed by Peter in Acts 2:17-21, "I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."(Acts 2.18b) But "the prophetic" for many in the ELCA now seems to mean "the political."
Another biblical contact point for those who would change the ministry standards is their criticism of Pharisees. Pharisees are understood by them as any people who quote some tradition of the elders and oppose the changes Jesus would surely want to make. Pharisees are said to be hypocritical and not to be respected for their different points of view. They would say that you can spot Pharisees; they are always the ones against change. Again, that would be us.
Why do I so often sense a judgmental anger among people whom I know want the ministry standards changed? How do people who are at least nominally Lutherans have such little difficulty condemning others as sinners whose beliefs about homosexuality don't match their own? I truly believe a substantial number of people in ELCA leadership circles believe the denomination would be far better off without its conservatives, or, to them, Pharisees. If so, they are not particularly concerned that the ELCA might split this summer. In fact, they may hope it does! The Pharisees would be gone!
It is important to try to understand how others think. Only in that way can we work out differences and reach agreement. If others in the ELCA think about us as I'm afraid they do, reaching agreement doesn't look promising.
(This came from the Word Alone Network mailing list. For more information and articles on ELCA topics, click on the title!)
--------
Hmmm. I think I remember being called a Pharisee from the pulpit once...or twice.
---Katie
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
20/20 Anti-Gun Hit Piece Was Rigged
No big surprise here....
From the article:
* The victim wore a helmet and bulky gloves. Obviously there was a safety issue, so the helmet is understandable. But why the gloves? They appeared too large. They certainly made drawing and firing a handgun far more difficult than it should be. I've run through scenarios similar to this and never wore gloves. Hits sting, but they don't hurt.
* The victim carried an unfamiliar gun and holster. Is that the gun he would have actually carried? Is that the holster he would have used? The video showed the holster placed in an awkward position and at a difficult angle, not likely the way the young man would have carried the gun in real life.
* The victim had to draw from concealment under a long shirt. Is this the shirt he would really wear? Did he receive any instruction on drawing from a holster, with gloves, from that oddly placed holster, from beneath that long shirt? We'll never know, but the video didn't show any training beyond a little ordinary target practice at short range.
* The shooter knew there was an armed student in the classroom. This is a big error in the experiment. What mass shooter would enter a room where he knew there was someone with a gun to shoot back?
* The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
* The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at.
* The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.
Also from the article:
Did Sawyer talk to anyone who thought carrying a gun was a good idea? No. Did she consider any statistics about how often ordinary people defend themselves with a gun? No. Did she get a statement from the NRA, a police officer, an instructor, or a citizen with even a hint that a gun might possibly give you an advantage? No. She didn't even bother to talk to John Stossel, a fellow reporter whose office is down the hall at ABC, reports for 20/20, and has debunked anti-gun propaganda on many occasions.
-----
Click on the title to read the entire article at the Buckeye Firearms Association site.
Guns and ammo are selling at unheard of rates, most likely because we have an administration and congress who would love to restrict the rights of individuals to purchase, own and carry firearms as much as possible. Nancy Pelosi has stated that she does not want to take firearms away, she just wants them registered. Historically, registration is usually followed by confiscation. The media will continue to try to scare us into demonizing and restricting firearm ownership and use. Let's not let them fool us into giving up our right to defend ourselves against criminals and, frankly, oppressive government. That's why we have the second amendment, you know, not so we can protect ourselves against criminals or go hunting - it is there so that we can defend ourselves against tyrannical government. That's really why the left is so against guns.
---Katie
From the article:
* The victim wore a helmet and bulky gloves. Obviously there was a safety issue, so the helmet is understandable. But why the gloves? They appeared too large. They certainly made drawing and firing a handgun far more difficult than it should be. I've run through scenarios similar to this and never wore gloves. Hits sting, but they don't hurt.
* The victim carried an unfamiliar gun and holster. Is that the gun he would have actually carried? Is that the holster he would have used? The video showed the holster placed in an awkward position and at a difficult angle, not likely the way the young man would have carried the gun in real life.
* The victim had to draw from concealment under a long shirt. Is this the shirt he would really wear? Did he receive any instruction on drawing from a holster, with gloves, from that oddly placed holster, from beneath that long shirt? We'll never know, but the video didn't show any training beyond a little ordinary target practice at short range.
* The shooter knew there was an armed student in the classroom. This is a big error in the experiment. What mass shooter would enter a room where he knew there was someone with a gun to shoot back?
* The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
* The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at.
* The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.
Also from the article:
Did Sawyer talk to anyone who thought carrying a gun was a good idea? No. Did she consider any statistics about how often ordinary people defend themselves with a gun? No. Did she get a statement from the NRA, a police officer, an instructor, or a citizen with even a hint that a gun might possibly give you an advantage? No. She didn't even bother to talk to John Stossel, a fellow reporter whose office is down the hall at ABC, reports for 20/20, and has debunked anti-gun propaganda on many occasions.
-----
Click on the title to read the entire article at the Buckeye Firearms Association site.
Guns and ammo are selling at unheard of rates, most likely because we have an administration and congress who would love to restrict the rights of individuals to purchase, own and carry firearms as much as possible. Nancy Pelosi has stated that she does not want to take firearms away, she just wants them registered. Historically, registration is usually followed by confiscation. The media will continue to try to scare us into demonizing and restricting firearm ownership and use. Let's not let them fool us into giving up our right to defend ourselves against criminals and, frankly, oppressive government. That's why we have the second amendment, you know, not so we can protect ourselves against criminals or go hunting - it is there so that we can defend ourselves against tyrannical government. That's really why the left is so against guns.
---Katie
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Truth about PETA
If you think PETA cares for helpless animals, think again:
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Less than 1 out of 300 Animals
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.
Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Click on the title for the entire article.
---Katie
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Less than 1 out of 300 Animals
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.
Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Click on the title for the entire article.
---Katie
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Coal in the Easter Basket
Chuck Colson
The Christian Post
Western Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, are currently observing Lent, the 40-day season preceding Easter. Through self-denial, alms-giving, and prayer, many Christians prepare themselves to properly commemorate our Lord’s passion and resurrection.
Lenten self-denial traditionally includes giving something up we enjoy, like a particular food or pleasurable activity. Well, this year, clergy in Britain are asking their dwindling flocks to give up coal for Lent.
Well, sort of. The Anglican bishops of Liverpool and London have called for a “carbon fast” this Lent. Instead of giving up, say, chocolate or meat, people should reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they produce.
Thus, preparing for Good Friday and Easter consists of actions such as the following: “avoiding plastic bags”; “giving the dishwasher a day off”; “insulating the hot water tank”; and “checking the house for drafts.” I’m serious.
Perhaps the bishops were aware of how, well, silly this sounds because they had to cloak it in language like this: It is “individual and collective action” on behalf of the poor. According to the Bishop of Liverpool, “it is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change,” and “to carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.”
It’s true that “carrying on” while ignoring the plight of the poor violates Christian teaching. What’s not so clear is how giving your dishwasher a day off or using paper instead of plastic fulfills your Christian duty to the poor.
Then again, as Frank Furedi of the University of Kent reminds us, the religion being appealed to here isn’t Christianity but, instead, “environmentalism [as] a caricature of a religion.” He calls the carbon fast a “morally illiterate attempt to recycle” Christian practices “as a form of environmentally correct behavior.”
In this caricature, according to Furedi, “original sin has been reinvented as a wicked act of ‘carbon emission.’” Instead of the Seven Deadly Sins, we have “everyday behaviors,” including your morning latte, turned into an offense against the planet and, oh yes, the poor.
Of course, recycling and conserving energy, however sensible, won’t make any difference whatsoever in the lives of the poor. And it certainly shouldn’t be passed off as a “sacrifice” for their sake. Its only beneficiaries will be westerners who will feel better about their own lives, even as the lives of the supposed beneficiaries remain untouched.
The saddest part about this “carbon fast” business is that our preparation for Good Friday and Easter ought to include an examination of our assumptions about what constitutes the “good life.” The global recession is a painful reminder of the dangers of laying up our treasures where moths, rust, and thieves—including those in expensive suits—can take them from us. This will be the subject of tomorrow's broadcast.
God may be calling us to live more simply—but it ought to be as an expression of our trust in Him, not fear of an environmental doomsday. This, in turn, will enable our concern for the least of our brethren to go beyond choosing paper over plastic.
-------------------
"...environmentalism as a caricature of a religion." An apt description, I think.
---Katie
The Christian Post
Western Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, are currently observing Lent, the 40-day season preceding Easter. Through self-denial, alms-giving, and prayer, many Christians prepare themselves to properly commemorate our Lord’s passion and resurrection.
Lenten self-denial traditionally includes giving something up we enjoy, like a particular food or pleasurable activity. Well, this year, clergy in Britain are asking their dwindling flocks to give up coal for Lent.
Well, sort of. The Anglican bishops of Liverpool and London have called for a “carbon fast” this Lent. Instead of giving up, say, chocolate or meat, people should reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they produce.
Thus, preparing for Good Friday and Easter consists of actions such as the following: “avoiding plastic bags”; “giving the dishwasher a day off”; “insulating the hot water tank”; and “checking the house for drafts.” I’m serious.
Perhaps the bishops were aware of how, well, silly this sounds because they had to cloak it in language like this: It is “individual and collective action” on behalf of the poor. According to the Bishop of Liverpool, “it is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change,” and “to carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.”
It’s true that “carrying on” while ignoring the plight of the poor violates Christian teaching. What’s not so clear is how giving your dishwasher a day off or using paper instead of plastic fulfills your Christian duty to the poor.
Then again, as Frank Furedi of the University of Kent reminds us, the religion being appealed to here isn’t Christianity but, instead, “environmentalism [as] a caricature of a religion.” He calls the carbon fast a “morally illiterate attempt to recycle” Christian practices “as a form of environmentally correct behavior.”
In this caricature, according to Furedi, “original sin has been reinvented as a wicked act of ‘carbon emission.’” Instead of the Seven Deadly Sins, we have “everyday behaviors,” including your morning latte, turned into an offense against the planet and, oh yes, the poor.
Of course, recycling and conserving energy, however sensible, won’t make any difference whatsoever in the lives of the poor. And it certainly shouldn’t be passed off as a “sacrifice” for their sake. Its only beneficiaries will be westerners who will feel better about their own lives, even as the lives of the supposed beneficiaries remain untouched.
The saddest part about this “carbon fast” business is that our preparation for Good Friday and Easter ought to include an examination of our assumptions about what constitutes the “good life.” The global recession is a painful reminder of the dangers of laying up our treasures where moths, rust, and thieves—including those in expensive suits—can take them from us. This will be the subject of tomorrow's broadcast.
God may be calling us to live more simply—but it ought to be as an expression of our trust in Him, not fear of an environmental doomsday. This, in turn, will enable our concern for the least of our brethren to go beyond choosing paper over plastic.
-------------------
"...environmentalism as a caricature of a religion." An apt description, I think.
---Katie
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
I always appreciate Thomas Sowell's writing. I'm not so sure I agree with him about Republicans' fighting amongst themselves being a bad thing. It seems to me that conservatives either need to take control of the party or form another party that is able to articulate conservative principles to groups beyond the traditional constituency of the Republicans. Click on the title to read the entire article from the Philadelphia Bulletin!
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
By Thomas Sowell, For The Bulletin
Thursday, March 19, 2009
As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.
At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.
New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s cheap shot at Rush’s program as “ugly” set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
-------- snip
There is certainly a lot to be said for inviting wider segments of the population to join you, by explaining how your principles benefit the country in general, and those segments in particular. But that is fundamentally different from abandoning your principles in hopes of attracting new votes with opportunism.
No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.
The teachers’ unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.
Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.
-----------end
It seems to me that the recent election proved that being "Democrat Lite" has failed the Republicans miserably. It is time to encourage those Republicans who think we need to be more like the Democrats to gain votes to just go ahead and become Democrats. Let the Republican party stand for conservative ideals and articulate them clearly instead of being embarrassed by those who do.
---Katie
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
By Thomas Sowell, For The Bulletin
Thursday, March 19, 2009
As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.
At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.
New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s cheap shot at Rush’s program as “ugly” set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
-------- snip
There is certainly a lot to be said for inviting wider segments of the population to join you, by explaining how your principles benefit the country in general, and those segments in particular. But that is fundamentally different from abandoning your principles in hopes of attracting new votes with opportunism.
No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.
The teachers’ unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.
Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.
-----------end
It seems to me that the recent election proved that being "Democrat Lite" has failed the Republicans miserably. It is time to encourage those Republicans who think we need to be more like the Democrats to gain votes to just go ahead and become Democrats. Let the Republican party stand for conservative ideals and articulate them clearly instead of being embarrassed by those who do.
---Katie
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Coming Storm
If you are interested in the recommendations of the sexuality study task force in the ELCA as well as the proposed social statement on sexuality, please check it out at www.elca.org. The recommendations related to homosexuality and the church are basically a local option type of recommendation, which means there will not be one standard for the whole church. I personally would prefer they choose one side or the other and go with it.
Here is one pastor's reaction (I do have permission to print it.):
The Coming Storm
by John S. McKenzie
For many years, there has been a movement within the ELCA to normalize same-sex practice. In the last ten years, this has taken the form of a push to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians into the public ministry.
Scripture is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. The moral tradition of the Church is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. As far as God’s will can be discerned from Scripture and the Great Tradition, God’s will is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them.
In 2005, revisionists approached the national convention with a proposal to change discipline and allow practicing homosexuals to engage in the public ministry of the Church. The national assembly said “No”, but allowed for a task force on a social statement on sexuality to address the question in their report. The task force has now reported back with its recommendations. They recommend a variation on local option. If a synod wants to ordain practicing homosexuals, it should be allowed to do so. To borrow a phrase from Elijah, we would limp about with two opinions regarding the will of God for those engaged in the public ministry of the church.
Homosexual behavior should not be singled out among sins. All of us are all guilty of private sin. Martin Luther insisted that private sins be dealt with by confession and absolution which is what we do every week. Luther, however insisted that public sin of which one refused to repent was to be dealt with by excommunication until public repentance could happen. That is because a church that continues in fellowship with those who sin publicly and refuse to repent is undermined. We look to all the world as hypocrites who do not believe what we claim to believe.
It is for this reason that ongoing, public and unrepentant sin among persons involved in the public ministry of the church is such a problem. It says to all the world, “God thinks one thing, but we think something else.” This is true whether the sin is pride, envy, anger, covetousness, sloth, gluttony, or lust. It is not that clergy do not commit all of these sins early and often. They do and they repent and they try to do better. The problem is when clergy refuse to repent saying, “That which I do is not really sin. I do not need to repent.” This is what the denomination is preparing to affirm in August: The sin of homosexual behavior committed by clergy in life-long committed relationship is not sin.
If any of the task force’s four propositions passes in August, the ELCA will be officially post-Christian. That is to say, without ambiguity, we deliberately chose to believe and act outside the revealed will of God. If anyone ever asks you what Unitarians believe, give them a copy of the four propositions. In the 1800s influential leaders in Christian congregations disagreed with the Great Tradition on the nature of God. The solution was to respect every member’s bound conscience and hold all truths as relative. The Unitarians embraced a different gospel. The Gospel of the redemption of sinners was replaced by the gospel of inclusion: It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you come to a Unitarian church to believe it. The Unitarians became post-Christian.
Look at some of the post-Christian implications contained in the four propositions forwarded by the task force:
“If we disagree, then God has no opinion.”
“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.”
“My conscience trumps the will of God revealed in Scripture and the Great Tradition.”
“It is more important that everyone feel welcomed and included than that we be obedient to God.”
“You can hold to a truth as long as you don’t express it in a way that offends or limits another person’s truth.”
“In the end, everything is relative: the will of God is a wax nose that we can shape any way we want.”
The point of participation in any denomination is that it provide a connecting link with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. At one time, I believed the ELCA might be the fullest expression of that Church. Now I am bitterly disappointed with what the ELCA has become. Rather than the vineyard of the Lord, it has become a playground for groups with agendas. Here is the question that drives me out: Why would a Christian remain in a denomination that had intentionally severed its connection with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in order to appease special interests?
Let me take an aside here. I have long thought and prayed about the motives of the revisionists. They see themselves as compassionate people defending poor beleaguered homosexuals from the ravages of evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes, and as advocating for justice.
Yet this self-perception is not a necessary and sufficient explanation for why they are willing to undermine Scripture and Tradition, change gospels, and take the ELCA out of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This is something that has kept me puzzled for a long time.
Here is my answer. Whenever you establish a special class within an organization for whatever reason, there is a temptation for the members of that class to see themselves as an elite. We have a class of pastors, academics and professional church bureaucrats in the ELCA. They feel great solidarity with one another and with the elites in politics, in the media, in liberal denominations, and in academe. Our elites have become elitists. They see themselves as the intellectuals—the ones who should be doing the thinking for all the rest of us. Elitists love to call the shots and create movement in an organization. They crave progress which other elitists can recognize and applaud. They need both for themselves and for others, demonstrations of their power and authority. The presenting issue of the normalization of homosexual behavior in the public ministry of the denomination is something of a Trojan horse. The real point is that the elites establish themselves and their “bound consciences”, rather than the revealed will of God in Scripture and Tradition, as the final authority in this organization. This is why they can never accept “No” as an answer. This is why they have turned the church upside down in the last ten years. The game is not over until they win.
The four propositions look like a formula for peace extended in the spirit of compromise. But beware elitists offering peace. They do so in true Stalinist fashion. This will be temporary peace. Since this has little to do with sex and mostly to do with control, the resistance will gradually be mopped up, the evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes will be pushed out or isolated, and the revolution will continue. More demonstrations of their power must come. The only thing ruling elites ever wanted was more control. The vote in August is about taking the Church away from the Holy Spirit so that the smartest people in the room might increase their control.
--------------
---Katie
Here is one pastor's reaction (I do have permission to print it.):
The Coming Storm
by John S. McKenzie
For many years, there has been a movement within the ELCA to normalize same-sex practice. In the last ten years, this has taken the form of a push to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians into the public ministry.
Scripture is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. The moral tradition of the Church is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. As far as God’s will can be discerned from Scripture and the Great Tradition, God’s will is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them.
In 2005, revisionists approached the national convention with a proposal to change discipline and allow practicing homosexuals to engage in the public ministry of the Church. The national assembly said “No”, but allowed for a task force on a social statement on sexuality to address the question in their report. The task force has now reported back with its recommendations. They recommend a variation on local option. If a synod wants to ordain practicing homosexuals, it should be allowed to do so. To borrow a phrase from Elijah, we would limp about with two opinions regarding the will of God for those engaged in the public ministry of the church.
Homosexual behavior should not be singled out among sins. All of us are all guilty of private sin. Martin Luther insisted that private sins be dealt with by confession and absolution which is what we do every week. Luther, however insisted that public sin of which one refused to repent was to be dealt with by excommunication until public repentance could happen. That is because a church that continues in fellowship with those who sin publicly and refuse to repent is undermined. We look to all the world as hypocrites who do not believe what we claim to believe.
It is for this reason that ongoing, public and unrepentant sin among persons involved in the public ministry of the church is such a problem. It says to all the world, “God thinks one thing, but we think something else.” This is true whether the sin is pride, envy, anger, covetousness, sloth, gluttony, or lust. It is not that clergy do not commit all of these sins early and often. They do and they repent and they try to do better. The problem is when clergy refuse to repent saying, “That which I do is not really sin. I do not need to repent.” This is what the denomination is preparing to affirm in August: The sin of homosexual behavior committed by clergy in life-long committed relationship is not sin.
If any of the task force’s four propositions passes in August, the ELCA will be officially post-Christian. That is to say, without ambiguity, we deliberately chose to believe and act outside the revealed will of God. If anyone ever asks you what Unitarians believe, give them a copy of the four propositions. In the 1800s influential leaders in Christian congregations disagreed with the Great Tradition on the nature of God. The solution was to respect every member’s bound conscience and hold all truths as relative. The Unitarians embraced a different gospel. The Gospel of the redemption of sinners was replaced by the gospel of inclusion: It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you come to a Unitarian church to believe it. The Unitarians became post-Christian.
Look at some of the post-Christian implications contained in the four propositions forwarded by the task force:
“If we disagree, then God has no opinion.”
“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.”
“My conscience trumps the will of God revealed in Scripture and the Great Tradition.”
“It is more important that everyone feel welcomed and included than that we be obedient to God.”
“You can hold to a truth as long as you don’t express it in a way that offends or limits another person’s truth.”
“In the end, everything is relative: the will of God is a wax nose that we can shape any way we want.”
The point of participation in any denomination is that it provide a connecting link with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. At one time, I believed the ELCA might be the fullest expression of that Church. Now I am bitterly disappointed with what the ELCA has become. Rather than the vineyard of the Lord, it has become a playground for groups with agendas. Here is the question that drives me out: Why would a Christian remain in a denomination that had intentionally severed its connection with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in order to appease special interests?
Let me take an aside here. I have long thought and prayed about the motives of the revisionists. They see themselves as compassionate people defending poor beleaguered homosexuals from the ravages of evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes, and as advocating for justice.
Yet this self-perception is not a necessary and sufficient explanation for why they are willing to undermine Scripture and Tradition, change gospels, and take the ELCA out of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This is something that has kept me puzzled for a long time.
Here is my answer. Whenever you establish a special class within an organization for whatever reason, there is a temptation for the members of that class to see themselves as an elite. We have a class of pastors, academics and professional church bureaucrats in the ELCA. They feel great solidarity with one another and with the elites in politics, in the media, in liberal denominations, and in academe. Our elites have become elitists. They see themselves as the intellectuals—the ones who should be doing the thinking for all the rest of us. Elitists love to call the shots and create movement in an organization. They crave progress which other elitists can recognize and applaud. They need both for themselves and for others, demonstrations of their power and authority. The presenting issue of the normalization of homosexual behavior in the public ministry of the denomination is something of a Trojan horse. The real point is that the elites establish themselves and their “bound consciences”, rather than the revealed will of God in Scripture and Tradition, as the final authority in this organization. This is why they can never accept “No” as an answer. This is why they have turned the church upside down in the last ten years. The game is not over until they win.
The four propositions look like a formula for peace extended in the spirit of compromise. But beware elitists offering peace. They do so in true Stalinist fashion. This will be temporary peace. Since this has little to do with sex and mostly to do with control, the resistance will gradually be mopped up, the evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes will be pushed out or isolated, and the revolution will continue. More demonstrations of their power must come. The only thing ruling elites ever wanted was more control. The vote in August is about taking the Church away from the Holy Spirit so that the smartest people in the room might increase their control.
--------------
---Katie
Armed Citizens as First Responders
What would happen in our country if more responsible people were licensed for concealed carry and actually were present at potential mass shootings? This article makes a case for more responsible citizens being armed to increase the chances that someone armed could stop a mass tragedy in its tracks.
Armed Citizens as First Responders
Daniel White
In the field of medicine, the Golden Hour refers to the period of time immediately following a traumatic injury and the idea that the ultimate outcome of the injury is determined by the treatment the patient receives during that time, which can range from a few minutes to a few hours. It is often the first responders, preferably paramedics, who have the greatest impact on a victim's survival.
The clearest illustration of this principle can be seen when considering the scenario of a heart attack. If a person suffers a heart attack in a hospital, help is moments away. Treatment begins immediately, and a person stands the best chance of survival. However, if a person is hiking in a remote area and help takes three hours to make it to the scene, that person has a greatly reduced chance of a positive outcome.
Think, then, to a situation where a lunatic goes on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. Average police response time to a high priority call within city limits can range from 5-10 minutes. Add additional time to access the building, assess the situation, locate and neutralize the shooter, and you're looking at a minimum of 20 minutes. A shooter can get off several hundred rounds in that time and a lot of deaths can occur before the police can stop the attack. The scenario changes drastically if an armed citizen is already on the scene and can appropriately respond.
Click on the title to read the rest from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
---Katie
Armed Citizens as First Responders
Daniel White
In the field of medicine, the Golden Hour refers to the period of time immediately following a traumatic injury and the idea that the ultimate outcome of the injury is determined by the treatment the patient receives during that time, which can range from a few minutes to a few hours. It is often the first responders, preferably paramedics, who have the greatest impact on a victim's survival.
The clearest illustration of this principle can be seen when considering the scenario of a heart attack. If a person suffers a heart attack in a hospital, help is moments away. Treatment begins immediately, and a person stands the best chance of survival. However, if a person is hiking in a remote area and help takes three hours to make it to the scene, that person has a greatly reduced chance of a positive outcome.
Think, then, to a situation where a lunatic goes on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. Average police response time to a high priority call within city limits can range from 5-10 minutes. Add additional time to access the building, assess the situation, locate and neutralize the shooter, and you're looking at a minimum of 20 minutes. A shooter can get off several hundred rounds in that time and a lot of deaths can occur before the police can stop the attack. The scenario changes drastically if an armed citizen is already on the scene and can appropriately respond.
Click on the title to read the rest from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
---Katie
Orders We Will Not Obey
I have often wondered what it would take for the United States to become a totalitarian society. It could happen if our police forces were federalized and our military was used within our borders to quell dissent from states or individuals. An organization called Oath Keepers is asking police and members of the military to think about the possibilities and pledge not to turn on the American people by promising not to follow certain orders.
Here are the "Orders We Will Not Obey:"
1) We will not obey orders to disarm the American people.
2) We will not obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3) We will not obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or subject them to military tribunal.
4) We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state. (I believe this is qualified with "without the invitation of the governor or state legislature.")
5) We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6) We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7) We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8) We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or "maintain control."
9) We will not obey orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10) We will not obey orders which infringe on the rights of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Do we need this? Could this happen in the United States of America? Read your history. Look at what happened in Germany and the USSR. Look at how politicians use emergencies, real or manufactured, to increase their power over the institutions and people of a country. Are you concerned that the powers we gave our government after 9/11 are now in the hands of leaders who are essentially Marxist and would like to change our whole economic and governmental system?
Of course, we could solve this whole issue if we could get our politicians to sign the above list, changing the beginning of each statement to "I will not give orders..." Or we could insist that our leaders obey the constitution and only vote for those politicians who promised to do so.
Click on the title to learn more about Oath Keepers and to see the entire declaration.
---Katie
Here are the "Orders We Will Not Obey:"
1) We will not obey orders to disarm the American people.
2) We will not obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3) We will not obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or subject them to military tribunal.
4) We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state. (I believe this is qualified with "without the invitation of the governor or state legislature.")
5) We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6) We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7) We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8) We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or "maintain control."
9) We will not obey orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10) We will not obey orders which infringe on the rights of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Do we need this? Could this happen in the United States of America? Read your history. Look at what happened in Germany and the USSR. Look at how politicians use emergencies, real or manufactured, to increase their power over the institutions and people of a country. Are you concerned that the powers we gave our government after 9/11 are now in the hands of leaders who are essentially Marxist and would like to change our whole economic and governmental system?
Of course, we could solve this whole issue if we could get our politicians to sign the above list, changing the beginning of each statement to "I will not give orders..." Or we could insist that our leaders obey the constitution and only vote for those politicians who promised to do so.
Click on the title to learn more about Oath Keepers and to see the entire declaration.
---Katie
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Protecting Conscience
You may not have heard that the Obama administration is considering rewriting the rules that protect medical providers from violating their consciences by providing treatment that would be against their religious beliefs. The following article is from Chuck Colson's Breakpoint:
An Obstacle to Tyranny
Last week, what the Washington Post characterized as a “terse posting on a federal Web site” set the stage for a debate on just how seriously our society takes freedom of conscience.
The posting announced that the Obama administration was planning to rescind “job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.” These explicit protections were issued in the last few months of the Bush administration.
Under the current provisions, health care providers can lose federal funds if they don’t accommodate health-care workers “who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their . . . moral or religious beliefs.” The regulations covered “state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities.”
Health-care providers and “abortion rights” advocates were quick to attack the Bush administration for promulgating the regulations. Groups like the American Medical Association said they opposed the regulations because, as they put it, “health-care providers have an obligation” to advise patients “of the options despite their own beliefs.”
At the same time, they said that the regulations were unnecessary because “there are already laws [that protect] health-care professionals” who refuse to provide care for personal reasons.
Well, not so fast. The rules were established in response to what the Catholic Health Association called “a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
In a country that treasures freedom, what could possibly justify compelling people to violate their consciences? There is a long tradition established in the law and court cases not to do this, as in the case of conscientious objectors not being compelled to serve in the military.
Reportedly, some officials believe that protecting health-care workers’ consciences creates a “major obstacle to providing many health services” and even interferes with “scientific research.”
It is difficult to imagine what “scientific research” they have in mind—a pro-life researcher is not likely to choose a specialty where the destruction of unborn human life is a pre-requisite.
And by “many health services,” what’s really meant is “pharmacists.” One of the groups leading the charge for rescinding the rule is the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Its members have joined with Planned Parenthood to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs, even when the prescription can be filled elsewhere.
In other words, the government is considering undermining religious freedom and freedom of conscience for the sake of convenience. They can’t even argue it’s necessary. If someone objects, for conscience’ sake, to facilitate abortion, anybody is free to go to another doctor or druggist.
Remember—freedom of conscience is the first freedom. And people who can be compelled to act in violation of their most deeply held convictions are not free in any meaningful sense.
The good news is that this appears to be a “trial balloon” of sorts. Administration officials are expecting lots of comments on the proposed change. And we shouldn’t disappoint them. Let them know that we value freedom of conscience too highly to let it be sacrificed, especially to those driven by ideology and profit.
Because what government officials are regarding as an “obstacle” is, in fact, the very foundation of our freedom—and the first defense against tyranny.
Click on the title to visit the Breakpoint website.
I have read elsewhere that Catholic hospitals would likely shut down rather than provide abortion services.
---Katie
An Obstacle to Tyranny
Last week, what the Washington Post characterized as a “terse posting on a federal Web site” set the stage for a debate on just how seriously our society takes freedom of conscience.
The posting announced that the Obama administration was planning to rescind “job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.” These explicit protections were issued in the last few months of the Bush administration.
Under the current provisions, health care providers can lose federal funds if they don’t accommodate health-care workers “who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their . . . moral or religious beliefs.” The regulations covered “state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities.”
Health-care providers and “abortion rights” advocates were quick to attack the Bush administration for promulgating the regulations. Groups like the American Medical Association said they opposed the regulations because, as they put it, “health-care providers have an obligation” to advise patients “of the options despite their own beliefs.”
At the same time, they said that the regulations were unnecessary because “there are already laws [that protect] health-care professionals” who refuse to provide care for personal reasons.
Well, not so fast. The rules were established in response to what the Catholic Health Association called “a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
In a country that treasures freedom, what could possibly justify compelling people to violate their consciences? There is a long tradition established in the law and court cases not to do this, as in the case of conscientious objectors not being compelled to serve in the military.
Reportedly, some officials believe that protecting health-care workers’ consciences creates a “major obstacle to providing many health services” and even interferes with “scientific research.”
It is difficult to imagine what “scientific research” they have in mind—a pro-life researcher is not likely to choose a specialty where the destruction of unborn human life is a pre-requisite.
And by “many health services,” what’s really meant is “pharmacists.” One of the groups leading the charge for rescinding the rule is the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Its members have joined with Planned Parenthood to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs, even when the prescription can be filled elsewhere.
In other words, the government is considering undermining religious freedom and freedom of conscience for the sake of convenience. They can’t even argue it’s necessary. If someone objects, for conscience’ sake, to facilitate abortion, anybody is free to go to another doctor or druggist.
Remember—freedom of conscience is the first freedom. And people who can be compelled to act in violation of their most deeply held convictions are not free in any meaningful sense.
The good news is that this appears to be a “trial balloon” of sorts. Administration officials are expecting lots of comments on the proposed change. And we shouldn’t disappoint them. Let them know that we value freedom of conscience too highly to let it be sacrificed, especially to those driven by ideology and profit.
Because what government officials are regarding as an “obstacle” is, in fact, the very foundation of our freedom—and the first defense against tyranny.
Click on the title to visit the Breakpoint website.
I have read elsewhere that Catholic hospitals would likely shut down rather than provide abortion services.
---Katie
Monday, March 02, 2009
Tuesday is Square Root Day!
03/03/09
A date like that happens only nine times in a century. Can you figure out what is special about it?
Click on the title to read the AP article.
---Katie
A date like that happens only nine times in a century. Can you figure out what is special about it?
Click on the title to read the AP article.
---Katie
Sunday, February 22, 2009
What a Wonderful Tribute!
We had a celebration at St. John today. We honored the man who has been a lay minister of the congregation for about 34 years. He turns ninety years old in August and is still going strong in ministry. It was just great to hear how many people he has touched. In addition to ministering to St. John's members (shut-in, hospitalized, grieving, and others), Ed led worship out at Disney every six weeks, worked closely with Great Oaks Village (a local children's home/shelter), worked with the Christian Service Center (homeless shelter, "soup kitchen") and I'm sure much, much more....I only wish I had his energy and drive!
Disney gave Ed a Mouscar, their answer to an Oscar, and had a representative there to present it to him. Orange County and the City of Orlando each had a representative there to read a proclamation from his respective municipality. One, I think it was Orange County, declared today to be Ed Soistman Day!
The church was packed. There were people from many years of St. John's life. I so enjoyed seeing folks I have not seen in years as well as people who are still friends living in the area. I know it must have meant a lot to Ed to see that so many people love him and care enough to come out and honor him in such a way.
Of course, nothing goes without a glitch...we arrived at church to find that the bathrooms, all of them, were out of order. Thank goodness they worked at the two houses the church owns across the street! Of course, with over 400 guests, lines got long!
My one negative comment - seeing all the love poured out on Ed today, seeing how important he has been to the community, not just St. John, it really made the FL-Bahamas Synod look small and petty for way they have treated him. I'm proud of Ed for sticking to his principles and and standing up for those who were being mistreated at St. John. He paid a price, but he did the right thing.
Thanks Ed! God bless you!
---Katie
Disney gave Ed a Mouscar, their answer to an Oscar, and had a representative there to present it to him. Orange County and the City of Orlando each had a representative there to read a proclamation from his respective municipality. One, I think it was Orange County, declared today to be Ed Soistman Day!
The church was packed. There were people from many years of St. John's life. I so enjoyed seeing folks I have not seen in years as well as people who are still friends living in the area. I know it must have meant a lot to Ed to see that so many people love him and care enough to come out and honor him in such a way.
Of course, nothing goes without a glitch...we arrived at church to find that the bathrooms, all of them, were out of order. Thank goodness they worked at the two houses the church owns across the street! Of course, with over 400 guests, lines got long!
My one negative comment - seeing all the love poured out on Ed today, seeing how important he has been to the community, not just St. John, it really made the FL-Bahamas Synod look small and petty for way they have treated him. I'm proud of Ed for sticking to his principles and and standing up for those who were being mistreated at St. John. He paid a price, but he did the right thing.
Thanks Ed! God bless you!
---Katie
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Presidency is a Step Down For Obama
This just leaves me speechless....
"Nightline" co-anchor Terry Moran gave an interview on Friday to the Media Bistro's "Morning Media Menu" podcast and compared Barack Obama to George Washington. Talking to host and editor Steve Krakauer, Moran gushed, "I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office." (For those who have forgotten, George Washington defeated the strongest military power in the world. Barack Obama was a community organizer.)
Moran continued, "I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way."
On his Twitter page later, the ABC journalist attempted to explain his over-the-top comparison. Moran, who can be seen in the above file photo, contended, "I said like only Washington, Obama came to office as more than a politician, a visionary leader for many. Now 's he's got a job."
And while Moran seemed to link Obama to Washington, a man that many consider the greatest president ever, he still found time to critique other journalists. Speaking of Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl interview with the President, he described the NBC host's tone as "kind of, 'Hey, it must be neat to be president.'" Moran derided, "Which to me struck kind of an off-note, because you know, now he is President, and there is a necessary bit of distance there, which I detected."
Co-host Glynnis MacNicol, also an editor at Media Bistro, asked the "Nightline" anchor about journalists who have gone to work for the Obama administration and whether they're in the pocket of the Obama. Moran admitted, "I don't think its any secret, and it hasn't been for 30 plus years, that journalists in their personal views at the national level tend to be more liberal than the rest of America. And I think that every poll has basically shown that."
Moran then added that he didn't think this bias skewed coverage in the President's favor. Predictably, he offered up a common journalist canard about the Iraq war: "Many people said that the coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war was skewed to the right, rather than the left." In fact, as a study by the Media Research Center found, the media, and ABC in particular, was extremely negative and critical of the Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq.
----
Um...ok....
Click on the title for the article at NewsBusters.
---Katie
"Nightline" co-anchor Terry Moran gave an interview on Friday to the Media Bistro's "Morning Media Menu" podcast and compared Barack Obama to George Washington. Talking to host and editor Steve Krakauer, Moran gushed, "I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office." (For those who have forgotten, George Washington defeated the strongest military power in the world. Barack Obama was a community organizer.)
Moran continued, "I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way."
On his Twitter page later, the ABC journalist attempted to explain his over-the-top comparison. Moran, who can be seen in the above file photo, contended, "I said like only Washington, Obama came to office as more than a politician, a visionary leader for many. Now 's he's got a job."
And while Moran seemed to link Obama to Washington, a man that many consider the greatest president ever, he still found time to critique other journalists. Speaking of Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl interview with the President, he described the NBC host's tone as "kind of, 'Hey, it must be neat to be president.'" Moran derided, "Which to me struck kind of an off-note, because you know, now he is President, and there is a necessary bit of distance there, which I detected."
Co-host Glynnis MacNicol, also an editor at Media Bistro, asked the "Nightline" anchor about journalists who have gone to work for the Obama administration and whether they're in the pocket of the Obama. Moran admitted, "I don't think its any secret, and it hasn't been for 30 plus years, that journalists in their personal views at the national level tend to be more liberal than the rest of America. And I think that every poll has basically shown that."
Moran then added that he didn't think this bias skewed coverage in the President's favor. Predictably, he offered up a common journalist canard about the Iraq war: "Many people said that the coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war was skewed to the right, rather than the left." In fact, as a study by the Media Research Center found, the media, and ABC in particular, was extremely negative and critical of the Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq.
----
Um...ok....
Click on the title for the article at NewsBusters.
---Katie
Friday, February 13, 2009
A View of Things to Come
I found this interesting in general, but specifically because Anderson is my mom's hometown, also close to where I went to college and close to my husband's hometown! This is in South Carolina.
Protest at Anderson fire station construction site enters second day
ANDERSON — Civil unrest escalated Thursday while protesters stood outside the Anderson construction site of a city fire station and said the workers on the project were not documented as legal United States residents.
Chad Summerall, the owner of Summerall Masonry Inc. in Anderson, organized the protest on Simpson Road and asked a half-dozen people to hold up signs. He is frustrated because he thinks companies have been relying on illegal immigrants to push bids so low his company cannot compete.
Officials for the fire station project have said that the workers are documented as legal residents.
Summerall said that two truckloads of Hispanics drove by protesters on Thursday and angrily asked the protesters to meet them down the street.
He also said that a plumber working on the fire station site told the protesters to “go to McDonald’s and get a job.”
“I will be out here until I get a job,” Summerall said.
More than 40 residents have also signed a petition from protesters stating they were concerned about social justice and the hiring of legal workers. The petition will eventually be presented to city of Anderson officials, Summerall said.
--------------
Click on the title to read the entire article.
I think as economic times get tougher and people find it harder to get jobs and get contracts, there is going to be much less tolerance of companies that cut costs by hiring illegals.
---Katie
Protest at Anderson fire station construction site enters second day
ANDERSON — Civil unrest escalated Thursday while protesters stood outside the Anderson construction site of a city fire station and said the workers on the project were not documented as legal United States residents.
Chad Summerall, the owner of Summerall Masonry Inc. in Anderson, organized the protest on Simpson Road and asked a half-dozen people to hold up signs. He is frustrated because he thinks companies have been relying on illegal immigrants to push bids so low his company cannot compete.
Officials for the fire station project have said that the workers are documented as legal residents.
Summerall said that two truckloads of Hispanics drove by protesters on Thursday and angrily asked the protesters to meet them down the street.
He also said that a plumber working on the fire station site told the protesters to “go to McDonald’s and get a job.”
“I will be out here until I get a job,” Summerall said.
More than 40 residents have also signed a petition from protesters stating they were concerned about social justice and the hiring of legal workers. The petition will eventually be presented to city of Anderson officials, Summerall said.
--------------
Click on the title to read the entire article.
I think as economic times get tougher and people find it harder to get jobs and get contracts, there is going to be much less tolerance of companies that cut costs by hiring illegals.
---Katie
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Racial Divide Continues....
I know it is a risk to address racial issues...but I'm going to try anyway.
If you thought that electing an African American as our 44th president would prove that the United States is not a racist country, think again. It is not in the interest of the folks who make a living crying racism to let the issue die. Am I the only person incensed at the following "benediction" at the inaugural by James Lowery?
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...when yellow will be mellow... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right."
Now come on, I remember "separate but equal," but most of my life has been spent in the age of affirmative action and equal opportunity. When was the last time "black was asked to get in the back?" Prayers like that do not serve to unite us, only to perpetuate the divisions that hold all of us back.
I guess I am not the only one unhappy with Lowery.
---Katie
If you thought that electing an African American as our 44th president would prove that the United States is not a racist country, think again. It is not in the interest of the folks who make a living crying racism to let the issue die. Am I the only person incensed at the following "benediction" at the inaugural by James Lowery?
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...when yellow will be mellow... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right."
Now come on, I remember "separate but equal," but most of my life has been spent in the age of affirmative action and equal opportunity. When was the last time "black was asked to get in the back?" Prayers like that do not serve to unite us, only to perpetuate the divisions that hold all of us back.
I guess I am not the only one unhappy with Lowery.
---Katie
Saturday, January 10, 2009
People are getting tired....
....of being bullied by criminals.
From today's Sentinel:
Gunfire at a South Orange Blossom Trail carwash Friday left a suspected robber dead at the hands of his intended victim, Orange County deputies said.
The attack took place about 6:40 p.m. when two men, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun, walked up to a customer inside a carwash bay at 5101 S. Orange Blossom Trail. They tried to rob the patron, but he pulled out a handgun and fired, striking one of his attackers, Cmdr. Paul "Spike" Hopkins said.
"The bad guy was killed, and this guy [the customer] is safe tonight," Hopkins said. Investigators did not release the names of those involved. The second suspect ran off and had not been found early today.
Friday's shooting was the second time in four days that a customer at an Orange County business shot and killed a robbery suspect.
-----
Read more by clicking on the title!
While I don't rejoice at the death of anyone, I am glad that it is becoming riskier to be a crook. I am glad that responsible people are getting concealed carry permits and are willing to stop violent crime. The police can't be everywhere and apparently we can't keep these violent criminals off the streets.
---Katie
From today's Sentinel:
Gunfire at a South Orange Blossom Trail carwash Friday left a suspected robber dead at the hands of his intended victim, Orange County deputies said.
The attack took place about 6:40 p.m. when two men, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun, walked up to a customer inside a carwash bay at 5101 S. Orange Blossom Trail. They tried to rob the patron, but he pulled out a handgun and fired, striking one of his attackers, Cmdr. Paul "Spike" Hopkins said.
"The bad guy was killed, and this guy [the customer] is safe tonight," Hopkins said. Investigators did not release the names of those involved. The second suspect ran off and had not been found early today.
Friday's shooting was the second time in four days that a customer at an Orange County business shot and killed a robbery suspect.
-----
Read more by clicking on the title!
While I don't rejoice at the death of anyone, I am glad that it is becoming riskier to be a crook. I am glad that responsible people are getting concealed carry permits and are willing to stop violent crime. The police can't be everywhere and apparently we can't keep these violent criminals off the streets.
---Katie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)