This statement is posted on the homepage for Hopenhagen.org regarding the upcoming conference in Copenhagen to discuss "climate change" (formerly referred to as "global warming").
"On December 7, leaders from 192 countries will gather at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet."
This statement makes a couple of huge assumptions:
The first is that we (humans) are responsible for any change to the climate, or global warming if you're hung up on that. History, and science, has shown that the climate of Earth does change, without any influence from us, approximately every 500 years. Let's be honest, the technology that these folks are blaming the change on didn't even exist during the last cycle, yet change it did. And will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists; cooler, then warmer, every 500 years (or so).
The second assumption is the real doosie: that we have the power to determine the fate of our planet. First of all, we didn't create this planet; it was created for us. This planet will cease to exist exactly when The Creator decides it's time for it to end. Not before, and not after.
To assume that we can control the fate of something created by God, under the constant control of God, also assumes that we have the power of God.
That's an assumption I will never make, and anyone who does is treading very dangerous water.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Where is the liberal outrage?
Here is just one more example, a blatant one at that, of the hypocrisy of the liberals in this country, particularly those in “Hollywood”.
After being a fugitive from justice for more than 30 years for sodomizing and raping a 13 year old girl, movie director Roman Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland. He was awaiting sentencing for the crime(s) he plead to when he fled the United States.
While some have termed the encounter between Polanski, then 44, and the victim consensual, keep in mind that she was 13 (unable to give consent by law), and had been given champagne and Quaaludes by Polanski. When he feared that she might become pregnant, he forced her to have anal sex.
The real “shocker” in all of this is the outcry from the Hollywood set, generally considered liberal and all about the rights of individuals, to set him free! They contend that this was a mistake, and that he’s served his time. They even use the fact that the victim, now in her 40’s, doesn’t want to go through any further testimony (which is true).
While listening to a call-in news show, the general consensus of the callers backed what the Hollywood crowd is calling for: it’s been 30 years, forget about it, he made a mistake.
Is this really the message we want to send out, not only to fellow Americans, but to the world, that if you can evade justice long enough, then no crime occurred? Why then don’t we apply that philosophy to everyone? After all, Osama Bin-Laden has evaded justice for 9 years now; let’s just let bygones be bygones.
Maybe this reasoning is why the liberals want us out of Iraq so badly. It’s been nearly a decade since the terrorists attacked New York and Washington D.C., isn’t it time to just let it go?
If that is the mentality of the majority of this country (which I hope to God that it isn’t), then we’re further down the road to destruction than I thought. What with the Government buying out banks and industry, trying to control healthcare, and now the justice system which this country’s laws are based on being worthless, we really don’t stand much of a chance.
May God have mercy on us.
After being a fugitive from justice for more than 30 years for sodomizing and raping a 13 year old girl, movie director Roman Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland. He was awaiting sentencing for the crime(s) he plead to when he fled the United States.
While some have termed the encounter between Polanski, then 44, and the victim consensual, keep in mind that she was 13 (unable to give consent by law), and had been given champagne and Quaaludes by Polanski. When he feared that she might become pregnant, he forced her to have anal sex.
The real “shocker” in all of this is the outcry from the Hollywood set, generally considered liberal and all about the rights of individuals, to set him free! They contend that this was a mistake, and that he’s served his time. They even use the fact that the victim, now in her 40’s, doesn’t want to go through any further testimony (which is true).
While listening to a call-in news show, the general consensus of the callers backed what the Hollywood crowd is calling for: it’s been 30 years, forget about it, he made a mistake.
Is this really the message we want to send out, not only to fellow Americans, but to the world, that if you can evade justice long enough, then no crime occurred? Why then don’t we apply that philosophy to everyone? After all, Osama Bin-Laden has evaded justice for 9 years now; let’s just let bygones be bygones.
Maybe this reasoning is why the liberals want us out of Iraq so badly. It’s been nearly a decade since the terrorists attacked New York and Washington D.C., isn’t it time to just let it go?
If that is the mentality of the majority of this country (which I hope to God that it isn’t), then we’re further down the road to destruction than I thought. What with the Government buying out banks and industry, trying to control healthcare, and now the justice system which this country’s laws are based on being worthless, we really don’t stand much of a chance.
May God have mercy on us.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Fact or Fiction?
So far there are as many myths, or at least semi-truths, about the president's Health Care Reform circulating as there are facts. You can go to numerous websites, listen to conservative (which I happen to be) commentaries, or even the news media and read or hear dozens of them:
Euthanasia committees, no option to keep your private health care plan, how it will be paid for, rationing of care, government access to private account records of those participating in the plan, and on and on.
What's really troubling about all the hype is that so far there hasn't been any single autoritative source to either quiet the rumors or confirm them, AND back it up with the actual reference in the bill. And to read the nearly 1,000 page document would require nothing less than a law degree to really understand the legalese in which it is written.
If the president is convinced that this health care reform is needed, then he should stand before this country and with the document in hand, prove or disprove each and every concern, citing the page and paragraph to back his claims, so that we may then read it and understand it for ourselves.
I'm not even sure he's read the bill he's trying so hard to push.
Until and unless that happens, there is NO WAY that anyone should support the reform.
Would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? If so, go ahead and support the bill. As for me, I kinda like knowing what I'm getting into.
Euthanasia committees, no option to keep your private health care plan, how it will be paid for, rationing of care, government access to private account records of those participating in the plan, and on and on.
What's really troubling about all the hype is that so far there hasn't been any single autoritative source to either quiet the rumors or confirm them, AND back it up with the actual reference in the bill. And to read the nearly 1,000 page document would require nothing less than a law degree to really understand the legalese in which it is written.
If the president is convinced that this health care reform is needed, then he should stand before this country and with the document in hand, prove or disprove each and every concern, citing the page and paragraph to back his claims, so that we may then read it and understand it for ourselves.
I'm not even sure he's read the bill he's trying so hard to push.
Until and unless that happens, there is NO WAY that anyone should support the reform.
Would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? If so, go ahead and support the bill. As for me, I kinda like knowing what I'm getting into.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Evil for evil?
Dr. George Tiller, a physician who performed legal abortions in Kansas, was shot and killed Sunday morning while attending church services. Presumably because of his controversial practice.
I make no secret that I am anti-abortion. I believe that those willingly involved in receiving or performing abortions are violating at least one of God's commandments.
But nowhere does God also command us to murder those who are involved in what He describes as murder. In fact, His word says the exact opposite.
Here are a few examples from the King James Version of the Bible:
(Rom 12:17) Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
(1Th 5:15) See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
(1Pe 3:9) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
Even those who don't prescribe to God's laws would agree that even man's laws follow this same "philosophy".
The person responsible for this Doctor's death has shown himself to be no better, or different, than that to which he was so obviously opposed, the taking of the life of another.
I make no secret that I am anti-abortion. I believe that those willingly involved in receiving or performing abortions are violating at least one of God's commandments.
But nowhere does God also command us to murder those who are involved in what He describes as murder. In fact, His word says the exact opposite.
Here are a few examples from the King James Version of the Bible:
(Rom 12:17) Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
(1Th 5:15) See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
(1Pe 3:9) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
Even those who don't prescribe to God's laws would agree that even man's laws follow this same "philosophy".
The person responsible for this Doctor's death has shown himself to be no better, or different, than that to which he was so obviously opposed, the taking of the life of another.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Presidential Double-Talk
At a Town Hall meeting in New Mexico last week, President Obama made some “interesting” comments.
The first was that our current deficit spending is unsustainable. This was followed by a statement that we can’t continue to borrow from China.
I think that all of us can agree to one response to both of these statements: DUH!
Which of these statements didn’t apply 2 months ago when he was writing out checks to the tune of 1 trillion dollars? What made it sustainable then, but not now? And who did we borrow from for that stimulus spending, because we sure didn’t have it then either?
Double-talk doesn’t begin to describe what this is!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Is this allowed?!?
Senator Arlen Specter recently switched political parties, Republican to Democrat, mid-term.
Why is this practice even permitted?
Here’s a guy, nominated by his previous party, then elected by his constituents to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That nomination was based on a person who represented himself to stand for certain ideals, certain standards, to hold certain values, that then caused him to be placed in office, based on those things.
Then, in mid-stream, he changes political parties, trading in everything that caused him to be elected for something else entirely.
This is a slap in the face to both parties; to the Republicans who placed him in office, and to the Democrats who weren’t good enough for him when he ran.
To add insult to injury he’s now upset that the Democrats won’t grant him the seniority he thinks he’s entitled to.
The solution to this debacle is simple: given that he has misrepresented himself to the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as all voters in Pennsylvania, he should be disallowed to hold any office, and removed from the one he currently holds.
Why is this practice even permitted?
Here’s a guy, nominated by his previous party, then elected by his constituents to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That nomination was based on a person who represented himself to stand for certain ideals, certain standards, to hold certain values, that then caused him to be placed in office, based on those things.
Then, in mid-stream, he changes political parties, trading in everything that caused him to be elected for something else entirely.
This is a slap in the face to both parties; to the Republicans who placed him in office, and to the Democrats who weren’t good enough for him when he ran.
To add insult to injury he’s now upset that the Democrats won’t grant him the seniority he thinks he’s entitled to.
The solution to this debacle is simple: given that he has misrepresented himself to the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as all voters in Pennsylvania, he should be disallowed to hold any office, and removed from the one he currently holds.
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Pirates is soooooo stupid!"
I’m not even sure where to start on this one.
First of all, kudos to the U.S. Navy for freeing Capt. Richard Phillips who was being held captive by pirates in the Indian Ocean.
The Associated Press quoted self-proclaimed pirate Jamac Habeb as saying: “From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them. Now they become our number one enemy.” He was speaking of U.S. forces.
This statement, and Habeb’s mentality, makes my head spin.
Let’s consider the situation. These “pirates” are nothing more than armed thieves. They board merchant ships, armed with assault weapons, for the purpose of stealing what they can, then holding the vessel and crew for ransom, to the tune of millions of dollars. The article does state that the pirates rarely harm the crew. I guess that’s some consolation after being threatened and held at gunpoint.
This pirate freely claims that they capture foreign ships. Does he truly think that the respective countries wouldn’t attack? Are these crews not already under threat of being killed?
And here’s the real kicker: “Now they become our number one enemy.”
Enemy of who? Who do they represent? These thieves aren’t representatives of any country. They’re just trying to get as much money as they can from what the ship carries and whatever ransom they can collect for the vessel and crew. Maybe they’ve formed some pirates union that we’re not aware of and we’ve offended them by taking back what’s ours. I’m fairly certain that piracy is unlawful in most, if not all, international waters.
He is right to some extent; they are our enemies and become so any time they take one of our vessels by force, and should be treated as such.
Here’s my suggestion (for what it’s worth): any time a vessel in any international waters is determined to be a pirate ship it should immediately be confronted by an armed naval ship. Those aboard should be given the opportunity to immediately leave the ship, by whatever means they have available. The pirate ship should then be summarily sunk; no questions, no options.
Let Long John Silver return to his own country and be a pirate on foot. I’ve never been one, but I’m pretty sure it would be hard to be a pirate without a boat.
First of all, kudos to the U.S. Navy for freeing Capt. Richard Phillips who was being held captive by pirates in the Indian Ocean.
The Associated Press quoted self-proclaimed pirate Jamac Habeb as saying: “From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them. Now they become our number one enemy.” He was speaking of U.S. forces.
This statement, and Habeb’s mentality, makes my head spin.
Let’s consider the situation. These “pirates” are nothing more than armed thieves. They board merchant ships, armed with assault weapons, for the purpose of stealing what they can, then holding the vessel and crew for ransom, to the tune of millions of dollars. The article does state that the pirates rarely harm the crew. I guess that’s some consolation after being threatened and held at gunpoint.
This pirate freely claims that they capture foreign ships. Does he truly think that the respective countries wouldn’t attack? Are these crews not already under threat of being killed?
And here’s the real kicker: “Now they become our number one enemy.”
Enemy of who? Who do they represent? These thieves aren’t representatives of any country. They’re just trying to get as much money as they can from what the ship carries and whatever ransom they can collect for the vessel and crew. Maybe they’ve formed some pirates union that we’re not aware of and we’ve offended them by taking back what’s ours. I’m fairly certain that piracy is unlawful in most, if not all, international waters.
He is right to some extent; they are our enemies and become so any time they take one of our vessels by force, and should be treated as such.
Here’s my suggestion (for what it’s worth): any time a vessel in any international waters is determined to be a pirate ship it should immediately be confronted by an armed naval ship. Those aboard should be given the opportunity to immediately leave the ship, by whatever means they have available. The pirate ship should then be summarily sunk; no questions, no options.
Let Long John Silver return to his own country and be a pirate on foot. I’ve never been one, but I’m pretty sure it would be hard to be a pirate without a boat.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
"Letter to the Editor"
The following was sent to me by a friend who thought I might want to post it on my blog.
I couldn't agree more, so here it is in its entirety:
Orange County California Newspaper
This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOTprinted in the Orange County Paper.........
Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!
From: 'David LaBonte'
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the OrangeCounty Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges, only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling theUnited States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!!
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
I couldn't agree more, so here it is in its entirety:
Orange County California Newspaper
This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOTprinted in the Orange County Paper.........
Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!
From: 'David LaBonte'
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the OrangeCounty Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges, only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling theUnited States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!!
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
"If I perish, I perish."
If you’re a Christian, then there are some things that you just accept as the truth. And if something is accepted as the truth, it only follows that it is true all the time, making it an “absolute truth”.
We believe God’s word to be the absolute truth; we believe the gospel message of Jesus to be the absolute truth.
Now, if we accept that the word of God, the Bible, is the absolute truth, then we must also accept that there are things that are always right, and things that are always wrong. These always rights and always wrongs don’t leave room for riding the fence. There is no middle ground.
Two issues that Christians believe to be always wrong (an absolute truth) is abortion and same-sex marriage. There are many others but these two are always topics of discussion in today’s media.
If we as Christians know in our hearts that these issues are always wrong, then why are we so quiet about them? Why aren’t we exercising our free speech rights and speaking out against them? Why aren’t we going to our elected officials, or electing those that are like-minded with us. Liberals and atheists have no problem speaking their opinions. Loudly, at that.
Simply put, we’re afraid. Afraid we’ll stand out. Afraid of ridicule. Afraid of losing friends, or even our jobs. We’re afraid of being charged with a “hate crime” (a very real possibility) and being arrested. So we stay quiet, under the radar. “Someone else will speak up, I can’t do it.” We even take the stance that the issue is wrong for me, but if someone doesn’t believe like I do, then its okay if they do it (abort a child, marry the same gender). That kind of contradicts absolute truth, doesn’t it? May God forgive us when we get to that point.
In the Old Testament of the Bible there was a Jewish woman, Esther, who became a queen in the Persian court. Because she was in a position to speak to the king, she was asked to speak to him to prevent thousands of Jews from being slaughtered, because of a decree that the king had issued (he didn’t know that Esther was also a Jew).
When she was asked to speak to the king to prevent this tragedy (something that I think we could all agree would be an “always wrong”), she responded like we do today. “I can’t do that. If I approach the king without invitation, he might kill me.” (Paraphrased). Her own personal safety, the risks she faced for herself, outweighed that fact that thousands of her own people were going to be killed.
She finally realized that what she was doing was wrong, and she did approach the king and thereby saved thousands of lives. Her attitude upon approaching the king was “if I perish, I perish.”
What does this have to do with today’s issues? What if I/we put aside all of our fears and personal concerns and spoke up against wrong? How many babies might be saved if I spoke up? How many people might turn to God if I spoke up?
To put it on a more personal level, how many babies have died because I haven’t spoken out against something I believe to be absolutely, always wrong?
We don’t have to be quiet. If this makes me stand out, lose friends, jobs, get arrested, it would all pale in comparison to thousands of babies dying because I didn’t speak up.
If I perish, I perish.
We believe God’s word to be the absolute truth; we believe the gospel message of Jesus to be the absolute truth.
Now, if we accept that the word of God, the Bible, is the absolute truth, then we must also accept that there are things that are always right, and things that are always wrong. These always rights and always wrongs don’t leave room for riding the fence. There is no middle ground.
Two issues that Christians believe to be always wrong (an absolute truth) is abortion and same-sex marriage. There are many others but these two are always topics of discussion in today’s media.
If we as Christians know in our hearts that these issues are always wrong, then why are we so quiet about them? Why aren’t we exercising our free speech rights and speaking out against them? Why aren’t we going to our elected officials, or electing those that are like-minded with us. Liberals and atheists have no problem speaking their opinions. Loudly, at that.
Simply put, we’re afraid. Afraid we’ll stand out. Afraid of ridicule. Afraid of losing friends, or even our jobs. We’re afraid of being charged with a “hate crime” (a very real possibility) and being arrested. So we stay quiet, under the radar. “Someone else will speak up, I can’t do it.” We even take the stance that the issue is wrong for me, but if someone doesn’t believe like I do, then its okay if they do it (abort a child, marry the same gender). That kind of contradicts absolute truth, doesn’t it? May God forgive us when we get to that point.
In the Old Testament of the Bible there was a Jewish woman, Esther, who became a queen in the Persian court. Because she was in a position to speak to the king, she was asked to speak to him to prevent thousands of Jews from being slaughtered, because of a decree that the king had issued (he didn’t know that Esther was also a Jew).
When she was asked to speak to the king to prevent this tragedy (something that I think we could all agree would be an “always wrong”), she responded like we do today. “I can’t do that. If I approach the king without invitation, he might kill me.” (Paraphrased). Her own personal safety, the risks she faced for herself, outweighed that fact that thousands of her own people were going to be killed.
She finally realized that what she was doing was wrong, and she did approach the king and thereby saved thousands of lives. Her attitude upon approaching the king was “if I perish, I perish.”
What does this have to do with today’s issues? What if I/we put aside all of our fears and personal concerns and spoke up against wrong? How many babies might be saved if I spoke up? How many people might turn to God if I spoke up?
To put it on a more personal level, how many babies have died because I haven’t spoken out against something I believe to be absolutely, always wrong?
We don’t have to be quiet. If this makes me stand out, lose friends, jobs, get arrested, it would all pale in comparison to thousands of babies dying because I didn’t speak up.
If I perish, I perish.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Do as I say, not as I do.
Earlier this month President Obama told business leaders that "We have to once again live within our means."
He is exactly right. Living beyond our means is the very thing that has this country's economy in such a state. Banks and other lending institutions (at the direction of the government) have long been approving loans to people who have no way of repaying them, all so we can have the "American Dream."
Now that the piper must be paid, people everywhere are losing their part of that dream.
Most successful leaders lead by example. If we see someone at the top living what they're telling us to do, we're willing to follow that example.
Sounds simple, right?
Then why is it that our President just wrote out a "check" for nearly $800 billion dollars that we don't have, and can't pay back?
What happens when its time to pay that piper?
He is exactly right. Living beyond our means is the very thing that has this country's economy in such a state. Banks and other lending institutions (at the direction of the government) have long been approving loans to people who have no way of repaying them, all so we can have the "American Dream."
Now that the piper must be paid, people everywhere are losing their part of that dream.
Most successful leaders lead by example. If we see someone at the top living what they're telling us to do, we're willing to follow that example.
Sounds simple, right?
Then why is it that our President just wrote out a "check" for nearly $800 billion dollars that we don't have, and can't pay back?
What happens when its time to pay that piper?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Our tax dollars at work.
Since when were the taxpayers responsible for providing entertainment to the masses?
For nearly 4 years we have been bombarded with media notices that television broadcasters must switch from analog to digital signals. This move, scheduled for February of this year, will directly affect only those still receiving television broadcasts by antenna. The rest of us have been paying for either cable or satellite signals.
And since 4 years wasn't enough warning, the federal government has appropriated $1.5 billion dollars (so far) to help pay for a converter box for those who haven't prepared for this "surprise" switch. $40.00 coupons may be applied for to offset the approximate $60.00 cost of the device. Anyone can apply for these coupons, even those who do already have cable or satellite!
Did I miss something in the constitution? You know, the part where it says that the government (translated taxpayer) is responsible for America's entertainment? If TV is that important to all these unprepared souls, wasn't 4 years enough warning to save up the money to pay for the converter?
If that's the case, I'd like $40.00 to apply toward my cable bill; it's starting to get a little steep.
For nearly 4 years we have been bombarded with media notices that television broadcasters must switch from analog to digital signals. This move, scheduled for February of this year, will directly affect only those still receiving television broadcasts by antenna. The rest of us have been paying for either cable or satellite signals.
And since 4 years wasn't enough warning, the federal government has appropriated $1.5 billion dollars (so far) to help pay for a converter box for those who haven't prepared for this "surprise" switch. $40.00 coupons may be applied for to offset the approximate $60.00 cost of the device. Anyone can apply for these coupons, even those who do already have cable or satellite!
Did I miss something in the constitution? You know, the part where it says that the government (translated taxpayer) is responsible for America's entertainment? If TV is that important to all these unprepared souls, wasn't 4 years enough warning to save up the money to pay for the converter?
If that's the case, I'd like $40.00 to apply toward my cable bill; it's starting to get a little steep.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Is it just me, or is the new President contradicting himself?
The following quote was published and broadcast in the national media concerning, by his own admission, potentially dangerous men:
“First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture,” he said. “Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.”
That’s all fine and good, but as reported by the Associated Press, he also has a stand on abortion:
President Barack Obama renewed his commitment to abortions rights on Thursday, saying the nation needs to find common ground in the contentious abortion debate so "our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons."
Marking the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama said in a statement that the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Let’s think about this for a minute.
According to him it would be wrong of this country to coerce a person, apprehended in the act of war against the United States, into giving up information that may save other Americans.
But it’s OK to kill unborn children?
Maybe it is just me, but I see something wrong with this picture.
Looks like we’re off to a flying start.
The following quote was published and broadcast in the national media concerning, by his own admission, potentially dangerous men:
“First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture,” he said. “Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.”
That’s all fine and good, but as reported by the Associated Press, he also has a stand on abortion:
President Barack Obama renewed his commitment to abortions rights on Thursday, saying the nation needs to find common ground in the contentious abortion debate so "our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons."
Marking the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama said in a statement that the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Let’s think about this for a minute.
According to him it would be wrong of this country to coerce a person, apprehended in the act of war against the United States, into giving up information that may save other Americans.
But it’s OK to kill unborn children?
Maybe it is just me, but I see something wrong with this picture.
Looks like we’re off to a flying start.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
