They don't know what they are doing!

    Ever go to a city park and see a person screaming at a tree or a park bench?  Clearly you know that this person is not in their right mind.  They, of course, do not know this.  To them what they are doing is completely sane.  You don't get angry at people like this but instead you pity them and pray they get help.

    Jesus uttered these words from cross, "Father, Forgive them for they know NOT what they do!"

    While it may appear that Jesus was saying this to the Pharisees standing below, I think those words were for ALL of us. Like the insane person in the park, he looks at us with pity and feeling for us as he sees us make bad decision after bad decision.  Bad choice after bad choice.  As Isaiah says, "We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way".

    As I watched the movie "The Passion" , I was impressed by Mel Gibson's use of Satan wandering around in the background during Jesus' trial and flogging.  Not acting as a spectator, but instead as an instigator of the evil being done.  The people doing the evil were not doing it fully on their own accord.  They were merely puppets on a larger stage and the battle was not between Jesus and the Jews or Jesus and the Romans, but was really a battle between Jesus, the Son of God, and Satan.

  Last Friday I watched a video showing a Planned Parenthood spokes person give testimony to a Florida state board on a bill called "Infants Born Alive" in which a baby born after a botched abortion should be allowed to get medical attention.  The spokes-person for Planned-Parenthood , Alisa LaPolt Snow, argued against this bill siting that the decision should be between the mother and the physician.  One congressman argues, "I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling there on the table. Wouldn't you agree?"   Her look was one of confusion. She looked as if she had never considered that as an option before. (To see the rest of the discussion go here)

   At first I was angry that someone could be so cold and heartless towards a newborn baby.  But now I see that I must have "the mind of Christ" and say to them as well, "God forgive them for they know not what they do".  They don't see what they are doing as evil.

  Like the person screaming in the park, they are lost .... they just don't know it.

Should we ban all digital cameras?

   Recently during a heated discussion between Senator Cruz (TX) and Senator Feinstein (CA) over gun control, Sen. Feinstein referred to assault weapons as a form of "pornography".  Using the illustration that pornography is not covered under the 1st amendment, so also AR-15's should not be covered under 2nd amendment.

   Here is the problem with her analogy.

   First, pornography is considered an illegal USE of the 1st amendment.   Owning an AR-15 is NOT an illegal USE of the 2nd amendment.   Using it to kill people who pose no threat to to your life or property (self-protection) is what is illegal.   Second, we do not prosecute law-abiding citizens for what they posses (felons do not fall in this category) but instead for how they USE their possessions.

   For example, owning a digital camera is not illegal.  Many of us own them (in fact I haven't seen anyone use a film-camera in over a decade).  They are very handy tools that make recording our lives very simple.  No more do I have to go to the store to develop pictures and then store them in albums or boxes.   I can simply download them and share them with family and friends over the internet.  Because of that, it has allowed me to have more privacy as to where I went on vacation and who I went on vacation with.  But it has a dark-side as well.  Since the advent of the digital camera child-pornography has been on the rise. 

No longer do they need to have their own private darkrooms to develop their filth.  Now they can snap away and send their sick photos to others who are diseased in their thinking as well.   Should we ban all digital cameras since these devices can be misused by some and do harm to thousands of children?  After all, they are the "tool of choice" for child-pornographers.



 Of course not!

   Instead we prosecute the offenders and those who misuse their RIGHTS (1st or 2nd) to do others harm. The owning of an AR-15 should not be illegal and it should be protected under the 2nd amendment, while the illegal use of such weapon should be prosecuted and heavily discouraged.

Removing a tree

      Recently I had a couple of trees removed from our property.  Both were Bradford Pear trees and were a lot of work to maintain.  Combine that with the fact that their limbs become brittle as they age and their roots become shallow and invasive and you can see why we needed to have them removed.  I called a tree-removal person who was recommended to me by our neighbor and he came over to give me a quote.  I feared he would not be able to remove the tree in the backyard given its close proximity to our house and our neighbor's house.  But to my surprise he said it would be no problem at all.   His method was what I call "eating the elephant" method (one piece at a time).  It was amazing watching him work (all alone mind you).  He took out the lower branches from the ground as much as possible.  Then he climbed the tree and tied a rope to as near to the top of the tree he could go (about 30 ft).  He tied the other end to himself and then would shimmy out onto the other branches and slowly take each branch apart little by little.  The trick he said to me later is to NOT get ahead of yourself and take too much off as it could damage what is below (he would take what he cut and throw it down into a "safe area").   "Patience" he said is your biggest need.  You need lots of it to do this kind of work. 

   















    So to it is with ANYTHING you want transformed.  Whether its turning a tree into a stump or transforming a capitalist system into a socialist/communist system.  Transformation can be accomplished if you move slowly enough and we are now witnessing what they are doing.  Many of the branches of our political system have been already "trimmed".   The Supreme court and Federal courts no longer concern themselves with the original meaning of the Constitution but only with their modern interpretation of it.   The Executive Branch writes its own laws in the form of Executive Orders or in recess appointments when they don't want to involve Congress.   Congress no longer reviews their laws in the Constitution and passes "taxes" as "penalties" (healthcare bill) so they can move things through the Senate.  The FBI can now invade homes without warrants if they propose you might be a "terrorist threat" (whatever that means) and the military has been granted the power to arrest and detain indefinitely citizens "suspected of terrorism" without trial or legal representation (Can you say "disappear" ?)

    But now it seems the Democrats have made some hasty decisions. Their patience is running thin now and some say they are getting ahead of themselves.  I believe many of the baby-boomers who were raised in the communists-60's are getting up in age now.  The end of their lives is coming near and they want to see the grand-finale before they die and so they have picked up the pace now.  They are no longer removing small twigs and minor branches but now are in full main-branch removal mode and we below are beginning to feel pain.

   Let's hope it's not too late yet to yell "STOP!"

The right to home-school

Well it appears the WH has stepped into "it" again, by making the claim that "no one has the right to home-school their children".  This statement was made recently when the WH decided to get involved in a deportation hearing involving a family from German that fled to the US in 2008 because they faced imprisonment by the German government for home-schooling their children.  In Germany, all children are required by law to attend public school.  Uwe and Hannelore Romeikie are the parents of 6 children and risk losing their children if they return back to Germany. 

This is where the Obama administration stepped in it.

They involved themselves in the asylum case and claimed that "no one has the right to home-school their children and the German government has done nothing wrong".   Yet this same administration just recently released thousands of illegal immigrants from jail that came here ILLEGALLY, but this family which immigrated here LEGALLY and is facing losing their children for their religious freedom.  

If I were a home-schooling parent right now (and I wish I had) I would be shaking in my boots right now.  If this is our President's view on home-schooling in other countries, then it will not be long before this WH has them in their sights as well.

Write the WH and tell them that Christian families need protection too.

Do our politicians not own a dictionary?

Our California and US lawmakers are in need of dictionaries.  They are now considering passing a "sin tax" on guns and bullets sold here in the golden-state (its not real gold anymore... just painted gold).  Their aim is too make owning or operating a gun so expensive no one will want to.

At the Federal level , Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., proposed a bill that would impose a 10 percent tax on "any concealable" firearm. The revenue would be used to help fund a national gun buyback program. The bill is still in committee.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/lawmakers-eye-new-taxes-for-guns-ammo/#ixzz2NFbMsZIu

If you Google the word "infringed" you get the following



Looking at the 2nd definition it clearly means to "limit or undermine".   Yet our politicians in DC have yet to learn this meaning in their committee meetings on "limiting" our 2nd amendment rights.

This is what is known as a political-two-fer (2 for 1).   They get to limit our access to guns AND they can raise more revenue for more crappy government programs.  To them its a win-win!

But for us it's a lose-lose.

Contact your representatives immediately!

Divorce Lawyer Ad on the refrigerator

I once heard a person on the radio give the advice that if you want your husband to be faithful, put a newspaper advertisement for a divorce lawyer on the refrigerator as a reminder that things can get ugly if he goes astray. 

Now of course this is not a sentimental piece of advice you want to hear on Valentine's Day, but I thought it was fitting in our discussion of the Constitution.  To me, the 2nd Amendment is the "divorce lawyer ad" and its purpose is to remind the federal government that things can and will get ugly if they choose to go astray and abolish this contract we have with them.   Its very presence stands as a daily reminder and incentive to listen to "WE THE PEOPLE".   It is not the "Hunting Amendment" or the "Self-Defense Amendment" or the "Marksmanship Amendment" but instead it is the "Well Armed Militia Amendment".  

Do I advocate for people donning camouflage and running around in the woods with high-power rifles? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

To me, the 2nd amendment is the LAST LAST LAST resort of a country in which its government decides to end the relationship by abolishing the contract that had bound them to the people (The Constitution).    Like marriage, we have the tools to fix the relationship.  We can vote those who are in office, out of office.   We can bring our grievances to the Supreme Court and have the laws changed or abolished that take away from our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If necessary, we can run for office and change how things operate in Washington (Please Dr. Carson take this into consideration!)

Baking a cake without eggs

No I haven't started writing a blog about healthy eating now.

I was baking a cake for my wife's birthday (German Chocolate of course!) and the recipe called for 3 eggs.  As I was baking the cake I thought about the importance of the eggs in the mixture.  They add the "glue" to the cake and help it "bind it together".  If I left it out, the cake would just crumble apart into a giant chocolate blob.

The Constitution is a recipe for a successful Republic, with checks and balances to allow the government to function well enough to get the important things done without trampling on the rights of the citizens.   But like my cake recipe, a key ingredient is necessary to bind it altogether. 

Religion.

Religion is the egg of our Republic and just like the egg doesn't need the cake mix (it's just fine being an egg), the cake mix cannot work without the egg.   Religion provides the ability and the necessity that men be honest, decent and truthful. To me, a person who knows he will be called accountable for his actions here on earth will be more inclined to be honest, decent and truthful.

Bill Clinton pushed the "honest,decent and truthful" meter far to the left and those who supported him told us "what difference does it make what he does in his private life?".  Since his reign, we have seen things only get worse and not better and we are paying the price for it.

Until our country is willing to put religion back into our politics this "cake" is destined to become an ugly pile of slop no one will want to have.

Fear ruled the day

Fear ruled the day when..

• The progressives newspapers of the 20's wrote about the dangers alcohol on society
• we passed the 18th amendment to ban the production and sale of alcohol making law-abiding citizens criminals over night.

• The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor 
• we interred 110,000 Japanese American citizens in camps on FDR's executive order 9066, taking away their land and property (many never got their farms back after the war).

• The Cold War with Russia caused 
• the black listing of American citizens based on "hear-say" arguments under McCarthy

• When 19 hijackers flew 4 planes into 3 buildings and killed over 3000 American citizens
• we gave away our right to not be unlawfully searched and seized to the TSA
• we passed the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to do warrant-less wire-tapes and searches
• we passed the defense bill giving the military the power to arrest indefinitely without trial any American citizen if they are "suspected" of terrorism.

• When 20 children and 6 teachers were gunned down by mentally disturbed boy
• Congress wanted to put limits on the 2nd amendment banning the sale of certain guns and limiting the amount of ammunition a person can carry.

Will we ever learn?

Do we really know the true meaning to the words:

        "The land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE"

No one needs...

It all starts with those 3 simple words:  "No one needs"

No one needs.... a 32 oz. soda  (Mayor Bloomberg of NYC)
No one needs.... a incandescent light bulb  (Obama's EPA)
No one needs.... to expect privacy with their emails (Patriot Act)
No one needs.... to make over a million dollars (Obama's Tax)
No one needs.... to fail (Bank bailout and our Education System)
No one needs.... to learn from their mistakes (Housing bailout)

Also used by progressives is the direct opposite preamble: "Everyone needs...."

Everyone needs.... cheap health care
Everyone needs.... a college education
Everyone needs.... a house
Everyone needs.... an equatable wage to live on
Everyone needs.... easy access to abortion

But where does it end?

Using those words, a government can claim any and all decisions and property of its citizens.  As I wrote in an earlier piece, what is at the very heart of this discussion is the question of "self-determination".  Progressives hate that word with a passion, because to them the average citizen is too stupid to make the right choice and therefore all bad possible decisions must be taken away.   They liken us to little-children who must be watched over and protected with safety-locks, video-monitors, fences and dull plastic toys.  They see themselves as the parents who know better in all circumstances what is best for all of us.

[NOTE: I find it ironic that they still trust us to vote for the right politicians]

One must also find out where these progressives have gotten this new found power to peer in ALL of our lives at once and make these assertions.  Do they have magical powers?  Do they have crystal balls to gaze at?  Are they God?  But of course they don't have any of the former abilities, but no one ever calls them on it.  

Today the discussion is all about gun control and what kind of guns and amounts of ammo the citizen needs to protect themselves (forget the fact that the 2nd amendment was written to allow citizens to protect themselves from an out of control government that ignores the constitution).  Senators snub their noses at us and tell us, "6 bullets in a clip should be adequate protection from any home invasion you might encounter".    To them, they are being more than gracious after all many feel that if left up to them we wouldn't be allowed to own anything this dangerous in the first place.

But let's consider a less life-or-death area of life. Let's consider the category of "Climate Change" and how the words "no one needs" could be used to take away more of your self-determination

• Can the government decide how big of a house you can live in?  
• No one needs a house larger than 2000 sq-ft.   
• Can they dictate what kind of car you drive? 
• No on needs a car that goes over 100 mph.   
• Can they dictate how many children you can have?  
• No one needs to have more than 2 children.   
• Can they dictate how far you live from work?  
• No one needs to live in the suburbs.  
• Can they dictate how you get to work?  
• No one needs to drive their own car to work you can all take the train  
• Can they dictate what your thermostat is set to?  
• No needs to have their house heated above 66 or cooled below 78.

Now of course some of those statements look absurd in today's world (like not having more than 1 child), but given enough time and brain-washing from the education system, any of these can become reality. 

The question isn't IF ... but WHEN.
  

My "needs"

Piers Morgan on CNN LOVES to ask his guests on his show, "Who needs an AR-15?"  or "Who needs a magazine that can hold over 10 rounds of bullets?".  The answer he wants is "No one" of course.

The question I would like to ask him is "Who needs a house over 4000 square feet in size?".  It's the same basic question, and most likely he would be as hesitant to give an answer of "No one"  for the same reason as I would not give him the same answer for his question.  It shows the absurdness and the audacity of it all.  Who are YOU to question MY NEEDS!   I alone will determine the level of protection I need now or in the distant future and not you!

The whole gun debate falls on 2 central basic human rights.

• Self-Determination
• Self-Preservation

Self-Determination
It's very easy for people like Piers Morgan to sit on their lofty perches and snobbishly look down their noses at us little-people and determine for us what our "needs" should be or not.  Our country was founded on the principle that that individual knows best.   They know best, because they see the evil that is around them.  They are there in the trenches.  If they live in Detroit they might need more protection.  If they live in suburbia, they might (for the time-being) need less protection.  But government can only implement a "one-size-fits-all-approach" for all 300+ million of us and it doesn't work.  Our founders said that they trust the average citizen to be good, decent, caring and to do the right thing.  To people like Mr. Morgan I say, "I ALONE WILL DETERMINE MY NEEDS IN THIS LIFE AND NOT YOU!"

Self-Preservation
From the time we are born (and even conceived) life wants to go on living.  Every animal on this earth yearns to live another day and see another sunrise.  The founding fathers called this "nature's law" and to violate this law was wrong.    Even those who don't believe in God, must accept at least these fundamental and self-evident principles.   To prevent or inhibit a person's basic need to protect themselves is a crime against humanity itself.

People like Piers Morgan have elaborate security-guards following them to and from home each day and most likely each of those guards is carrying one or more guns with 6 or more bullets each.  If necessary his security detail could unleash a flurry of bullets on any would-be assailant.  Piers Morgan would need to be the one to determine if that level of protection is warranted or not to preserve HIS life.

All I ask is to be given the same basic right as well

Never again!

The 2 words, "Never" and "Again" are diametrically opposed to each other and seem odd to put them together.  On the face they seem like an oxymoron, but these are often the words spoken at tragedies like Sandy-Hook by politicians who want us to believe that their next law will somehow prevent such tragedies from re-occurring.

After WWII, we uttered these same words as well, for after the attack on Pearl Harbor we imprisoned thousands of law-abiding Japanese-American citizens.  We did this because we were afraid of them.  They were a different culture which we did not fully understand and we were very suspect of their patriotism.   Because we wanted to sleep better at night we took away the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from a group of law-abiding citizens.

Now here we are "again", fearing for our children's safety and willing to "sacrifice" the freedoms of others for our security.   We say the 2nd amendment must have "limits" and freedoms must be curtailed... sound familiar?

Will we ever learn!

PS - there are over 55 million elementary school children in our country and on the day that Sandy-Hook occurred,  which means that 99.99995% of all children who went to school that day came home safely.

Crying WOLF!

We all remember the story of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" from our kindergarten days.  In the story a boy decides to cry wolf to get the towns people to run out to help him as a joke.  But after several "jokes", the towns people turn a deaf ear when the boy cries "wolf" for real and he is eaten by the wolf.

Today, conspiracy theories have run a muck in our country.   The JFK conspiracy made for a good movie by Oliver Stone in the 90's.   After 9-11, conspiracy theories arose that our own government ran planes into buildings to start a war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Then during the Katrina catastrophe, conspiracy theorists said that Bush ordered the dikes to be blown up to create a larger amount of destruction. 

Now we have Sandy-Hook conspiracy theorists saying that our own government sent agents into an elementary school to shook 20 children and 6 adults and blame the shooting on a mentally ill teenage boy and his mother (some theorists even want you to believe that it never even happened) all so the government could drum up support to remove the 2nd amendment.

To me most of these theories are from people who, like the boy-who-cried-wolf, desperately want attention and to get that attention they are willing to "fool us" any way they can.   They want to appear smarter and more informed than everyone else and thanks to the internet now, they can even get paid for it on YouTube by how many clicks they get.  We, then, are reinforcing their sickness by visiting their videos and passing them along to our friends.

Why do we want to  believe conspiracy theories?

We don't like random acts of evil
Because they help us make sense of the world.  We don't like random acts of violence in our lives.  It makes us feel uneasy about our world and what might happen to us.   We would rather believe there is someone behind the scenes pulling the strings because then it becomes less random.  While it does make our world more sinister on one hand, on the other hand it makes our life more ordered.  This especially becomes more necessary when dealing with situations in which people who are either mentally disturbed or influenced in a diabolical way such as the case with radical Islam.  We would rather think that "rational" people are behind the action rather than to accept the fact that not everyone in this world is "rational".  It's easier to believe that men in room somewhere are flying the planes like giant drones into the Twin Towers rather than 19 middle eastern men who had been living among us planning our destruction.

Reinforces our views
It also reinforces our dislike for those in power.  When Bush was in power, the left loved the conspiracy theories, because it reinforced their belief that Bush was evil and not to be trusted.  It provided "proof" to them that he as a "war-monger" and capable of great harm to the world.   Now that Obama is in power, many on the right are drawn by the Sandy-Hook conspiracy because it reinforces their belief that Obama is evil and willing to do anything to spark a revolution in the country. 

The sad thing is that these conspiracy theories will eventually jade us to such a level that we will not recognize a REAL conspiracy when it does occur and we will have lost ALL faith in our government officials in the end as well.

Local Governments: our Achillie's Heel

While our attention is focused on what is happening in Washington DC (inauguration, debt debates, scandals, speeches, etc..) others are working at a much much lower level in our country.  Recently it came to my attention that back in 1991 our country, thanks to George H Bush, signed on with the UN and their Agenda 21 (21st agenda) program.  While this program was never ratified by the Congress as it is not a treaty but instead a "non-binding voluntarily implemented action plan" (see Wikipedia) which seeks to establish "sustainable development". (Is this what George H Bush was talking about when he said in his inauguration, "We see the forming of a new world order" ?)    

This is what is called a "bottoms up program" as it does not go through Congress down to the states, but instead works at the local level across our country.   Through its attachment to the UN it is viewed as having the "power of law" when in fact it has none of it.   It is socialism on a world-wide scale, but its implementation is in our own communities. 

This brings me to my discussion of Achilles Heel.  According to the myth, Achilles mother Thetis, dips him in the river Styx (which separates the living world from the under-world) making him immortal in all places except of course, his heel.   Achilles goes on to be a great warrior and invincible in battle, until the battle of Troy where he is shot by Paris with an arrow in the heel and kills him. 

The moral of the story is that we are only as strong as our weakest point just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.   For our country, our weakest point is not a single point but instead many single points spread over our country in the form of local boards.  These local boards dictate to us what we can build, where we can build, how we build and for whom we build.  The people on these boards are often voted into office with only a few votes being cast in our elections as they are largely ignored by us.   Yet these officials can and will have the most visible impact on our local families and lives. 

Armed with fancy brochures from "planners" who have been trained by people connected with Agenda 21, they will push for things like "smart growth", and "sustainable development".   They will say that growth must take into account the needs of future generations (so we are supposed to have crystal balls to help us determine what those needs are?).   They will gather communities together in small groups to gain "consensus" saying "what do you think about our plans for your community?".  But they are not interested in your input.  No one will be taking notes. There will be no follow up or modifications of their plans.   Your attendance is all that is needed, for by doing so they can claim that you gave them your "OK" and they have your consensus to go ahead with what they had planned already.

Does this sound too much like "Conspiracy Theory"?   It's not.  I urge you to go to the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICLEI_Local_Governments_for_Sustainability_USA

Also, please check out the follow YouTube video from a Democrat who is trying to get the word out on this.  (Its over an hour long... but very well worth the time)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4

Rights == Risks

I recently wrote on my Facebook page that "all rights pose risks to our country. It is the price tag of freedom".  Here I would like to expand and discuss this further in detail.

Every right we claim as citizens poses a risk to either our personal or national security as it can be exploited by people who wish to hurt or destroy us.

"Freedom of Speech" for example, allows us to say anything about our country.  It doesn't say for example that we have only the freedom to speak the truth only.  We an speak truth or lies, good and evil,  praise or slander.  Those who hate our country are welcome to say whatever they want and in the case of our universities, even get paid for it.  The risk is that our children and grand-children will be brain-washed into believing we are a hate-filled, bigoted, racist, genocide-loving, greedy country that has never done anything right.  We must be willing to take the good with the bad, but we must also be willing to take the verbal-stripes for standing up for what we believe and confronting those who lie about our country's history with the truth.

"Freedom of Religion" poses its own set of risks today.  With Islamic terrorists on the loose who believe a radical form a Islam that wishes to bend every knee in the world (Islam means "to submit") to Allah some in this country may use our "Freedom of Religion" as a way to enforce their beliefs on others.  We cannot forbid them from building their religious buildings or schools in our country, but we can and should shine the light of truth on what they are teaching.   We can and must stand up and say that Radical-Islam is not consistent with our countries beliefs.  We need to understand that other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism do promote the general welfare of our country in teaching, honesty, care for others, hard work, love and appreciation for our government. While Radical Islam does not uphold these values and believes our government must be replaced with a Islamic based form of theocracy.

"Freedom of the Press" poses risks to our society because it does not limit what can be said or printed. Like the Freedom of Speech, it allows others to say in printed (or electronic) form whatever they want.  It actually goes beyond the freedom of speech because it allows more people to be offended than just those within my voices "ear shot".  I can harm people well beyond what a microphone can afford me to do and I can do it with non-verbal forms of communication in the form of pictures as well.  Pornography is an evil that has been around since cavemen have been writing on walls and today there is so much on the internet it boggles the mind. Some argue that the Internet needs to be regulated to limit this kind of material.  While the founding fathers never foresaw the day when we can distribute information as fast as we can today,   we cannot and should not stop it.

"Right to Bear Arms".  This right has received a lot of attention lately with the tragedy at Sandy-Hook.  It goes without saying that having an armed society poses a great deal of risk.  However, our founding fathers saw having an "unarmed society" posed an even greater risk.  Thomas Jefferson himself felt that a revolution was needed about every 25 years or so.  One might argue that the Civil War was made possible by the 2nd Amendment when the southern slave states to attempted to leave the Union.  If it were not for the 2nd Amendment and the free access to guns, the southern states might not have tried to leave the union and would have continued to exert their influence on newly formed states to promote slavery and thereby prolong slavery in our country.  Also, it was what drove our fight for independence in 1776.  When the British came to the Concord bridge in 1775 was it to just pick a fight with the colonists?  No.  It was to seize the guns believed to be stored there and had it not been for the arms they owned, our fight for independence would never had occurred.  In short, Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Where the people fear the government there is tyranny, where the government fears the people there is freedom".

"Right to Privacy".   This right has been under attack profusely in the last decade since 9-11.   Fear is a major force and is used to manipulate us.  Like the fear induced in the 2nd amendment, we fear the unknown.  We want to know what others might be doing that might harm us.  We, of course, do not believe our actions would ever be called into question, but that OTHER person certainly needs to be examined.  Then one day, WE become that OTHER person and now our activities are under scrutiny.  Those in law enforcement begrudge this right as they say it prevents them from doing their job.  They say it slows them down because they have to go to a judge and prove their need for wire-taps or warrants to search peoples houses.  But that is EXACTLY what the amendment is meant to do.  It is meant to slow down the government because a government that does not have these "brakes" becomes a "run-away-train" capable of doing incredible harm to its citizens.  Our forefathers had no such protections from the British government.  If they suspected you of anything, they could enter your premises and take whatever they felt they needed.  Can terrorists use the right to privacy against us?  Of cource they can.   But making exceptions to the rule eventually leads to it always being the rule rather than the exception. 

    As a society, we have given up many of our privacy rights.  At the airport we expose ourselves to radiation in electronic screening that peer under our clothes looking for guns, knives and explosives.   We allow our wives and daughters to be ogled by old men and touched in areas they should be afforded every form of privacy. All in the name of terrorism.   Many say it's all in the name of "the greater good" but to what limits will the greater good require me to give up my dignity as a human being.  For this is what it privacy is all about.  Dignity.   From our holes in our underwear, to how we look undressed, our privacy affords us our dignity to stand in public unashamed of who or what we are.  When the Nazi's took the Jews into the camps, one of the first things they did was make them undress in full view of the guards.  This was done to steal their dignity and make them feel less than human both in their own eyes but also in the eyes of the guards who would later execute them.  We read story after story and see You-Tube videos all the time of children and the elderly treated horribly by the TSA.  We say "Where is their common sense?  Where is their sense of decency?"  The answer is, they no longer see you and me as humans but only as air-cargo that needs to be shipped somewhere.  You are no more than a faceless, soulless electronic image on a screen. Your dignity as a human being has been erased like a thousand others who have come through their lines.  We allow ourselves to be treated as "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the other way around.

   Do you want to be treated with dignity?  Then you must afford all others that same expectation.
 
"Right to a speedy trial".  We have seen the cases where clearly the person is an evil person by what he has done in the past and now they are caught again.  But the evidence is murky and unclear.  If the police had more time they could maybe make a better case.  We would like to keep such individuals in jail for as long as possible because there they are no risk to us.  Sometimes bad people (ahem... OJ Simpson) get away with crimes they should not, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.  Do we want to be kept in jail for years on end (this was what happened to the colonists) without a trial?  Of course not.  So we must take the good with the bad.


Like a teeter-totter where one end only goes up if the other side goes down, freedom (through our exercise of rights) can only go UP if our expectations of being secure go DOWN. 

Hymn writers vs Song writers

    My father was a Lutheran school teacher for 32 years.   He also was a church organist, choir director (children and adult), and Sunday School superintendent.   I had him as a teacher for 3rd and 4th grade and remember him combining his love of music with other areas of education.  I remember well him combining music and history together by having us students take a hymn writer and research their life and music to present a research paper to the class.  In doing so, he showed us the incredible lives these men and women lived that made them the hymn writers they were.

   My favorite was John Newton.  Born in 1725, he could be described as one of the foulest humans to have set foot upon the earth.  He became a captain of a slave ship carrying black slaves from Africa to the Caribbean.  He often had sex with the female slaves on these voyages and was known for his cruelty.   When he was in the navy he tried to leave and was stripped to the waste and lashed with a whip in view of 350 men.  During a voyage his ship nearly sank and promised to God to change his ways if he was spared.  Newton was spared and he did change his ways.  Even while still in the slave trade, John Newton held services on board his ship, but after several years decided that this was not acceptable and left the slave trade altogether.  He became a minister and an advocate against the slave trade with Wilbur Wilberforce.  His most famous hymn is of course, "Amazing Grace" which has been the subject of countless books, movies and documentaries.   John Newton later said, "My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things; That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour".   Only by his life can we truly see the grace of God.  Like a diamond put on black velvet, so Christ's grace is only seen more brightly by our sins darkness. 
   
   Other famous hymn writers of note are:

• Martin Luther: reformer and hymn writer wrote "A mighty fortress is our God".  Luther was declared a heretic by the Pope and was a marked man.  He had to move from town to town in disguise to keep from being killed.  
• Issac Watts : a non-conformist (did not attend the Church of England) was unable to attend Oxford because of his beliefs.  His father was imprisoned for his beliefs as well. He wrote songs like "Joy to the World", and "When I survey the Wondrous Cross" and many more
• Paul Gerhardt : wrote "O Sacred head now wounded", suffered horribly in Germany during the "30-years War".  Because he refused to sign an edict of Elector Friedrich  Wilhelm I, which limited free speech regarding religion, he was deposed from  office in 1666 and wasn’t even allowed to conduct private worship in his own  home
• William Cowper : wrote "There is a fountain filled with blood".  He suffered depression and was even committed to a mental hospital.  Later he worked with John Newton to write hymns
• Anne Steele: wrote "Father: What'er of earthly bliss".  She was paralyzed due to a horse accident.  Later she lost her fiance just hours before their wedding when he died while bathing in a river.
• James Montgomery: wrote "Angels from the realms of glory" was imprisoned twice for his views on abolishing slavery.  
• Horatio Spafford: wrote "It is well with my soul". He knew suffering. Lost everything he owned in the Chicago fire.  Later, for health reasons moved his family to England but lost his 4 daughters when their ocean-liner crashed into another ship. It was later that he penned this famous him.

Now compare these men and women to the likes today and they pale in comparison.  For example, one such new artist by the name of Rebecca St. James, became Christian song writer at the age of 12 (I am sure she learned a lot about the hardships and difficulties of living in her short 12 years).  Sandi Patty who was the darling of the Christian Music industry and sang at President Bush 41's inauguration, later filed for divorce from her husband after it was revealed she was having an on-going affair with a member of her band.  Amy Grant married Gary Chapman in 1982 and later divorced him in 1999 and in 2000 married Vince Gill who had been previously married to Janis Oliver.

But its not just their lives that gives you pause, its also their songs:

• "Me and God" by Josh Turner.  All I can say here is, "me first"

• "Holes in the floor of Heaven" by Steve Wariner:  better get a termite inspector up there ASAP

• "When I get where I am going" by Brad Paisely:  
• When I get where I'm going,
  On the far side of the sky,
  The first thing I'm gonna do
  Is spread my wing and fly.
  I'm gonna land beside a lion,
  And run my fingers through his mane.
  Or I might find out what its like,
  To ride a drop of rain

             All I can say here is "What drivel!"

• "Jesus Take the Wheel" by Carrie Underwood:  This is by the same artist who in another song condones breaking headlights, keying the cars paint and ripping leather seats in the song, "Before he cheats".  (I think she won a Grammy for that one too)

• "Angels Among Us" by Alabama:  sorry, but knowing the our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ promises to "be with you always" is enough for me.  Many today opt for "angels" because they are not seen as "judgmental" as God is.

• "The Little Girl" by John Michael Montgomery: this song barely can be called a Christian song. Talks of a girl abused by her father and mother and taken by social workers to a new family.  Only talks of Jesus in that she held onto a picture of him when she hid from her parents. 

Kind of sickens you doesn't it?

Writing Hymns vs. Writing Songs
   The main problem with songs used in churches today is that they were never written to be used in churches.  Unlike the hymn-writers of old, who wrote their hymns specifically for the purpose of being used in a church and sung by old and young alike, good singer and bad singer; the songs written today are meant to be sung by professional singers on the radio or in concert.  While a professional singer can take a hymn and sing it as a solo, the opposite is hardly ever true.  Too often, congregations struggle to keep up or hit the notes required by the song and the "praise band" leading the church ends up being a "concert band" instead (and I sometimes wonder if they want it that way).
 
Personal Story
   I personally have come full circle in my life in regards to Christian Music.  When I was in high school I loved the Christian music scene.  I had "The Imperials", "Don Fransisco", "Stryper", "Amy Grant", "Rez Band" and many others.  I went to their concerts, bought their tapes, and listened to them constantly on the radio.   I used to argue with my Dad saying "Why can't we sing these songs in church?"  and felt that other churches were more "with it".  But these songs infected me with a disease that almost killed me.  That disease was Emotional Spiritualism.  I "felt" I was saved by what I "felt" in my "heart".  I would sin and then "cry" to God for forgiveness.  I developed an unhealthy relationship to God in that I thought God forgave me because "I was sorry" and not because he was a gracious God.  I often used these songs and records to heighten my awareness of being "forgiven".   Like  a drug dealer it always took more of the drug the next time, until finally in college there was no more.

   It has taken a long time for God to dry me out.  When I began to attend church again after college I thought I would just go back to my old ways.  But God had a better plan.  He stripped me of all that.  It didn't work anymore.  It was fruitless. I needed to rely on God and what he has already done for me in Jesus Christ and nothing more.  Thanks be to God he didn't let me continue in my destructive ways.

We can't lose!

I love the game of football.  It is a microcosm of the world with battles played on on the grid-iron rather than out on the open field with guns, tanks and planes.   I love watching all the strategy that coaches employ with rushing the quarterback, playing sneak plays, running out the clock and more.

Sometimes during the course of the game, a defensive player might step off-sides during a pass play.  You see the flag go up and you know what it's for.  The quarterback knows this as well.  He knows a penalty is forthcoming against the other team and they are going to get a 1st down no matter what happens during the play.

Does the quarterback stop the play and just take the penalty?

Of course not!

He continues the play, knowing he can try a longer pass down field than what he may normally do.  He has nothing to lose.  If the pass is intercepted, they will take off-sides penalty and the interception will be nullified.   If the pass is caught and they get more yards than the penalty, they will decline the penalty and take the yards gained on the pass.

Sportscasters call this a "free play", because it changes the entire outlook of the quarterback.   He has nothing to fear because the outcome is certain.  They are going to get a 1st down no matter what.

For us as Christians, Jesus has given us a "free play" as well.   The outcome is certain.  We are going to heaven no matter what!   Does this mean we should just sit and wait for "the call"?  No.  Instead we should have the outlook of the quarterback and throw caution to the wind and "go for it!"

God's purpose

"Hindsight is 20/20" so the saying goes.

Starting a new year, we often look back at the previous year and wonder "what happened and why?". It's easier to look back in history and see God's hand in history than it is to look at our own current situation.

When I was in high school I, like many my age, hated history.  It all seemed so unnecessary at the time.  Then when I got into college I had an awesome college professor at the University of Illinois Champaign/Urbana by name of Professor Thomas Scanlan.  Sadly he passed away in 2009, but I feel he left part of himself here with me.   He taught a class called "Roman Achievement" in a theater that would sit 2000 students.  I was one of those lucky few that got to sit and listen as he showed slides and discussed the entire Roman history and culture (all without notes).   Through this class he showed how those in the past were not much different from us today and that we owed much of our culture and world to them.

It was during this class that I saw what God was doing "through" the Roman Empire to advance HIS goal of reaching out to a broken world.  The Romans provided everything he would need to deliver his gospel.  (I later found out that he was a long time member of the Catholic church as well)

Roman roads:
  "Make straight the way of the Lord!"  (John 1:23, Is 40:3) .  This verse often is used for John the Baptist, but I also feel it has prophetic message about the coming Roman Empire which would make the straightest, flattest, easiest to ride on roads of its time.  Rome did not go around mountains, they went through them.  Rome did not go down into gorges, they built bridge straight through them.  Rome did not simply travel on dusty cattle trails, they built roads of brick and stone.  These roads were of coarse used so they could move their armies to wherever they were needed as quickly as possible.  But GOD used these roads as well.  Jesus and his disciples walked these roads constantly and could go from one part of Judea to the next.  Later Peter, Paul and other apostles would walk these highways and carry the good news to the entire Roman empire.


Roman coin:

  Before Rome, every city and country had their own coin.  Traveling was made difficult because you had to exchange your coin for theirs (or just carry gold with you).  But under Roman rule, the entire world was using the same coin.  It was like the VISA card of old.  Good anywhere and anytime.




Greek Language

The Greek language gave the disciples 3 main advantages never before seen.

Globalization 
    The entire Roman world spoke Greek/Latin.   Communicating the gospel would never be easier.  Under Alexander the Great, the Jews were forced to translate their scriptures to Greek.  This would never have been done on their own accord.  But thanks to the Greek Empire, it was accomplished.  This meant that the whole world would have access to the scriptures and not just Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews. It also allowed peopled like Paul to write letters to a large variety of audiences (Corinth, Galatia, Thesolonica, etc) using a single language and no need of a translator.  These letters would later be compiled into what we now know as the New Testament Epistles and be read by other people outside of those original recipients.

Exactness to detail
    Another advantage that the Greek language presented to the early biblical writers as its exactness.  With a word for every use (for example there were 4 different words for "love"), a writer could describe what happened with great detail so there was little or no confusion on the readers behalf.  Some of this is lost in its translation into English, but scholars are able to return to the original text and determine the writers full meaning.

Complete alphabet
   Finally Greek had one additional advantage over Hebrew. Vowels.  The Hebrew language lacks vowels and so a reader must "insert" them as they read.  For example, we can still read the following statement below:

    Th quck brwn fx jmpd vr th lzy dg

But some may be a little harder to figure out.

     Fr scr nd svn yrs g r fthrs brght frth n ths cntnnt  nw ntn, cncvd n lbrty, nd ddctd t th prpstn tht ll mn r crtd ql

   The reader must already "know" what they are reading otherwise, words like "thus" and "this" or "at" and "it" or "to"  would be indistinguishable.

 

Roman Peace:

The Roman Peace (called "The Pax Romana") was an integral part in the spreading of the Gospel to the world.  The Roman empire supplied over 500 years of relative peace.  The world would never know a time of peace as long as this ever again.   This peaceful time allowed the disciples to travel to every corner of the Roman empire with relative safety.   This peace also gave the people of Rome the luxury of contemplating the Christian faith and doctrine.  I say "luxury" because often when we are afraid we hunker down as humans and often become afraid to change our ways .. especially our religious ways.  In ancient culture this was even more the case since when wars, disease or natural disasters befell them, "the gods" were thought to be angry and man felt that he needed to appease them to make things right again.   It is during those times when people are most resistant to hearing about other religions and other gods (don't want to upset the apple cart). This luxury was used by God for his good as well as the good of those living at this time.


Roman Justice System:
   While not perfect, it was a major improvement over what was before.  The existence of written case law and consistency was necessary.   The Roman concept of religious plurality was an important ingredient for the spread of Christianity.  Of course, later on, Rome would declare it illegal to be a Christian as it was not well understood and did come in conflict with the Roman religion of emperor-worship, but early on it was largely ignored and allowed.   Compared to previous "governments" where the religious priests were politically connected to the kings and leaders and often prevented other faiths from taking hold, this world view was a welcome and improved change over previous empires which sought to erase other cultures religions. All Rome wanted from the regions they captured was their money (taxes) and their allegiance. Religion was, for the most part, inconsequential to them.


God's purpose for all of this:
One of my favorite Bible verses is Romans 5:6

     You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly

The words, "at just the right time" reminds me of what we often see in the movies.  Often they contain what screen-writers call "an inflection point".   It's a time when all seems lost and the main character is going to die or lose everything that things change for the better.  It's at "just the right time" help arrives in either the form of the police, the military, or the needed legal witness comes into court.

So also, "just at the right time.... Christ died for the ungodly".   When all the pieces were in place, God came and dwelt among us, lived with us and later died and rose again for us.  Did the people at the time see what God was doing?  Probably not.   The people of Rome thought that all these comforts and improvements were all for their use and amusement, but God had bigger purposes in mind.  At the same time, many of the Jews were angry and frustrated by being taken over first by the Greeks and later by the Romans.  They wanted their own country back.  They yearned for the days of David and Solomon again.  The glory days of old.  They thought that if they could just turn their hearts and people to God and keep all of his commandments (especially the Sabbath laws) for just one day God would reward them with a messiah to rule them like David on a physical throne.

We are, in some ways, not much different than them.   We too "yearn for the days of old".  We want leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to reappear and rule like they did.  We "yearn" for a country where we don't have 60,000 pages of tax law, and 200,000 or more pages of regulations.  There are some people who we wish were our leaders but are not.  We hope that the SCOTUS would overthrow Obama-care but they don't.  We hope the people would wake up and elect Romney but they don't.  We long for the media news outlets to return to "journalism" and "hard news" rather than daily drivel they provide.

We cry "What are you doing God?"

But God is involved and nothing happens unless he allows it to happen and his purpose is larger than ours.  I believe we want our country back for our own selfish desires.  We want it back so we can return to our selfish ways.  We want it so we can depend less on him and more on ourselves.  That is the underlying truth of the matter.  We want our country back to the ways of old so we can rest in that glory, like the Jews of Jesus time did.  I am sure many prayers were sent up to God in that time and the answer kept coming back: no No and NO!

Maybe we are getting that same answer today for the very same reason.  Maybe God is using our current situation for HIS greater glory.  (I don't pretend to have some great insight here into God's plan, as I am just as blind as you are)  Maybe the United States role in God's plan has reached its apex, and now it's time to start a new chapter towards his final ending.  To me, we have set ourselves up for a global-economic-collapse the world has EVER seen since the destruction of Rome.  And like Rome, the US has provided all the ingredients (money, communication, travel, weapons) for this final chapter.

While this may cause fear and trepidation for many, for those who believe, we know that God has a greater purpose in mind:

                         THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD!

Does this mean we should stop trying to correct the course our country is on?  Of course not! To me, knowing God's purpose changes how I see things around me and my outlook towards the future.   We may yet lose this "earthly battle", but knowing God has a greater purpose allows us to have hope even when everything seems to be going against us. You might say its a "win-win situation for us".  We cannot lose.  If we fight for our country's future and change its course.. great!  If we fight and it does not change its course and like the Titanic hits its "economic iceberg" ... we know it will be for God's purpose and in the end we win!

No matter what we have the hope of a better future.
 

How Obama see the US

Why a person needs the AR-15

I have patiently watched various shows with their hosts (ahem, Piers Morgan) with their holier-than-thou and smarter-than-thou comments about our 2nd amendment rights.  The question they so often ask is "Why would anyone need a gun that can shoot 6 rounds a second?".  My eyes bleed as I watch uninformed "gun experts" answer their questions with such meekness and uncertainty (uh, well, you see, uh, these guns are ..uh ...)

Let me answer you Mr. Morgan.

First of ALL AUTOMATIC weapons are ILLEGAL already in this country.  Guns such as the AR-15 are only manufactured as "SEMI-AUTOMATIC" weapons.  For the uninformed person, this means that  the gun only fires 1 bullet for every time you pull the trigger.  The killer at Sandy-Hook was using such a gun. 

To make all semi-automatic weapons illegal would be to make practically all hunting rifles today illegal as well. The only difference between the AR-15 and these guns is, bullet size and style of gun.  My 30-06 Remington is a semi-automatic and has a higher bullet velocity than the AR-15.  So are we going to make my gun illegal as well?   What criteria are you going to use to determine whether a semi-automatic will be used for hunting or not?  Are we going to judge a book by its cover?  What if we took the AR-15 and made it look more like a hunting rifle?  Would you be okay with that?

Secondly, the reason why I as an American citizen would "ever need one" is simple.  Because under certain circumstances the people we employ to protect us, CAN'T!  Look at Katrina in New Orleans and you see massive looting by people and no police to protect them.  Look at the Rodney King riots in LA, and you see people standing on the roofs of their businesses, with semi-automatic weapons protecting their livelihoods.  You live in a fantasy land thinking that such occurrences can't happen, when in fact they do happen and when that day comes, we need as citizens the BEST weapon to protect ourselves and our families, AND THAT IS THE AR-15!  No other weapon is outfitted to better protect my family than this gun.  (BTW - how the gun looks is important as well as how it performs.  Its image means business and deadly force)

Finally, Mr. Morgan, while I do not own such a weapon, it is my right as a citizen to be protected by the best weapon possible.  I, as a honorable and law-abiding citizen, can be trusted with the decision to have it in my possession if I so choose. Maybe YOU don't trust people like me but that does not give you the right to make that decision.  Do we limit ourselves to what a few paranoid individuals feel safe with?  No!  If we did, no one would drive, fly or even ride a bicycle for that matter. 19 men killed over 3000 people with 4 jets.  Did we ban jet airplanes because some deranged individuals can take possession of one and kill thousands of people with it?  No.  Last I saw, millions of people still choose to fly every day.

Mr. Morgan, you live in a fantasy world (it's a disease of liberalism) if you think that banning one style of gun will suddenly make all life safe in this world.  People like this killer will find other ways to carry out their evil intents.  However, people like you will not be held accountable for your promises of a utopian world (by relinquishing our basic rights to self-defense) do not come true.

The "Deliver us from Evil Act of 2012"

Building on my last blog, I am starting to write the bill of all bills.  The "Deliver us from Evil Act of 2012".

This bill will promise to prevent any all all future acts of atrocity imaginable for those who want it.

First we must consider all possible access points of evil in society:

 1) Life
 2) Health
 3) Financial

Congress needs to supply the ways and means to insure that all 3 of the above is protected from all sources of evil for every member of society that requests it (or even if they don't... after all the government does know best!).

Life
The government will provide security to each person in such a way that people like the gunman in Colorado or Newton Connecticut could ever harm a citizen.  They must be protected 24/7 365 days per year.   All people who can come in contact with those citizens must be thoroughly screened and checked for all weapons great and small.  The best way (at least according to the TSA) is a thorough electronic body scan that can sniff out guns, knives and bomb making materials.   Also these individuals should be kept from cars, planes, trains and other mechanical devices that are known to be used by people who intend to do us harm.   They should also be kept away from shopping malls, theaters and other public places where terrorists might have ill intentions.

Health
These people should be supplied with round-the-clock medical care.   Doctors, Dentists, (even psychologists) should be provided at a seconds thought to the person who needs it.  Also, ample amounts of low-fat, low-salt, organic, health food should be provided along with 24 hour health-club like services to insure that these citizens are at the peak of health at all times.  No expense will be too much for these people.  Weight rooms, treadmills, stationary bikes... nothing off limits.   To protect their mental health, the government will supply adequate amounts of education services and also entertainment in the form of music, movies, TVs, and computers. 

Financial
To protect these citizens from financial ruin inflicted by people like Bernie Madoff, we will require these citizens to surrender their finances to a group of individuals who will over-see their money (just looking out for them of course!).   And since we are already taking care of their life and health, there really is no reason for them to acquire wealth anyway.


Does this sound too far fetched?  Actually it's not and we have plenty of places like this already.  They are called:

PRISONS!