This is pretty great. A BBC announcer sees the broadcast of a Pentecostal service in Great Britain. He is astounded, never seen anything like it. Compares it to the churches he had visited as a kid. It's amusing and instructive for those of us who work in Church. This is pretty much what will cause an unbeliever to come in and look around.
See it here
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Dead Trees fallen in the Forest
I have been a blogger since 2004. December. Five years almost. About 3500 posts on both blogs more or less. I don't have a huge number of viewers but many, some more appreciative than others.
When I first began to blog I asked the mother ship blogger what I should do. She said to write every day. ANYTHING.
I did.
I do.
I post stuff I find interesting. I write what suits my fancy. Or post up.
The net result is I have developed a small following. Not huge. The truth is most blogs are dormant or dead. Here's a truth about the blogosphere most people don't know.
Now in full disclosure, I have 7 blogs. I update 2 every day, one annually, one never, one occasionally and two that have no value any more. So, I'm nearly a statistic. Some blogs become nothing more than electronic paper piles on a desktop of ideas. I have some of those.
According to this writer of blogs, he maintains that facebook and other newer formats are replacing blogs. Maybe. Perhaps. I'm enjoying facebook, Thanks Kelly and Karma for pushing me into it although Karma abandoned me as soon as I became a Jesus Junkie on line pushing the ultimate high.
Who knows what the future holds? I'll tell you this much for sure. I have read so few newspapers and magazines in the past few months that there is a clear personal evidence for this....when the last dead tree falls in the forest in homage to them no one will hear.
Their day is clearly over. I'm getting a kindle or whatever is going to be better.
When I first began to blog I asked the mother ship blogger what I should do. She said to write every day. ANYTHING.
I did.
I do.
I post stuff I find interesting. I write what suits my fancy. Or post up.
The net result is I have developed a small following. Not huge. The truth is most blogs are dormant or dead. Here's a truth about the blogosphere most people don't know.
According to a 2008 survey by Technorati, which runs a search engine for blogs, only 7.4 million out of the 133 million blogs the company tracks had been updated in the past 120 days. That translates to 95 percent of blogs being essentially abandoned.To put it another way. If you survey all the blogs that ostensibly live out there in blogdom, for every 100 you find, only 5 are updated regularly at all.
Now in full disclosure, I have 7 blogs. I update 2 every day, one annually, one never, one occasionally and two that have no value any more. So, I'm nearly a statistic. Some blogs become nothing more than electronic paper piles on a desktop of ideas. I have some of those.
According to this writer of blogs, he maintains that facebook and other newer formats are replacing blogs. Maybe. Perhaps. I'm enjoying facebook, Thanks Kelly and Karma for pushing me into it although Karma abandoned me as soon as I became a Jesus Junkie on line pushing the ultimate high.
Who knows what the future holds? I'll tell you this much for sure. I have read so few newspapers and magazines in the past few months that there is a clear personal evidence for this....when the last dead tree falls in the forest in homage to them no one will hear.
Their day is clearly over. I'm getting a kindle or whatever is going to be better.
The REALLY BIG O-BAMA
Jib Jab has created a very clever video. You decide. I think it's funny and honoring at the same time.
Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The President Cries the Blues about News
The media government complex is fully in the bag for Obama.... that much is clear. There isn't an objective watchdog media outlet in the country among the various letters of CNN, MSNBC (a fully owned Obama outlet), ABC (that has decided to do a shamwow infomercial for Obama's policies), NBC, CBS, NYT, Washington Post and a host of other outlets, electronic and dead tree alike (time and newsweek among them with more covers of Obama than any human in history).
Only one network still stands for truth justice and the American way. FOX.... And in a smaller way, CNBC.
So, what to do if you are Obama? Cry your eyes out about those meanies who tell the truth about you. Yesterday during an interview with CNBC, President Obama spoke out against Fox News. He stated that he has one television network “entirely devoted to attacking my administration".
He overlooked the other half dozen entirely devoted to propmoting the flykiller in charge.
My Pityometer needle didn't budge.
Always the victim that Obama.
This is sick. And below the office of the President. How much longer Lord, how much longer?
Only one network still stands for truth justice and the American way. FOX.... And in a smaller way, CNBC.
So, what to do if you are Obama? Cry your eyes out about those meanies who tell the truth about you. Yesterday during an interview with CNBC, President Obama spoke out against Fox News. He stated that he has one television network “entirely devoted to attacking my administration".
He overlooked the other half dozen entirely devoted to propmoting the flykiller in charge.
My Pityometer needle didn't budge.
Always the victim that Obama.
This is sick. And below the office of the President. How much longer Lord, how much longer?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
God CAN - but WILL He? Here is a clear answer!
Often afflicted people are thought to be less intelligent. The Bible is not like that. An example is the leper mentioned in Matthew chapter eight. He was outstanding in acumen, and saw what few others ever expressed. He met Jesus and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean” (Matthew 8:2). Many put the cart before the horse, saying, “If you can, you will.” That is human thinking, not revelation, and certainly not Bible talk. God always can, but will He?
For the leper, it was a revelation. He saw that everything depended on Christ’s will. The leper’s faith was reasonable – “if You are willing, You can.” The Bible was not written to tell us what God can do. We all know that. God is Almighty, or we would not call Him God. The Bible is here to tell us what He will do. That is what we want to know.
So, what is He willing to do? The answer is, “His Word is His will;” a short answer, but it comes in a long book – 66 Bible books in fact. Each book gives us special help; it builds our understanding of God and His character. Then we know what He will do.
Rheinhard Bonnke
For the leper, it was a revelation. He saw that everything depended on Christ’s will. The leper’s faith was reasonable – “if You are willing, You can.” The Bible was not written to tell us what God can do. We all know that. God is Almighty, or we would not call Him God. The Bible is here to tell us what He will do. That is what we want to know.
So, what is He willing to do? The answer is, “His Word is His will;” a short answer, but it comes in a long book – 66 Bible books in fact. Each book gives us special help; it builds our understanding of God and His character. Then we know what He will do.
Rheinhard Bonnke
Life-Long Power-Failure?
God spoke, and heaven and earth materialized. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:9). Then John’s Gospel makes the tremendous assertion that the Word became flesh (John 1:14). The same voice that created all things now spoke to us. What He said comes with absolute authority. It is the Word of the Lord.
When Christ spoke, He said heaven and earth would pass away but not His words (Matthew 24:35). He was not like the prophets. They spoke FOR the Lord, but Christ spoke AS the Lord. The prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord." Jesus never did. He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you.”
There was something else different. The prophets were sent with a message, but Jesus IS the message. The prophets spoke about the Lord, but Jesus spoke about Himself. He not only brought the Word of God, but He is the Word of God. He did not point to the way; He is the way. Jesus was not one of the roads that led to God. He is God.
That is why we have no right to doubt the Word of God, or to bend God’s exclamation marks into question marks. If we do so, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68), as the apostle Peter recognized. We either obey or die. Using our technology language, we blow the fuse, and suffer a lifelong power failure. The heating fails, the lights go out, communications cease, the systems break down, and cold eternal night settles in. Come on! Trust in God and His Word!
Reinhard Bonnke
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Obama isn't a Christian as I understand Christian... He was a member, showed up for Easter and Christmas and little else
During the election, Obama’s association with Rev. Wright was first used to dismiss claims that Obama was a closet Muslim. Later, the good reverend was proved to be a racists, anti-semite, and radical liberation theologist. Obama responded by saying he had never heard any of the offensive comments.
Now Newsweek columnist and MSNBC contributer Richard Wolffe tells America has The One probably didn’t hear the comments, because he was more of a church member…as opposed to a church goer.
While Obama wanted the voters to know he was a card carrying Christian, he apparently didn’t like wasting a Sunday morning on the whole church thing.
This is coming from one of the fluffiest pooches in the lapdog media.
Or someone more cynical might assume that the great community organizer merely saw religious affiliation as another base for building a political career.
Rev. Wright was important in helping The One develop a base of support in Chicago’s African American community. Afterwards, when he was no longer needed, Obama tossed Wright under the bus.
Oh…and there’s this tidbit:
Luck had nothing to do with this. The media refused to cover Obama’s association with radicals like Rev. Wright and William Ayers. Obama won the Democratic nomination because the media took his side over Hillary’s.
Now Newsweek columnist and MSNBC contributer Richard Wolffe tells America has The One probably didn’t hear the comments, because he was more of a church member…as opposed to a church goer.
If you’ve ever wondered why the mainstream media didn’t show much curiosity about how 20 years of attending Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church shaped President Barack Obama, there is a perfectly logical explanation. Obama wasn’t really there.
According to Richard Wolffe, an MSNBC contributor and former Newsweek columnist that covered the Obama presidential campaign for the weekly magazine, people don’t have to worry about the rantings and ravings of Obama’s controversial preacher having any impact on his world view because he wasn’t there.
Wolffe, in an appearance at the Politics & Prose bookstore in Washington, D.C. on June 15 promoting his book about Obama, “Renegade,” told the audience the president wasn’t naïve about Wright – he was ignorant.
“I don’t think I phrased it as naïve, but I was curious to know, as everyone was what he heard and what he thought about it,” Wolffe said. “And my conclusion from talking to him and his friends was that the dirty secret of the Rev. Wright episode, which he couldn’t really explain, was that he actually really wasn’t much of a churchgoer.”
While Obama wanted the voters to know he was a card carrying Christian, he apparently didn’t like wasting a Sunday morning on the whole church thing.
He explained Obama was reluctant to attend Wright’s services because they were time consuming events.
“When he said he wasn’t in church – he was trying to get at that, but I think this is kind of embarrassing for him,” Wolffe said. “And he told me look, ‘Yeah,’ he said. ‘It’s true, I didn’t go much, I had young kids. The services would go on for hours, if you’ve ever taken young kids to church, for three hours.’”
This is coming from one of the fluffiest pooches in the lapdog media.
Wolffe, who has been criticized for his coziness with Obama, was granted unprecedented access to the president, crediting having covered the Obama campaign from Day 1, going back to Feb. 10, 2007 when he announced in Springfield, Ill. as the reason.
Or someone more cynical might assume that the great community organizer merely saw religious affiliation as another base for building a political career.
Wolffe told the audience Obama was using religion, specifically his church attendance to garner support for the various offices he held – from Illinois state senate, the U.S. senator and ultimately President.
“And then at the same time, he was running for various offices,” Wolffe said. “So when he went to church, and this is where the politician’s slipperiness comes in – he didn’t say, ‘I wasn’t much of a churchgoer.’ If he was in church, it just wasn’t his church. He wasn’t going to church to pray. He was going to church around the state of Illinois to get votes.”
Rev. Wright was important in helping The One develop a base of support in Chicago’s African American community. Afterwards, when he was no longer needed, Obama tossed Wright under the bus.
Wolffe said the Obama-Wright relationship was important allowed the future president “to find community.” He describe Wright as “charismatic, erudite figure” and said the controversial preacher of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ was who Obama leaned on to “make sense” of the civil rights struggle of the 1960s “in a modern world.”
Wolffe reference a Feb. 22, 2007 Rolling Stone article and said that was the actual first warning sign to the Obama campaign the radical preacher was a problem for Obama.
“Rolling Stone did a story about Wright’s sermons right at the start of the campaign,” Wolffe said. “The candidate saw it. He disinvited Wright from giving the public prayer at the start of the Springfield launch. He gave a private prayer with the family and he ordered his campaign staff to go research the sermons. He said, ‘Go find out what’s in these sermons,’ obviously he wasn’t there.”
Oh…and there’s this tidbit:
Wolffe described the Obama campaign as lucky the news didn’t surface before the Iowa caucuses or in the heat of the contest with Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton during the early part of 2008.
“They were lucky, lucky, lucky that it didn’t emerge before Iowa, just before Iowa or before he had won that whole string of primaries through February,” Wolffe said.
Luck had nothing to do with this. The media refused to cover Obama’s association with radicals like Rev. Wright and William Ayers. Obama won the Democratic nomination because the media took his side over Hillary’s.
Sarah Palin's responce to Letterman's "Apology"
"Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve.
Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."
Governor Sarah Palin
Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."
Governor Sarah Palin
Monday, June 15, 2009
I have had it with Letterman!
I used to defend this guy to all of my friends who liked Leno better. I would say from a comic stand point that Jay was a great comic but Letterman was more original and had more style and class than Leno. Two recent events have changed my mind: Jay’s classy departure from the “Tonight Show” and Letterman’s classless left-wing attacks on the kids of politicians.
A comic needs to be an equal opportunity offender. We can’t pick sides in politics. We can have a point of view and a favorite but being a comic means when our guy drops the ball, you have to pick it up and smash it in his face. My friend and political opposite, Will Durst, said this a few years back about Mort Saul (I am paraphrasing here), “You can’t sit down to dinner with the Reagans and then pretend you’re still willing to sling mud at them.”
That is what is wrong with comedians like Letterman, Garofalo, and Stewart. They only see one side. Why do none of them at least give love taps to Obama? Why didn’t at least one of them make some comedic hay out of Obama gaffs like “57 states” and a reference to speaking “Austrian?”
The guy is the President and he can’t shake his mother-in-law and you can’t find a joke in that?
Not one of these comics can come up with one joke about Obama like, “Since Michelle Obama’s mother is living in the White House, does that mean it is qualified as section 8 housing?” Or, “Did you ever notice that President Obama is like a televangelist, no matter how much money you send him, he still asks for more?”
So I decided to give Dave a send off with one of his favorite bits, a top ten list. Here are my top ten reasons it sucks to be David Letterman:
A comic needs to be an equal opportunity offender. We can’t pick sides in politics. We can have a point of view and a favorite but being a comic means when our guy drops the ball, you have to pick it up and smash it in his face. My friend and political opposite, Will Durst, said this a few years back about Mort Saul (I am paraphrasing here), “You can’t sit down to dinner with the Reagans and then pretend you’re still willing to sling mud at them.”
That is what is wrong with comedians like Letterman, Garofalo, and Stewart. They only see one side. Why do none of them at least give love taps to Obama? Why didn’t at least one of them make some comedic hay out of Obama gaffs like “57 states” and a reference to speaking “Austrian?”
The guy is the President and he can’t shake his mother-in-law and you can’t find a joke in that?
Not one of these comics can come up with one joke about Obama like, “Since Michelle Obama’s mother is living in the White House, does that mean it is qualified as section 8 housing?” Or, “Did you ever notice that President Obama is like a televangelist, no matter how much money you send him, he still asks for more?”
So I decided to give Dave a send off with one of his favorite bits, a top ten list. Here are my top ten reasons it sucks to be David Letterman:
10) In a few years his “baby momma” is going to leave and take half his stuff.
9) 30-year-old Alfred E. Newman look-a-like, kind of cute; 60-year-old Alfred E. Newman look-a-like, just creepy!
8) Held onto double-breasted suit look longer than Billy Ray Cyrus had his mullet.
7) Amount of Botox needed to smooth out face would kill a humpback whale.
6) Wanted to be racecar driver but couldn’t find crash helmet big enough to cover ego.
5) By the time his son graduates from college he’ll be dead.
4) Once his stalker got to know him she started following Leno around.
3) Has lower ratings than Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly.
2) Got passed over for Leno, O’Brien, Fallon, Kimmel, Ferguson, and Kilborn.
1) Three words, “You’re on CBS.”
Wisdom is NOT part of the Atheist's Inheritance
If the Fear of GOD is the beginning of Wisdom, then No fear of God must ultimately result in Folly or Foolishness..... I think if you look at an Atheist's Mindset you may see what I mean.
I was quoted and lambasted for being insensitive and uncaring about the feelings of Atheists. Paul, I appreciate you as a person, but I hope I ticked you off real good. I want you to know the truth. I want you to understand that the mindset you have is leading you to eternal damnation.
You are making a bet with the universe and eternity that you can only lose.
So, if you are offended, so be it. I'm not here to make friends, I'm pretty clear on what I am, what I believe and how I believe Atheism run amok is an insidious plot to destroy our western culture.
So, be offended and then ask yourself this question, why. Why am I offended. Because in the end, whatever offends the mind reveals the heart.
If you were settled in your heart none of this would matter.
I remember enough about being a teenager to know that when it came to dating the guys that got Lucky were the ones with persuasive words and reason. If then.....
That's what you are hanging your hat on. I'm sure you are a nice fellow. Just foolish, If you believe God, which I DO.
OH, and, one other thing. If JESUS was here talking to you, that nice JESUS you think you know from common parody in literature and film, he would say the SAME THING. Repent, for the kingdom of GOD draws near. Turn from the way you are on and come to ME.
Jesus is nearer than you can possibly imagine. If being an atheist and being unafraid is who you really are... that is pure folly.
I was quoted and lambasted for being insensitive and uncaring about the feelings of Atheists. Paul, I appreciate you as a person, but I hope I ticked you off real good. I want you to know the truth. I want you to understand that the mindset you have is leading you to eternal damnation.
You are making a bet with the universe and eternity that you can only lose.
So, if you are offended, so be it. I'm not here to make friends, I'm pretty clear on what I am, what I believe and how I believe Atheism run amok is an insidious plot to destroy our western culture.
So, be offended and then ask yourself this question, why. Why am I offended. Because in the end, whatever offends the mind reveals the heart.
If you were settled in your heart none of this would matter.
I remember enough about being a teenager to know that when it came to dating the guys that got Lucky were the ones with persuasive words and reason. If then.....
That's what you are hanging your hat on. I'm sure you are a nice fellow. Just foolish, If you believe God, which I DO.
OH, and, one other thing. If JESUS was here talking to you, that nice JESUS you think you know from common parody in literature and film, he would say the SAME THING. Repent, for the kingdom of GOD draws near. Turn from the way you are on and come to ME.
Jesus is nearer than you can possibly imagine. If being an atheist and being unafraid is who you really are... that is pure folly.
Face of a GOP Serious About Good Policy? How About Sarah Palin?
So, Republicans, you're looking for people who can serve as faces of a party on the upswing. What qualities would we want to see in such people?
Maybe these:
* They've served in public office and have actually governed effectively.
* Rather than just talking about fiscal responsibility, they've made it happen under their watch.
* When possible, they've made sure the private sector would take the lead in crucial initiatives.
* They've taken on corrupt, entrenched interests to make government more responsive to the people it serves, even when those interests were fellow Republicans.
* They pull no punches in criticizing Democrats, but they do so with a positive outlook and a pleasant demeanor.
* They're not intimidated by the inevitable crap they will catch from the media, celebrities and whomever else.
* They have an enthusiastic following upon which to build.
* Finally, if you've got all of the above, it can't hurt if you also look fantastic.
Republicans, would you like people with some or most of these qualities to be the faces of a resurgent political party? Guess what. There's one person who possesses all eight.
Sarah Palin.
The Alaska governor was once again in the news this week for a silly reason – her recent public spat with David Letterman. But she deserves to be in the news for a substantive reason: The way she governs Alaska represents a principled, serious approach that is missing in the conduct of far too many Republican officeholders. What's more, the way she talks about the excesses of the Obama Administration shows that she not only sees the problems we are creating for ourselves, but understands the alternatives we should be championing.
Once she found herself back in the national spotlight thanks to Letterman's idiocy, she shined in national broadcast interviews with her discussion of the coming Alaska pipeline project, of the perils of excess federal spending and even of events in the Middle East.
Palin knows her stuff, backs it up with action and expresses herself with the perfect mix of substance and agreeable style.
I am not writing this to tout Palin as a presidential candidate. Unlike most who write about her, I do not view everything she does through the prism of presidential aspirations she may or may not have. This column is about the importance of prominent Republicans who are serious about good governance and can serve as the face of a party that represents such ideals.
Republicans should embrace everyone they can find whose track record in public office – and in the public eye – demonstrates the best of Republican governance. And no one fits the bill better than Palin.
But do you know about Palin? The real Palin?
Certain Republicans fear Palin's prominence because their image of her is based on Tina Fey routines and background turkey slaughters. Others are obsessed with inside baseball like the nonsense concerning her invite/non-invite/acceptance/non-acceptance of a speaking role at a recent GOP fundraising dinner.
If you read substance-challenged media like Politico, you think it's all about unnamed GOP operatives grumbling about the way her scheduler works, or GOP senators (who refuse to put their names on the record) finding her annoying.
Have you ever listened to Palin talk about policy? Have you examined her record in Alaska? Do you know the political courage she has demonstrated achieving crucial goals there?
It's especially important to listen to Palin's discussion of policy matters now, as compared with during the presidential campaign, because then she was hamstrung by the need to tout the McCain campaign's discombobulated message. Now that she is free to craft her own message, and can base it on her own record, she is exponentially more compelling.
Unlike their Washington counterparts, there are Republicans around the country who have done well in state and local positions, and they deserve to be the party's new stars. Wherever you can find them, put them in the spotlight. No need to take sides. You like Bobby Jindal? Mark Sanford? Mitch Daniels? Awesome. The more, the better.
But start with Sarah Palin. It's about her record, her vision, her message and her sincere appeal. They are all top-notch, if you don't realize that, it's because you've been focused on nonsense instead of what really matters.
Make her the nominee for president? I don't really care, and I'm not sure she cares as much as you think she does. But by all means, make her a star, because the Republican Party doesn't have anyone who comes even close to fitting the bill like she does.
Maybe these:
* They've served in public office and have actually governed effectively.
* Rather than just talking about fiscal responsibility, they've made it happen under their watch.
* When possible, they've made sure the private sector would take the lead in crucial initiatives.
* They've taken on corrupt, entrenched interests to make government more responsive to the people it serves, even when those interests were fellow Republicans.
* They pull no punches in criticizing Democrats, but they do so with a positive outlook and a pleasant demeanor.
* They're not intimidated by the inevitable crap they will catch from the media, celebrities and whomever else.
* They have an enthusiastic following upon which to build.
* Finally, if you've got all of the above, it can't hurt if you also look fantastic.
Republicans, would you like people with some or most of these qualities to be the faces of a resurgent political party? Guess what. There's one person who possesses all eight.
Sarah Palin.
The Alaska governor was once again in the news this week for a silly reason – her recent public spat with David Letterman. But she deserves to be in the news for a substantive reason: The way she governs Alaska represents a principled, serious approach that is missing in the conduct of far too many Republican officeholders. What's more, the way she talks about the excesses of the Obama Administration shows that she not only sees the problems we are creating for ourselves, but understands the alternatives we should be championing.
Once she found herself back in the national spotlight thanks to Letterman's idiocy, she shined in national broadcast interviews with her discussion of the coming Alaska pipeline project, of the perils of excess federal spending and even of events in the Middle East.
Palin knows her stuff, backs it up with action and expresses herself with the perfect mix of substance and agreeable style.
I am not writing this to tout Palin as a presidential candidate. Unlike most who write about her, I do not view everything she does through the prism of presidential aspirations she may or may not have. This column is about the importance of prominent Republicans who are serious about good governance and can serve as the face of a party that represents such ideals.
Republicans should embrace everyone they can find whose track record in public office – and in the public eye – demonstrates the best of Republican governance. And no one fits the bill better than Palin.
But do you know about Palin? The real Palin?
Certain Republicans fear Palin's prominence because their image of her is based on Tina Fey routines and background turkey slaughters. Others are obsessed with inside baseball like the nonsense concerning her invite/non-invite/acceptance/non-acceptance of a speaking role at a recent GOP fundraising dinner.
If you read substance-challenged media like Politico, you think it's all about unnamed GOP operatives grumbling about the way her scheduler works, or GOP senators (who refuse to put their names on the record) finding her annoying.
Have you ever listened to Palin talk about policy? Have you examined her record in Alaska? Do you know the political courage she has demonstrated achieving crucial goals there?
It's especially important to listen to Palin's discussion of policy matters now, as compared with during the presidential campaign, because then she was hamstrung by the need to tout the McCain campaign's discombobulated message. Now that she is free to craft her own message, and can base it on her own record, she is exponentially more compelling.
Unlike their Washington counterparts, there are Republicans around the country who have done well in state and local positions, and they deserve to be the party's new stars. Wherever you can find them, put them in the spotlight. No need to take sides. You like Bobby Jindal? Mark Sanford? Mitch Daniels? Awesome. The more, the better.
But start with Sarah Palin. It's about her record, her vision, her message and her sincere appeal. They are all top-notch, if you don't realize that, it's because you've been focused on nonsense instead of what really matters.
Make her the nominee for president? I don't really care, and I'm not sure she cares as much as you think she does. But by all means, make her a star, because the Republican Party doesn't have anyone who comes even close to fitting the bill like she does.
I wish I could write like that
I read a few Blogs. Some are better than others. Some are really really good. The writing is brilliant.
I wish I could do that. Sigh....
I'm just me, but wishing and hopin...
I wish I could do that. Sigh....
I'm just me, but wishing and hopin...
Life Verses for Athiests
Most atheists don't spend much time in the Bible. If they did, however, they would find a couple verses to ponder:
Read the heart God gave you, learn of HIM.
Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
How is that different from the atheism we see practiced today?
I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jeremiah 31:33b-34
They don't understand that what they believe is morality and good behavior based on reason is God trying to impart wisdom by writing it on their hearts.
Atheism is a funny religion. Adherents think they serve no God, they serve ONE, themselves and their reason. Reason will always take your down further than you wanted to go. Reason built gas chambers for people that were not a good part of society in the view of some.Read the heart God gave you, learn of HIM.
Divine Church Order is a House made of Living Stones, NOT BOARDS
I am watching a slow motion train wreck.
I'll bet you would enjoy my telling you all about it. NOPE. Too many confidences. Too many relationships at risk.
But, I know this. There is no place in ministry for boards in the house of God. The existence of boards is usually a desire for consensus. I understand that.
God's defined order is First in the House there to be an apostolic overseer. One who carries a vision and a direction that came from the throne. Sometimes that vision will be one given him or her directly from Father. Other times it will be a vision that a presbytery of prophets in the house will have given him. Preferable a combination where visions are submitted and developed.
The prophets, if they are true prophets, will give this vision in unity. God doesn't argue with himself.
The apostle will declare and proclaim the vision to set it in motion. The Prophets will watch as watchmen on the wall. The the Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists will execute the vision by equipping the saints to carry out the will of God.
Since it all comes from the throne, there will be little argument.
In the end, God will be glorified. He will be honored. And he will cause favor in the house.
This is the will of the Father in heaven.
Of course there will be well equipped saints to gather and distribute information, resources, ministry function, table waiting if you will. And, sometimes they are going to come to the Prophets to inquire of God regarding situations and circumstances. If the Apostle of the house becomes derailed in some area, the prophets will need to hear of it and then deal with the Apostle of the house.
Sometimes those people will be gathered into groups, committees. The problem is, they will become little kingdom's unto themselves not submitted to the vision.
The problem with committees, boards is they become vision casters, groups of Apostles. God's plan was never meant to be this way. It doesn't work.
God's house is to be made up of living stones, not boards.
I'll bet you would enjoy my telling you all about it. NOPE. Too many confidences. Too many relationships at risk.
But, I know this. There is no place in ministry for boards in the house of God. The existence of boards is usually a desire for consensus. I understand that.
God's defined order is First in the House there to be an apostolic overseer. One who carries a vision and a direction that came from the throne. Sometimes that vision will be one given him or her directly from Father. Other times it will be a vision that a presbytery of prophets in the house will have given him. Preferable a combination where visions are submitted and developed.
The prophets, if they are true prophets, will give this vision in unity. God doesn't argue with himself.
The apostle will declare and proclaim the vision to set it in motion. The Prophets will watch as watchmen on the wall. The the Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists will execute the vision by equipping the saints to carry out the will of God.
Since it all comes from the throne, there will be little argument.
In the end, God will be glorified. He will be honored. And he will cause favor in the house.
This is the will of the Father in heaven.
Of course there will be well equipped saints to gather and distribute information, resources, ministry function, table waiting if you will. And, sometimes they are going to come to the Prophets to inquire of God regarding situations and circumstances. If the Apostle of the house becomes derailed in some area, the prophets will need to hear of it and then deal with the Apostle of the house.
Sometimes those people will be gathered into groups, committees. The problem is, they will become little kingdom's unto themselves not submitted to the vision.
The problem with committees, boards is they become vision casters, groups of Apostles. God's plan was never meant to be this way. It doesn't work.
God's house is to be made up of living stones, not boards.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A Kent State Killing First Hand Report
Friday Night I sat up and listened carefully to a man who was at Kent State during the Kent State massacre. He is no left winger. He was there. The story he told me was so chilling. This was a government cover up. I'm afraid it makes me less trusting of the government, and casts a shadow on the government we have today. Here from Wiki is a pretty good report of that day. It lines up exactly with the story the man who was there told me.
This much is clear:
I trust the government even less than I did a week ago.
Look at the distance from which they were killed. And many more shots were fired than admitted.On Monday, May 4, a protest was scheduled to be held at noon, as had been planned three days earlier. University officials attempted to ban the gathering, handing out 12,000 leaflets stating that the event was canceled. Despite this, an estimated 2,000 people gathered[16] on the university's Commons, near Taylor Hall. The protest began with the ringing of the campus's iron Victory Bell (which had historically been used to signal victories in football games) to mark the beginning of the rally, and the first protester began to speak.
Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio ARNG, the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.
The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus officials Harold Rice,[17] riding in a Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, forcing the Jeep to retreat.[18]
Just before noon, the National Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some began a second rock attack with chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen; however, they had put on gas masks upon first throwing tear gas at the students.
When it was obvious the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their weapons, began to advance upon the hundreds of protesters. As the guardsmen advanced, the protesters retreated up and over Blanket Hill, heading out of The Commons area. Once over the hill, the students, in a loose group, moved northeast along the front of Taylor Hall, with some continuing toward a parking lot in front of Prentice Hall (slightly northeast of and perpendicular to Taylor Hall). The guardsmen pursued the protesters over the hill, but rather than veering left as the protesters had, they continued straight, heading down toward an athletic practice field enclosed by a chain link fence. Here they remained for about ten minutes, unsure of how to get out of the area short of retracing their entrance path (an action some guardsmen considered might be viewed as a retreat). During this time, the bulk of the students congregated off to the left and front of the guardsmen, approximately 50 to 75 meters away, on the veranda of Taylor Hall. Others were scattered between Taylor Hall and the Prentice Hall parking lot, while still others, perhaps 35 or 40, were standing in the parking lot, or dispersing through the lot as they had been previously ordered.
While on the practice field, the guardsmen generally faced the parking lot which was about 100 yards away. At one point, some of the guardsmen knelt and aimed their weapons toward the parking lot, then stood up again. For a few moments, several guardsmen formed a loose huddle and appeared to be talking to one another. The guardsmen appeared to be unclear as to what to do next. They had cleared the protesters from the Commons area, and many students had left, but many stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. At the end of about ten minutes, the guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward the Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as the latter passed over the top of the hill and headed back down into the Commons.
At this point, at 12:22 PM,[1] a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand rifles at the students. The guardsmen directed their fire not at the closest students, who were on the Taylor Hall veranda, but at those on the grass area and concrete walkway below the veranda, at those on the service road between the veranda and the parking lot, and at those in the parking lot. Bullets were not sprayed in all directions; instead, they were confined to a fairly limited line of fire leading from the top of the hill to the parking lot. Not all the soldiers who fired their weapons directed their fire into the students. Some soldiers fired into the ground, while a few fired into the air. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using a final total of 67 bullets. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired remains widely debated.
Photo taken from the perspective of where the Ohio National Guard soldiers stood when they opened fire on the students.
Bullet hole in a sculpture by Don Drumm caused by a .30 caliber round fired by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970.The Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation. Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance of the wounded students. Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State". The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided probing the question regarding why the shootings happened. Instead, it harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, but it concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
The shootings killed four students and wounded nine. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, had been walking from one class to the next at the time of their deaths. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet away, and their average distance from the guardsmen was 345 feet.
This much is clear:
- The protest had gone on for days and was winding to a close
- More shots were fired from more guns than were identified
- The Guardsmen were given orders and they carried them out
- The government covered this up
- The people hurt and killed were looked upon as criminal
- A couple killed weren't even protesting, just going to classes carrying books
- The killings were random and vindictive
- The guardsmen were being directed to violate any rule of war
- This is a pattern of how the government will act militarily against the left or right
I trust the government even less than I did a week ago.
Why are young people leaving the church?
Groundbreaking study says Sunday School makes exit more likely
What does the age of the Earth have to do with the exodus of young people from American churches?
Ken Ham, known for his Answers in Genesis creation-science ministry, says a major study he commissioned by a respected researcher unveils for the first time in a scientific fashion the startling reasons behind statistics that show two-thirds of young people in evangelical churches will leave when they move into their 20s.
The study, highlighted in Ham's new book with researcher Britt Beemer, "Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it," finds church youth already are "lost" in their hearts and minds in elementary, middle and high school – not in college as many assume.
"A lot of the research already done has been to find out how many believe, how many support abortion, believe in the resurrection, say they're born again," Ham told WND. "But nobody has really ever delved into why two-thirds of young people will walk away from the church."
Get "Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it"
The first-of-its-kind study by Beemer – a former senior research analyst for the Heritage Foundation and founder in 1979 of the American Research Group – included 20,000 phone calls and detailed surveys of 1,000 20 to 29 year olds who used to attend evangelical churches on a regular basis.
The survey found, much to Ham's surprise, a "Sunday School syndrome," indicating children who faithfully attend Bible classes in their church over the years actually are more likely to question the authority of Scripture.
"This is a brutal wake-up call for the church, showing how our programs and our approaches to Christian education are failing dismally," Ham writes in the book.
Among the survey findings, regular participants in Sunday School are more likely to:
* Leave the church
* Believe that the Bible is less true
* Defend the legality of abortion and same-sex marriage
* Defend premarital sex
The book explores a number of reasons for the findings, but Ham sees one overarching problem that is related to how churches and parents have taught youth to understand the Genesis account of creation.
Ham – who believes in a literal six-day creation that happened 6,000 to 10,000 years ago – says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th Century, when it began teaching that "the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts."
"What you see in the Bible is that when there is compromise in one generation, and it's not dealt with, you usually notice it to a greater extent in the next generation," Ham told WND.
In previous generations, young people could live with this inconsistency, he said, but with an increasingly secular and atheistic public education system – where some 90 percent of church-going youth are trained – today's youth find it hard to see a connection between what they are taught in church and what they learn at school.
"Because of the way in which they've been educated," Ham said, teens come to believe "that what they are taught in school is reality, but the church teaches stories and morality and relationship. Bible teaching is not real in the sense of real history."
Now, as parents or leaders tell youth they can "continue to believe in evolution, millions of years," Ham said, young people are starting to see, 'Well, I can then believe what I'm taught at school – but school has nothing to do with God.'"
The key issue is that this doubt about the Bible's account of origins causes youth to doubt the authority of Scripture, he said.
"Salvation is not conditioned on what you believe about the age of the Earth and the six days of creation," Ham said. "There are many who believe in millions of years and are Christians."
But the Genesis issue does matter, he contends, "because salvation does rise or fall on the authority of Scripture. The message of the Gospel comes from these words of Scripture."
When that Bible is undermined, he explained, everything it teaches is in doubt.
Ham's new book shows how young people can be given "answers to help them understand you can really believe God's word, that it "connects to reality and it's really a book of history."
Helping young people makes sense of reports such as the claim last month of the discovery of a "missing link" proving Darwin's theory of evolution is Ham's specialty.
In a May 19 interview with WND, he pointed to a line in the scientific report about the discovery that countered the researchers' bold claims to media.
The fossil's species "could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans]," states the report, published in the online journal Public Library of Science, "but we are not advocating this here."
The London Guardian newspaper also reported that scientific reviewers of the research asked that others "tone down" claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.
"The reviewers said we don't know this is a missing link, and they asked the people who wrote [the newspaper reports] to tone it down," Ham told WND, "and yet we have this media hype claiming this is it, this is the missing link."
What does the age of the Earth have to do with the exodus of young people from American churches?
Ken Ham, known for his Answers in Genesis creation-science ministry, says a major study he commissioned by a respected researcher unveils for the first time in a scientific fashion the startling reasons behind statistics that show two-thirds of young people in evangelical churches will leave when they move into their 20s.
The study, highlighted in Ham's new book with researcher Britt Beemer, "Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it," finds church youth already are "lost" in their hearts and minds in elementary, middle and high school – not in college as many assume.
"A lot of the research already done has been to find out how many believe, how many support abortion, believe in the resurrection, say they're born again," Ham told WND. "But nobody has really ever delved into why two-thirds of young people will walk away from the church."
Get "Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it"
The first-of-its-kind study by Beemer – a former senior research analyst for the Heritage Foundation and founder in 1979 of the American Research Group – included 20,000 phone calls and detailed surveys of 1,000 20 to 29 year olds who used to attend evangelical churches on a regular basis.
The survey found, much to Ham's surprise, a "Sunday School syndrome," indicating children who faithfully attend Bible classes in their church over the years actually are more likely to question the authority of Scripture.
"This is a brutal wake-up call for the church, showing how our programs and our approaches to Christian education are failing dismally," Ham writes in the book.
Among the survey findings, regular participants in Sunday School are more likely to:
* Leave the church
* Believe that the Bible is less true
* Defend the legality of abortion and same-sex marriage
* Defend premarital sex
The book explores a number of reasons for the findings, but Ham sees one overarching problem that is related to how churches and parents have taught youth to understand the Genesis account of creation.
Ham – who believes in a literal six-day creation that happened 6,000 to 10,000 years ago – says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th Century, when it began teaching that "the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts."
"What you see in the Bible is that when there is compromise in one generation, and it's not dealt with, you usually notice it to a greater extent in the next generation," Ham told WND.
In previous generations, young people could live with this inconsistency, he said, but with an increasingly secular and atheistic public education system – where some 90 percent of church-going youth are trained – today's youth find it hard to see a connection between what they are taught in church and what they learn at school.
"Because of the way in which they've been educated," Ham said, teens come to believe "that what they are taught in school is reality, but the church teaches stories and morality and relationship. Bible teaching is not real in the sense of real history."
Now, as parents or leaders tell youth they can "continue to believe in evolution, millions of years," Ham said, young people are starting to see, 'Well, I can then believe what I'm taught at school – but school has nothing to do with God.'"
The key issue is that this doubt about the Bible's account of origins causes youth to doubt the authority of Scripture, he said.
"Salvation is not conditioned on what you believe about the age of the Earth and the six days of creation," Ham said. "There are many who believe in millions of years and are Christians."
But the Genesis issue does matter, he contends, "because salvation does rise or fall on the authority of Scripture. The message of the Gospel comes from these words of Scripture."
When that Bible is undermined, he explained, everything it teaches is in doubt.
Ham's new book shows how young people can be given "answers to help them understand you can really believe God's word, that it "connects to reality and it's really a book of history."
Helping young people makes sense of reports such as the claim last month of the discovery of a "missing link" proving Darwin's theory of evolution is Ham's specialty.
In a May 19 interview with WND, he pointed to a line in the scientific report about the discovery that countered the researchers' bold claims to media.
The fossil's species "could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans]," states the report, published in the online journal Public Library of Science, "but we are not advocating this here."
The London Guardian newspaper also reported that scientific reviewers of the research asked that others "tone down" claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.
"The reviewers said we don't know this is a missing link, and they asked the people who wrote [the newspaper reports] to tone it down," Ham told WND, "and yet we have this media hype claiming this is it, this is the missing link."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)