I am swiftly becoming tired of those who decry my faith as shallow, hate-filled, and ignorant by those who display those very traits toward those with whom they disagree. Especially from those who display colossal ignorance themselves in 'rightly dividing' the word of truth-- Ms Green is right in this.

I have resolved myself to be civil even though these others do not care about civility. Sad for them, but I'm not going to be drawn in. I have decided I can both be civil AND earnestly contend for the faith. Jesus gave as good as he got from His detractors, and through it all remained pure; He was angry, yet sinned not. I can't at present do that. I will therefore be civil...

Let the dogs bark and bray in the street. Me? I choose not to be drawn in.

Here's a graphic I built for the 5 today, that I'm particularly proud of...
simple yet elegant.




----------------------------

























Here's a desktop version (800x600)...

Within one-hundred thousand years humans may be split into two distinct races... Elites and an Underclass-- sub-humans, workers... Morlocks.

From BBC News:

Human species 'may split in two'

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Of course, all this assumes there is no God, and the promises of the Bible are nothing more than fables.

Also from the article...

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

And this within just a thousand years! But look at how Dr Curry describes those on the less fortunate end of evolution:

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

On a side note: One must wonder how Wells arrived at the names Morlock and Eloi. Did he just pull them out of his imagination or did he make an effort to 'make an allusion'?

Consider the first syllable in 'Morlock.' Mort, as in 'Mortuary;' Death... even Tolkien picked up on it when he named the first Dark Lord, Morgoth. A lot of negativity is bound up in Morlock. But Eloi... Eloi is something altogether different! Look at the first two letters, EL, then look at the Jewish honorific El used extensively in naming God; as well as describing attributes of, or derivations of God.

I propose that when we awoke this morning we woke to a sun 100,000 years in the future! Morlocks and Elois! We are already there! Children of the Light, and Children of the Darkness. Ideology versus Ideology. Motivation versus Motivation. Two philosophies diametrically opposed to each other in a struggle only one is destined to win.

My message to every Eloi reading this. Do NOT compromise the message of God. Friendship with the Morlock is enmity with God. What fellowship has Light with Darkness? Bring them into the light, but do not compromise the truth of God.

And make sure you enjoy a chuckle at Dr Curry's expense. Oh! And someone please get Miss Mimieux a towel!

Will I sleep one hundred years,
My first night ‘neath your summer eaves?
Will I cry, shed one hundred tears,
My sorrows clatter like autumn leaves?
Away from me, forever away
Your lips brushing my tears away
Fall asleep, the sleep of peace
As in your arms I lay

Will I dream while embraced in you,
Coupled neath linens clean and new?
Wakened to find my dreams come true,
And lost within your eyes of blue
Singing to me, a familiar song
Lips brush mine with tender song
And like the gentle murmuring sea
Rock me soft the whole night long

One hundred years, may each night seem
Forever may each day so be
And parting but a shadows dream
That has no life in the love we see
Smiling true in eyes brightly shining
Lips brushing mine ~ wet, soft, and shining
Shuddering and rising again to fall
Within your embrace entwining

Will I sleep a hundred years?
Your lips brush all my cares away?
Pain and sorrow erased, and gone my fears?
While in your arms in peace I lay?
Time and love will tell
Time and love will tell



ELAshley
18 March 2002, 1:10am
Revised:
102907.022926.1

It is spinning
Uncontrollably, or seeming so
Finite eyes cannot grasp a pattern
Finite minds cannot fathom the depths of hue and timber
If there is a pattern
We are too close to see it
Too close to the fire
There is too much comfort in glowing embers
Tended with patient mindless devotion
That the depths of cold empty space between us
Might seem less
Empty

Finite, yes—our human capacity
For perception
Bound by a spectrum
But an atom’s breadth wide
Yet this is the lie we tell ourselves
The lie we have come to believe
For we have no wish to step back
And search for patterns
We cannot acknowledge what cannot be seen
Right?
Or mere rationalizations
That do more to call us by name
Than the names we call ourselves…


Faithless…
That is what we are
Knowing deep within
The shape of patterns within the world
Like lace
To acknowledge the lace of our lives
Our meetings and partings
Seemingly random—yet not
Is to acknowledge patterns
We’d just as soon not recognize
That we own more control
Over unfathomed depths of locus—
We control more than we like
Like more than we wish
Wish less than we could

We stab out our eyes
To avoid seeing
Drive spikes through our ears
To avoid hearing
Cut out our tongues
To avoid confessing
Yet the world still spins
Truth still works the shuttle
Of Life’s warp and weft
Leaving us in the end
To understand our ability to work the loom
Is not hampered
By self-mutilation

And we are then left without excuse


ELAshley
051507.021212.1
Revised on:
052407.120559.1

More and more, too much of what I read on the internet, see on television, and hear on the radio simply makes me sick.

Modern Laodicea, all across the fruited plain. Christianity, more and more each day, is ceasing to look like Jesus. It is neither Cold; not entirely dead to some semblance of morality; capable of recognizing injustice in the community and in the world.

Nor Hot; actively up and demanding of itself separation from immorality; unwilling to stand for justice in the community or in the world. The salt is swiftly losing its savor. The Church has become tepid lumps of useless flesh sitting in false-piety on soft padded pews.

How can anyone look at the Church-- as a whole --and see something the Lord would not immediately spit out?

A bunch of fence-sitters! Leaning neither one way, or the other; not willing to make waves, or rock the boat. Who knows? Christianity may need the good will of the Cold Faction one day! Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way and the Hot Faction will be the only choice worth making. But until that day the fence looks quite fine. No need to stir up hatred by choosing one side or the other. No need to display insensitivity to one side or the other. If by taking a stand the Church might offend even one person, then take a stand she mustn't!


"How dare the Church stand on Christ alone for Salvation! What will the poor Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew do? How hateful you appear in our and their eyes; worthy of all our condemnation!

"How dare the Church cling to the false idea that God condemns the poor homosexual? Doesn't the Church know that God made them that way!? That He's unwilling that any perish? God is Love! Can't you freaks understand this!?

"How dare the Church take the words of Jesus as absolute truth!? Don't you people know that the Gospels were written decades, if not centuries after Jesus' death? His words are a good starting point, but what kind of idiot relies 100% on the Bible, claiming it absolute truth, without error!? What a bunch of morons!

"The Church needs to care for the environment! Eschew outdated interpretations which divide rather than unite! Modern scholars are far more enlightened than those of the first century! Good Grief Church! Get your butts up on that fence and don't you dare offend anyone with your "Exclusive" Gospel of hatred and intolerance! That's not the Jesus of the Bible! Jesus said all could come! Whosoever will! And that includes men and women in committed homosexual relationships. How dare you judge these people for being who God made them to be!

"And how dare you suggest that God needs to be let back in our schools? Have you ignoramuses not read the Constitution!? Hello! Separation of Church and State!? It's in there, bub! How dare you insist that children in public schools be allowed to pray! What if they offend an atheist!? God forbid! They have rights too, ya know!

"How dare you criticize the film and television industries for the "crud" they offer as family entertainment? At least we get object lessons on what it means to be a man or woman living in the real world! So there's a murder every hour on the hour 24-7, 365! This is the world we live in! Don't like it? Change the channel!

"How dare you suggest people work for what they have!? How fair is it that you have a bank full of money and this poor guy in a van down by the river has nothing but the shirt on his back and the shoes on his feet!? You mean to tell me you object to "contributing" more of your hard earned wages so this poor Joe can have a warm blanket at night and a cup of coffee in the morning!? What kind of greedy bastards are you guys, anyway?

"And don't you dare utter a peep about abortion! Why, don't realize that if we force women to have their babies we'll all be saddled with the responsibility of caring-- on the public dole, no less! --for all those unwanted kids!? Yeah, you want to force women to have children but you don't want to shell out a single dollar to care for the kids! Some Christians you turn out to be!

"So don't you dare take a stand on anything! Keep your mouths shut, and your butts firmly on the pew! Don't you dare try to save anyone from their sins, and when we tell you to shut up, by God, you shut the frell up! You freaking hypocrites!"


...

Sorry. I can't do that. Jesus is coming. Soon. And you need to get ready. Now. Take another look at the Bible while there's still time. He said it himself:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

--Matthew 10:34

If the world hates the Church, the Church must be doing something right.

What I find odd about his bizarre statement was his use of the trite and much ballyhooed term "Illegal War"

Correct me if I'm wrong but... didn't the House and the Senate VOTE to send troops to war? Didn't Democrats insist on being allowed to vote on the measure to show their Patriotism? Did Congress then engage in an illegality? And judging by the magnitude of their vote, couldn't this be construed as a High Crime? Especially since they continue to vote to FUND the war!?

Hmmmm.

Recently at the Inn of the Erudite Redneck, a not so friendly game of darts has been played, and as things look now, the game may yet continue. First I'm a bigot, and hatemonger, then I'm not-- it's all a misunderstanding. What is not a misunderstanding, however, is that a man who calls himself Christian seems incapable of taking what is quite simple... that Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him [Jesus], as Gospel.

In an effort to point out that unless Muslims come to Christ for salvation, they will in no wise enter in, what is simple truth becomes bigotry and hatremongery in the ears of someone who should know better... someone who obviously sees in every conservative, fundamentalist, Christian a narrow-minded bigot capable of seeing value in the White race alone-- in Christianity alone. I suggest here and now that this person- who is NOT a conservative, fundamentalist Christian --is likewise narrow-minded and can see little if any good in anyone who would take the Bible for what it says, where it says it. Context is King, is it not? And yet this someone seems either unwilling or incapable of recognizing what I bent over backward to say at the Inn of the Erudite Redneck as an honest expression of what GOD has to say on the matter of other faiths being inferior and incapable of paying man's debt of sin.

Graciously, I took a second look at some of the things I had posted, namely those comments posted while my ire was stacked high with contents under pressure... all thanks to my less than gracious detractor. So be it.

The rules of the game suddenly shifted. The host and proprietor at the Inn of the Erudite Redneck sought to offer what I deemed a gracious compromise, especially after my opponent continued throwing darts. The article he linked to, God Shows No Partiality, turned out to be, surprisingly, a very well-rounded and interesting piece with but one serious objection. From my "Piece of the Elephant"-- read the article --there is a glaring inconsistency between what the Reverend Frank Logue spends several pages outlining and this one statement...

While other paths might lead to God, Christianity holds that Jesus is the way to know God best.

On the surface there's not much to object to here, especially after such statements as..

Many religions contain truth...

... which is true, but Rev Logue loses me and many others with the idea that every religion is 'valid' in some measure, great or small. This is simply not true.

He says that for himself, "Obviously I believe that Christianity has it right." But if Christianity has it right, and Jesus IS the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but [through Him], then the idea that Christianity is the way to know God best, is predicated upon the the idea that these other religions are a way to know God as well, though imperfectly. And this is beyond simply wrong.

Consider Solomon's idolatry...

Solomon was by no means the keeper of the religion of Israel; for he married many foreign wives, in addition to the daughter of the Pharaoh there were women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonines, and Hittities, when Solomon became old his wives turned his heart away from Jehovah, and he worshipped other gods. This led him to committing idolatry and condoning the idolatry of his wives.

That Solomon found grace with God in the end, is not at issue here, but God's response to Solomon's idolatry is...

And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing that he should not go after other gods: but kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

1 Kings 11:9-13

I don't object to any statement that says other religions have something of value to offer the world, however great or small, but based on what God Himself has had to say on 'other' gods, and the evilness of worshiping them, for anyone then to say that "Jesus is the way to know God best," is to suggest that one can know God, albeit less than best, but still get a glimpse of who He is in 'other' religions.... other gods.

This is simply not true. And it doesn't make me a bigot to say as much. Were I to turn my nose up at the practitioners of other religions and think myself superior to them, that would make me a bigot... and worse. But to simply reiterate what God has already said... ?

I do not deny that God has placed His law in every human heart, for even a child instinctively knows that lying is wrong; that taking what is not theirs is wrong. The same is true of peoples who have never heard the name of Jesus. And God has a system in place already to deal with peoples who have never heard the name of Jesus. And that is The Law.

That may sound unjust-- it sounds awfully harsh to me, but consider those who went to Abraham's Bosom... that other compartment of hell, namely paradise. They were stuck there until the final resurrection unless Jesus died and descended into hell [Abraham's Bosom] and preached to those who would hear and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have to lovingly assume that God has made a way for these others to hear the Gospel and accept the gift of salvation that the blood of God Incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth, lovingly provided.

For Muslims today, there are missionaries and evangelists to tell them the Good News. I have to believe that the truth is made available to each and every one, because short of faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins they cannot enter Heaven. That is what God says. It is what Jesus says. It is what the Bible says.

And it's what I repeat here and now.

It could've been anyone, but it wasn't. It was Dan. Congratulations...

To everyone's satisfaction a new treaty has been agreed upon and will be ratified by December. This time by parliamentary ratification rather than national referendums-- All but Ireland that is, whose constitution requires a national referendum.

The real power in this new treaty seems to have been solidified in the European Commission-- it has never centered in the six-month rotating presidency, which has now been done away with. Parliamentary elections determine the make up of this body. The European Council however is the driving force of the EU, and once the President is chosen he then chooses his Vice-Presidents (plural), all without a single citizen of Europe voting (for the governing council appointments)... this is an unelected body, with the President chosen by the Commission-- how scary is that?

The only snag in the newly agreed upon 'Treaty of Lisbon' appears to be Ireland which again, by the terms of its own Constitution, must hold a referendum which will likely be next summer. With an eye for implementation on January 1, 2009, the 27 member states have a year to approve this new treaty.

Assuming this is accomplished. Europe will surpass the United States in 'Superpower' status. The Euro has already surpassed the Dollar-- countries are beginning to trade in their Dollars for Euros. What happens when Europe has its own standing army?


What I see--

The United States, seeing the success and meteoric rise of its economy, will advance the idea of a North American Union (more than they already are... it takes a village, after all). Citizens of the U.S. will eventually see a need to compete globally, which they will no longer be able to do once Europe gets to full steam. The United States of America will become the United States of NORTH America, and the Dollar will be replaced with the Amero.

And this 232 year old Republic will cease to be.

I know, I know... I'm absolutely crackers! It can't possibly, ever-in-a-million-years, happen.

But the very fact that Hillary has quite a bit more than a ghost of a chance of winning the AMERICAN presidency... With the stroke of 27 pens, the Democrats have become, inarguably, the most dangerous political group in America.

From the Associated Press, 3 days ago
--Jim Davenport, Florence S.C.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies.

"I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions," Clinton said. The presidential candidate spoke at a town hall meeting with 300 people at a high school in a Democratic stronghold in early voting South Carolina.

The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments "would be devastating to the world economy."

If the U.S. took military action as a result, she said, "I would hope that the world would see that was an action of last resort, not first resort. Because we need the world to agree with us about the threat that Iran poses to everyone."

Sounds a lot like "War for Oil" to me. The reek of hypocrisy is eye-watering! Especially when you consider all the hypocrites by proxy who will vote for her in the primaries...

Forty-one Senators signed a Senate Resolution to ask that a private citizen be censured for exercising his Constitutional right of Free Speech... to be censured for a lie they knowingly and continue to perpetuate.

What makes this document 'Historic' is the fact that they are all sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States, not seek to deprive private citizens of their Constitutional rights.

On top of this is the matter of perjury. Lying, knowingly, in an official government document about a private citizen for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda is, to use Mr. Reid's own words, outrageous and beyond the pale.

Lying is perjury. Perjury is a crime. And forty-one Senators have publicly lied about a private citizen, and sought to defraud him of his Constitutional right to Free Speech. This is what's so historic about this document-- it is proof in writing of their crime against the Constitution and a private citizen.

You can view image files of the document here, or you can download a free .pdf copy of the original [as I have] here.

For the record... Mr. May, CEO of Clear Channel Communications gave the original letter to Mr. Limbaugh who has since posted it on eBay. Proceeds from the auction will go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation which provides scholarships and other services to the children and families of fallen soldiers and government agents. 100% of the money they bring in goes out in scholarships and aid-- they personally eat ALL administrative costs.

Rush Limbaugh has pledged to match whatever amount the eBay auction brings in, and has challenged all forty-one Senators who signed this document to demonstrate their own respect and admiration for the United States Military by also matching the winning bid. As of this posting the high bid is $56,000. The auction ends October 19, 2007 (this Friday) at 10:00am.

Surely you've seen the bumper stickers... "Keep the Ten Commandments". And the yard signs... "I Support the Ten Commandments" But do the Ten Commandments have any relevance in the walk of a Christian?

No.


What if I told you the Christian does not have to worry about keeping the Ten Commandments? What would you think of such a claim? Surely the Ten Commandments are important! Right?

Sure they're important. They are the clear and perfect description of holiness... Godliness. But they cannot save anyone. And for the sinner, that is of the utmost importance: "Will the Ten Commandments save me?

Short answer? No. They will not.

Question: "So what do they do, if not save?"

Answer: They completely and thoroughly describe Godliness in terms humans can understand. They won't save anyone, but they WILL judge the unsaved on the last day. The Ten Commandments-- or, "The Law" --will judge everyone who has not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior. That will be their only purpose for you, if you die without Christ. But BEFORE you die, they are a guide and teacher-- a mirror by which we can see our sin and our need for a savior.

Anyone who tells you you must keep the Ten Commandments to be or keep yourself saved is either misguided or a liar. The only thing that will save you is the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And, consequently, its the only thing that keeps you saved... That, and God Himself.

Speaking of Jesus' death, Ephesians 2:15-16 says...

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby...

'the Law of Commandments contained within ordinances....' the Ten Commandments within the Torah as part of more than 600 other 'laws'. All of these are abolished and nailed to the cross. Just as Paul said in Romans 7:4 that Christians are 'Dead to the Law' so too is the Law made dead to Christians, because when Christ died on the cross so too did the Law die for all who believe on Him.

Cool, huh? Christians don't have to worry about the Law. No more tossing and turning in the bed wondering if he'll end up in hell because he may have forgotten to confess something. That is fear. And loves casts out fear... the Love of God has freed the Christian from fear.

Not sure you want to take my word for based solely on Ephesians 2:15-16? Well, let's look at Colossians 2:13-17...

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

There it is again... 'blotting out the handwriting of ordinances... nailing it to his cross....' The Law is put to death for the Christian [the man or woman who has accepted Christ as his or her savior. Many people call themselves 'Christian' but not everyone who does so IS]

Question: "So how are Christians kept saved, if not by keeping the Ten Commandments, or doing good deeds?"

Answer: God keeps them saved.

Let's look at the Lord's Prayer in the Gospel of John. Not the prayer he taught His disciples, but the prayer He Himself prayed the night of His arrest:

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are....

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

--John 17:9-11,15

Jesus prayed for His disciples, asking God to keep them... not to take them out of the world, but to keep them from evil. Interesting side note here: Jesus prayed for the all Christians throughout the history of the Church even to the present, new, twenty-first century Christians. From the same chapter...

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

--verses 20-21

But back to the point... Jesus, being one in essence, spirit, and mind with God the Father asked that He keep all whom He had given His son. The question now is this:

Did God honor that prayer?

Short Answer? Yes. And the proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

Question: "How so? What proof have you that God honored Jesus' prayer?"

Answer: The Resurrection.

Question: How does that prove that God has and is continuing to honor His Son's request?

Answer: Well, the whole point of the Cross was the Payment of Sin. A payment only God Himself could make. Imagine that! The infinite God and Creator of the universe, cloaked His majesty in human flesh, lived a sinless life, and allowed His physical self to be sacrificed as a payment for every sin that ever was or ever will be committed. Only an Infinite God could perform such a feat, and the very fact that God resurrected Himself, shows his pleasure at having accomplished His purpose. And being of one Essence, one spirit, and one mind with His fleshly counterpart, if He was pleased enough with the Sacrifice of His son, choosing to resurrect Him, honoring a prayer He prayed to Himself... Well. It was a done deal the moment Christ spoke it.

And it has been God who has kept the Christian from the just and righteous judgment of the Law ever since. When Christians sin-- and they do... as often as the UNsaved --there are no longer any legal hoops to jump through; no unblemished lambs need to be slaughtered upon a priestly altar. Christ was that Lamb, and that Lamb's blood was sufficient for ALL sin.

Need more proof that it is God who keeps the Christian saved?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

--John 10:28-30


And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

--Philippians 4:7


Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy...

--Jude 24


Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

--Revelation 3:10

So no Christian need ever worry about keeping the Ten Commandments. It is God who keeps the Christian by working through His spirit within the Christian, to build up in him a child who obeys the commands that Christ gave the Church. By following His commands the Law of God is fulfilled in the Life of the Christian. Keeping the Laws and Ordinances of the Old Testament is made moot by the Spirit living in, and working through, the Christian, who is also kept from judgment by the shed blood of God Himself...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

--Acts 20:28

Okay, they don't have the guts to push for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. They could if they really wanted to, but to do so would cripple their ability to retain control of House and Senate, and they would lose what little respect they retain among military personnel. All they have to do is stop funding the War-- it's what their kook-fringe base wants [To be fair, not all of the Democrat base are members of the kook-fringe-anti-war-peaceniks-at-any-price base. But that segment of Liberal society is very vocal and very motivated. And this scares the Dems... How to stay on good terms with the KFAWPaAP camp AND the rest of America at the same time?

Well when vacillation fails, close the back door; namely, Turkey.

No one denies that Turkey-- 100 years ago! --committed genocide upon Christian Armenians. But put into perspective, the government of Turkey today bears no resemblance to the government of Turkey 100 years ago which, I shouldn't have to remind anyone here, was the government of the Ottoman [Muslim] Empire/Caliphate. Condemning today's Turkish government doesn't address the sins of the Turkish government of 100 years ago-- they're different animals. Different in that, the government of America today is essentially the same government that dispossessed the Indian nations during the nineteenth century: Same Constitution, essentially the same laws. The same cannot be said for Turkey. Would the United States dare condemn Romania for atrocities committed during its Communist era?

So why Turkey? And why now, when similar resolutions were passed in 1975 and 1984? Perhaps because 70-80% of all U.S. resupply shipments fly OVER Turkish air-space.

What has Turkey done in response? Recalled its Ambassador to Washington. What else will they do? Only time and God can say, and HE's not saying anything at present.

Do these bright bulbs in Congress realize that Turkey is our ally in the War on Terror? Sure they do, but they obviously don't care. They want the KFAWPaAP-ers off their backs...

...at any price. Even American blood and treasure.



..::Update: Wednesday, October 17, 9:08 AM

Talk show hosts Hannity and Limbaugh caught on to it early this week. It wasn't until yesterday that Boortz picked up on the significance of the Pelosi Ploy. One line stands out today in his morning assessment:

I wonder how many American men and women will die in Iraq because of Nancy Pelosi's act of sabotage.

Patriotism? Honor? Where's the patriotism in shooting your own men in the back? Where's the honor in asking our men and women in uniform to continue to fight after deliberately cutting off their supply route. And don't ask me to believe she didn't know this could happen, because if Turkey closes that door and it comes as a surprise to Ms. Pelosi, then she is neither intelligent nor insightful enough to be a leader.

Question her patriotism? You bet I do. That and more. I question her fitness for the office she holds.

As things now stand the route is open. The Military, however, is looking for an alternative route should Turkey close the one we're now using. On top of this Ankara is moving closer to a possible incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish "rebels." Pelosi's Ploy merely makes that eventuality even MORE problematic.



..::Update: Wednesday, October 17, 9:10 AM

Googling "Pelosi Ploy" resulted in 108 hits. I have failed yet again to coin a term.

[Sigh...]

Not because Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it..." but because the committee that chose him has ignored all the evidence to the contrary concerning Gores contentions about Global Warming. A British court has determined there are eleven lies within the body of "An Inconvenient Truth," the film for which Gore won an Academy Award. Any showing of this film in a school setting in Britain, must be prefaced with these eleven factual "inconsistencies."

The Nobel Peace Prize has officially lost credibility.



Update: Friday, 1:50 pm

Since I first encountered the "Eleven Inaccuracies" the British Court has since reduced that number to nine. Here is the relevant text, in full, from Britain's The New Party:

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The point being, too many people have bought into this fabrication of Gore's, and at least one government has decided that school children must not be indoctrinated by what the British court feels is an obvious political advertisement, without first being warned of the inaccuracies or outright lies it contained therein.



Update: Friday, 7:50 pm -- [Choosing to answer Dan's second and third comments here rather in comments]

"...it would be prudent - conservative - to change our policies to be more sound from a sustainability point of view."

And I don't disagree. The fossil-fuel engine needs to go the way of the dinosaur... get it!?... but my problem with An Inconvenient Truth is the fact that it is very one-sided... inconveniently one-sided; i.e., one man's interpretation of 'the evidence' which more learned men than Gore have interpreted differently. My problem with 'man-made' global warming is the simple honest truth that we don't know enough to say ANY of Gore's conclusions are even in the ballpark of reality.... but perhaps that's a bit harsh.

So let's be prudent. Let's work to move away from fossil fuels, which would have the added bonus of defunding oil-rich nations that use their oil to hold the rest of the world economic/financial hostages. Let's clean up the pollution-heavy industrial sector, and work to alleviate the need for more and more landfills. Let's seek to harness the wind and the ocean as sources of energy... but let's NOT get all gah-gah over the end of the world, as Gore sees it. Let's not go crazy over what's beginning to look an awful lot like a religious cult.

Another simple truth is Gore has managed to put together a very frightening 'documentary'-- I put that in quotes because the facts he puts forth are hardly conclusive. Everyone fawns over Gore like he's the environmental messiah, taking his conclusions as the Gospel truth, while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.

While I personally do not care for the man, my beef with him and his Academy Award winning 'documentary' has nothing to do with any personal dislike and everything do with the hysteria his 'junk-science' documentary has spawned. And the very fact that he won a Peace prize for this is ridiculous... why not a Nobel prize in science? That's what he's peddling isn't it? Science?

So. While I'm all for 'saving the environment,' I am NOT AT ALL for saving it because Al Gore insists we have less than 10 years to turn the looming ship of Environmental Disaster around before it's simply too late. Save it because it's prudent, but don't try to get me to believe polar bears will drown, or Greenland will thaw if we don't. Both of these will happen even if we do! What!? Polar Bears never drowned when temperatures were AlGorically Ideal? Spare us all a little intellectual credit here. Besides which, why do you think it was called Greenland in the first place?

Because it was a rich, "green" land; perfect for farming... or so Norse explorers thought when they encountered it.

So. Before we buy into this Man-Made Global Warming mumbo-jumbo how about getting some perspective from the other camp?

How about checking out some of the writings of Dr. Roy Spenser?

His bio:

Dr. Roy Spenser is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.

Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

His most recent article: A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield

And another from June of last year:
The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming

More articles from Dr. Spenser can be found here.

Here also is an article from Bjorn Lomborg at the Washington Post who is neither a die-hard supporter, nor denier of man-made global warming.

To wrap all this up, there is simply no reason to get all hysterical about Global Warming, and or the eventual arrival of Kevin Costner's Water World. Nothing wrong with being prudent-- translate that to "Good Stewards." But there is definitely something wrong with teaching An Inconvenient Truth to school Children as scientific fact, when it is not. Britain seems to have been able to pull its head out of the gobbledy-gook that so permeates the debate and insist that students who view the film in a classroom setting be told of factual 'inconsistencies' contained within Al Gores political propaganda piece masquerading as a Documentary.

The point is, because of all the inconvenient truths about Gore's Inconvenient Truth, the Nobel Peace Prize is wasted, and loses it's validity as a genuine award to the Peace Makers of the world. Sowing hysteria cannot hardly be compared to sowing peace. And I must therefore seriously question the process by which winners of Nobel Prizes are determined.

And Gore is not the first example of a questionable awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Disqualified after the fact-- in my mind --there was Betty Williams, Nobel laureate of 1976, who last year said before an auditorium filled with schoolchildren...

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."

Perhaps she should be asked to return the prize. There should, after all, be a certain measure of responsibility attached to such prizes... like Olympic gold medals...

And then there's the disastrous awarding of a Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat.

The point is, Gore winning the prize only further tarnishes what was once an honest and noble award.

But no more.


Update: Sunday, 4:45 pm

This is too good to pass up:Posted in Comments at Dan's place, Eleutheros addresses a statement made by Michael Westmoreland-White...

"The other 1/2 of the Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the thousands of scientists around the world who toiled to bring about the consensus reports. Nothing junk about THEIR science."

That's right! How can thousands of scientists simultaneously be wrong.

OK, there's the criticism, might as well get it out in the open, that the "thousands" of scientist were bits and quips from thousands of papers and reports written by those scientists and the IPCC went cherry picking through the data much as Dan does the Bible and a great many of those scientists remonstrated that they said no such thing and came to no such conclusions.

Even at that, just look at the heavy guns the Panel has in its camp. Scientists who unequivocally said climate change was due to human activity. I mean just look at the top people on that list!

Dr. Nir Shaviv - Israel

Dr. Chris de Freitas - Universty of Auckland, NZ.

Dr. Claude Allegre - France

Dr. Bruno Wiskel - University of Alberta

Dr. David Evans - Australia

Dr. Tad Murty - Canadia Fisheries

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy Durham university

Meteorolgist Dr. Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin

Economist E. J. Labohm

Dick Thoenes chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa.


Just how are these, the most knowledgeable and informed climate scientists in the world ALL wrong about the human cause of climate change??

Wait .... ah .... it seems EVERY ONE of these scientists have recanted their position. ALL of the now say they were mistaken about the human causes of climate change with many of them calling it hype and bogus.

And for good reason. Since the original hype scientists have considered such as the following:

Temperature recording devices that were once in outlying and rural areas were taken over by urban sprawl and the data they collect is tainted.

The ice caps on Mars are receding at about the same rate as they are on Earth, due, as they now conclude, to solar activity.

As the glaciers have retreated in the Alps, they revealed silver mines with the tools neatly stacked where the miners had intended to return in the spring, but the advancing glacier in prehistory had covered it until now.

The extant navigational rutters describing how to sail from Norway to Greenland used a northern rout with land navigation points from 1000 to about 1200. After that the route was more southernly and used ice features as navigational points.

And the growing list goes on and on. In the sober light of day a very great many of the scientists that first signed onto the man-made global warming hype have recanted based on better information and evidence to the contrary.

Disclaimer:

[I think it only fair to say that Eleutheros is one of those bloggers I find intellectually intimidating-- to mean, I do not consider myself on equal intellectual par with the man. There are a few others out there who also fall into this category. His politics occasionally clash with mine, but that doesn't negate his ability to intelligently and rationally debate the issues.]

Just how many CD's I actually have is not a number I'm completely familiar with, because I am a pack rat... a hoarder of shiny baubles; items that looked good when I picked them up but many of which never got a proper listen. The number, I'm quite sure is between one and two thousand-- I'd be very surprised if it were higher.

I've been drawn to music since a time in childhood I couldn't possibly pin point... perhaps it was my father playing Sloop John B on his six-string, and that silly ditty he made up about sticks in the water floating down the river; a song he sang to us kids simply because it made us giggle to hear it. Whatever the reason, music has shaped my life. Everyone has a soundtrack, but mine is a compendium of aural flights and dreams.

My first records were Christmas gifts, McCartney and Wings' Wild Life [still my favorite, especially since no one but die-hard fans even know of this gem]. The other was a 45 Single of Tin Man, by America; a song I am still in love with if for no other reason than the line, "...but Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man, that he didn't--didn't already have..," and "So please, believe in me..." Since then I have been, first and foremost, a Beatles fan. Musically speaking, few acts have every been able to hold a candle to them. But I am obviously biased.

I noticed something unusual [or rather, I assume it's unusual]... that I am drawn to specific songs, especially those that are complete packages in terms of sound, lyric, and its ability to plug into the part of me that makes me tick... that part of anyone that causes ones spirit to resonate with external stimuli. When things resonate within, that is when they generally carry the most significance for you, be it the things' inherent genius or the beauty it carries within its very structure... the emotion it evoke within ones spirit.... it's that quality that attracts me to specific compositions.

For the past 20 years I've been compiling my own Cassettes and CD's with music that does this very thing... music that speaks to my spirit. From the beginning I've called these 'Albums': Soul Swizzle --Songs to Stir the Savage Soul, and I think [without bothering to get up and look] that I'm up to volume 16 or so.

But I've said all this in preface to the latest edition of Soul Swizzle, and one particular song... if not two. For hear is a song that gives me chills every time I hear it. It is a song that both makes me cringe for its imagery and lyrics, and sit in rapt wonder for its imagery and lyrics.

The song in question is Shawn Colvin's Another Plane Went Down. I won't post any lyrics here because, I'm embarrassed to say, they are not fit for print; being R Rated, if not NC17. Admitting this serves as no small source of embarrassment for me since as a Christian I know what she sings and the imagery she describes is not suitable within the hearing of a holy God who just so happens to reside within me. But I am drawn, not to the language and subject matter, but to how they gel with the music to conjure an ethereal experience of all five senses, if not more. And it is this songs ability to evoke such an emotional response in me that is what makes the song itself so dangerous. But it sits on my shelf nonetheless.

It is her lush, throaty voice that gives the song its greatest gift. The lyrics by themselves are both interesting and unremarkable in that the imagery provides a draw but the black scribbled lines on paper look clumsy and without any sense of poetic meter or rhythm, and yet it's not until everything is put together with her voice that the song seems to take on a soul.

I'm torn by my desire to throw out not only this CD but hundreds of others for the simple reason that little can be found in them worthy of eternity except, to my finite and very human mind, a soul worthy of a chance at redemption.

And therein lies the problem. For songs, however beautiful, ethereal, or simply 'catchy' will never be more than their combined melodies and lyrics-- they cannot choose to repent [like one-third of Heavens' host of angels], and therefore, like idols, are fit only for the fire. But how do I cast away something that is so obviously beautiful?

Because of my love of music I also took up the guitar. 32 years ago, it was. But only in these last 6 have I really cared about how skilled I was. Over the years I have taught myself to play Trumpet, Baritone, French Horn, Flute, Mandolin, and Guitar, and yet for all this I still feel restless about just what I'm to do with these skills, for though I most write my own music, nothing I've written compares to Shawn Colvin's song, nor to the other song to which I alluded; that being, Lindsey Buckingham's Street of Dreams.

All in all, it's hard surrendering strongholds. Especially ones that always leave me empty, for no amount of music on the shelf satisfies and I can simply imagine the amount of money I've spent on music that means both nothing... and everything... to me.

Why did God put music in my heart? Why is everything in my life bonded to melody and tone? What do I do with it besides allow it a place on the shelf? Do I really want to bury my talent?

"What I want to fix your attention on is the vast overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence -- moral, cultural, social or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how 'democracy' (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient dictatorships, and by the same methods? The basic proposal of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be 'undemocratic.' Children who are fit to proceed may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval's [of the same age] attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT. We may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when 'I'm as good as you' has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway, the teachers -- or should I say nurses? -- will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men."

--C. S. Lewis

Okay, so Lewis wasn't specifically describing 21st century America. He did, however, accurately depict the state of a society that ceases to teach its children how to compete in the world; the very foundation of which rests upon the Darwinian Pillar... Survival of the Fittest. Or more simply... 21st Century America.

America is culturally, morally, and spiritually weak BECAUSE of Liberal Education. And as it took at least two generations to get where we are... it'll take at least that to redeem America. Assuming that's even possible at this point.

As bleak as the future looks, this is no time to wither up, and clatter down the street like so many dead leaves on a blustery autumn afternoon. Survival of the fittest still applies. It's time to adapt-- to the changing tactics of our enemy --or perish.

I was recently questioned about the legitimacy of my denunciation of the Democrats desire to bring back the so-called 'Fairness doctrine...'

You mention the fairness doctrine, but don't even have a quote about liberals trying to resurrect this law.

I honestly didn't think it necessary since it's been in the news, but in light of my last post, I've also come to realize that Democrats and their sheeple are very adept at ignoring what is right in front of them... and blaring over the airwaves. Even Liberal airwaves.

This then is from 'the Prowler' today, over at The American Spectator:

"'Don't let Limbaugh smear true patriotism,' that's the theme," says a DNC staffer. "We're not going to let Limbaugh determine what soldiers can talk and what soldiers can not."

Bad grammar and ill-informed opinions aside, the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of[sic] Limbaugh. "If we can't silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008," says a Senate Democrat leadership aide.

Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this[sic] all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

Yet another Democrat in a position of power who doesn't know what the Constitution has to say about free speech and to whom it applies. To spell it out, the First Amendment protects the speech of citizens from the government. Waxman has put government paid employees on the trail of private citizens at taxpayers expense. What.. Who do you think pays these staffers? We do. What Waxman, and the Democrats are doing is in violation of the Constitution. But, of course, they don't care...

...we'll do what we can to gain the advantage.

Even if it means raping the Constitution to do it.

But this is to be expected. They can't compete in the arena of ideas because their Ideology-- Liberalism --falls flat on its face every time it's trotted out as a champion of the common man (so was Communism, as I recall), a panacea of righteous rule for the masses. And that's what these men and women, and their gaggles of sheeple want... they want to rule every aspect of your life...

Liberals want to control everybody's lives so that they live as liberals want them to live. They don't want them to smoke; they don't want them to drive certain cars; they don't want them to eat certain foods; they don't want them to live certain places. It's about total control with the government having the last word on what anybody can eat, drink, say, or do. Liberals also hold most people in contempt... They have done everything they can to keep as many people from reaching individual prosperity as possible. They want people dependent so they'll continue to vote for Democrats.

--The hated and much-maligned Rush Limbaugh

On top of all this, Democrats intend to perpetuate the Lie they've told about Limbaugh to rake in cash. How despicable is that!? To take a lie, an obvious lie, and use it to fill their coffers. How dishonest is it to tell a lie about what someone has said, and then USE that lie as justification for squashing free speech? That's what they intend. To squash free speech. And not just Limbaugh's, or Hannity's, or Levin's... No! It goes much further than that. None of these Talk-Show Hosts, could exist if it weren't for the millions of people who listen to them, and call in. It's called 'Talk Radio' for a reason. It is inarguably the Conservative voice of Free Speech in America. Every time Liberals have tried to break into this field they have all either failed outright or exist as anemic ghosts. Quite simply, the Liberal Philosophy cannot compete in a free-market arena of Free and Open (as in unhindered by Government) Speech. Because Liberalism, like a sieve, simply cannot carry water.

I take solace in the knowledge that Truth Always Wins. Always. Things may not go our way in the next presidential election, but the truth of who and what Democrats/Liberals ARE, will come out. And they will fall mightily for it. It may well be too then to turn things around, but Truth WILL be served its celebratory flute of Dom Perignon.

Resist the devil, and he will flee from you...

--James 4:7

I've noticed that when confronted with the truth many Liberals will cave-- at least those who have no stake in the fight, namely all the pathological myrmidons who eat, drink (and swallow) the Liberal party line without question. These mind-numbed robots cannot defend their party's position when the truth so blatantly contradicts the party line.

Case in point: Media and Congressional Democrats vs. Rush Limbaugh

When the truth is given a proper airing, every true believer will fade into the shadows when it becomes obvious their ideological handlers in the media and Congress are wrong.

This, to me, says two things. One, that Democrats in Media, Congress, and the dim halls of Liberal punditry do not care about truth. If they did, the truth-- even that as blatant as free-to-the-public transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show --would compel them to retract and say something to the effect of... "My bad." But that's not what's happening. And Two: The Party's loyal following cannot operate or debate independent of their handlers. These mind-numbed Democrat robots in the voter-ranks, seem-- despite being thoroughly schooled in the Liberal Ideology --not so entirely brain-dead that they can't recognize a defeat when they encounter one. Their minds still function, and there is, therefore, hope yet that some can be swayed to come into the light, as it were.

I posted a bit on Democrat's Limbaugh Misrepresentation, and while one commenter sought to distract (obfuscate, erect straw-men...) by diverting attention to other topics, when confronted with the truth of what Limbaugh ACTUALLY said, this commenter accused me of clinging to "emotional arguments," and eschewing facts. But just who has been eschewing the facts here? Democrats and their mind-numbed robots.

Now, it should be pointed out (thanks Mike) that these mind-numbed robots do not shut up and go away simply because they see they have been wrong, but because their handlers haven't given them data enough on how to combat 'truth that contradicts' their party line... er, Lie. These poor folks do not think for themselves willingly. And most Liberals who become Conservative do so unintentionally. Why? Because Truth always wins. Always. Even if it takes decades to overcome the lies that hold it down.

I fully recognize I don't have near as many readers as I once did, but the simple fact that I am left un-engaged on this issue-- the issue of whether or not Rush called all soldiers who disagree with our current foreign policy in Iraq (as the Democrats have framed it) as Phony --is telling. It tells me, they can't support their position, their Lie, when confronted with the truth. But again, just because they go away doesn't mean they believe they have been proven wrong.

It only means they can't think for themselves. They need someone to tell them what to think, say, eat, drink...... and swallow.

An interview between Day of Discovery's Jimmy DeYoung and Dr. Renald Showers, author and Bible teacher for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry...



DeYoung: What do you consider, Rennie, as the critical issues of the church today

Showers: Well I’m convinced, Jimmy, the critical issues today are these: What is to be the nature, purpose, and function of the church? And secondly, perhaps even more important, what should be the source of authority for determining the nature, purpose and function of the church?


DeYoung: Now you know, when most people think about the source of authority, at least I do, for the church, I think that the Lord Jesus Christ has to be the authority, and his word, but don’t we have some churches out there that have allowed the market driven philosophy to become their source of authority?

Showers: Well, it certainly appears to be that way, Jimmy. And the concept is, approach unsaved people and ask them ‘why don’t you come to the church-- or any church?’ And ‘what would the Church have to be like, you know, to be relevant to your way of thinking—or relevancy?’ And that as a result of, collecting the different ideas of unsaved people, then the Church decides, well, ‘then we’re going to conform the way our church functions, and everything, to try to make it relevant to these unsaved people according to their concept of relevancy. And the danger of that is, you’re thereby permitting unsaved people, that in the bible are described as the ‘children of Satan,’ the spiritual children of Satan, to really play a key role in determining the whole nature, purpose, and function of the church, which is contrary to what God intended.


DeYoung: Well, what about the opinions of the people in the pews? I mean, we’re talking about possibly getting lost people to come into the church, but should the people in the pew have the real opportunity to make decisions as to how the church should be operated—what the ministries of the church should be?

Showers: Well, the people in the church can certainly express their opinions but, biblically, they can’t be the ultimate authority because, let’s face it, you know, in any church, if they’ve been presenting the gospel to unsaved people-- people getting saved --they’re gonna have people at all different spiritual levels in the church. And because they have different spiritual levels, they’re going to have different ideas of what they would like the church to be. And in all likelihood-- I think I’d be safe in saying to you --an overwhelming number of people in churches have never taken the time to sit down and search through the New Testament to see ‘what does the bible say is to be the nature, purpose, and function of the church?’ And so as a result, if you’re going to depend upon the people determining that, again, the Church can go in a wrong direction that God didn’t want it to go.


DeYoung: Now, I have to just bring this to your thought patterns-- as we are discussing this particular issue --for you to respond: is not this, basically, the way that the majority of Christianity-- the churches --are moving today?

Showers: Well, it seems to be that way, and particularly along the lines of the market-driven philosophy, and everything. And one of the problems that’s developing, it’s a reflection of the culture they’re in right now that many call a post-modern culture which says that there’s no such thing as objective truth, and by ‘objective truth’ they mean ‘truth that is truth in and of itself whether people recognize it as being truth, or accept it as truth.’ And, you know, the Bible makes it very clear that God truly exists, and God is the ultimate source of truth, and that He has revealed truth in declarative statements to Apostles and Prophets and enabled them to record that truth accurately in the scriptures, but there are many people that say, ‘today, you know, there’s no such thing as objective truth, and it’s up to each individual to decide what’s truth for him. And therefore…’ God didn’t intend the Church to be that.

When you go to one of Timothy’s letters he said, the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. And there are at least a couple of concepts in there. A pillar kind of has a double function; one is to support something that’s on top of it, and that’s the idea that God intended the church to be the supporter of the truth that He’s revealed to man in the form of propositional statements. But also, if a pillar is holding something up high, that’s going to be obvious to people, and so the idea is the Church is to be presenting the truth of God’s word to the world in such a way that the world can’t miss it-- that’s going to be very out and open to them.

But then the church is to be the ground of the truth, and the word translated ‘ground’ is ‘foundation.’ And the purpose of a foundation is to keep a building from shifting… from shifting from the place where it was originally placed. And here the concept is that God holds the church responsible to prevent His truth that He’s revealed to mankind from shifting away from the way that God revealed it to mankind, and perverting it or watering it down, or that type of thing. And it seems to me some of the trends like the Emerging Church movement and all the rest, which are saying, ‘Doctrine’s not important’--which the word ‘Doctrine’ simply means ‘Teaching’… ‘Presenting the truth that God’s revealed.’ They’re saying that’s not important; it’s more important that people feel good about themselves, and that it’s up to them to decide what is good for them; what is truth for them, and that sort of thing. And if a church is going to go that way, it is allowing God’s truth to be shifted away from what God intended it to be, and the way He revealed it.


DeYoung: And that is one of the indicators of what would happen in the end times, is it not? That is what must be watched as we look at this whole situation

Showers: You’re right, Jimmy. Very, very true.


DeYoung: Well, respond to this, Rennie: They come back and say, ‘we’re endeavoring to try to reach lost people. We want these seekers to come in to the church.’ What’s wrong with that thought?

Showers: Well, number one… you know, the word ‘church,’ the word that’s literally translated ‘church’ in the New Testament means ‘called out.’ Which says that God has called out the Church. He has called saved people out of the world, for them to be part of an organization-- you want to call it ‘Organism’ --that is different, or distinct from the world. On top of that, when you look at the Great Commission Christ gave, He said, ‘Go into the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature…” The idea is that, the major part of evangelism, of reaching the unsaved with the Gospel, is to be done outside the church. Now, I’m not saying you should never preach the Gospel inside the Church, but the major thrust of evangelism is to be outside the church where the unsaved are. If you want to catch fish, you gotta go where the fish are. And that’s what Jesus was saying, that, you’re to go out into the world where the unsaved are to preach the Gospel to them.

Now a lot of people say that, ‘but we’ve gotta make the Church relevant, you know, to the unsaved, according to their concept of relevancy.' God never intended the Church to be relevant to the unsaved. And it’s the Church’s responsibility to present God’s truth to the unsaved, and it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to make that truth relevant to the unsaved in such a way that the unsaved will understand it, and that the unsaved will respond to it and accept it as being ‘the Truth’ for them.


DeYoung: You know, I was just thinking as you were telling us about what the Great Commission basically is: Go into the world and evangelize, and then bring them into the church to teach them, and bring them up in the things of the Lord. But I was thinking about Acts chapter two when the church began. The very first days of the Church they went daily into the marketplace, and house-to-house. They weren’t bringing people into a gathering. They were going to the market place and house-to-house, and daily would preach and teach Jesus Christ-- what a different concept than what we see normally in the Church today.

One final thought-- and I want to get back with you, if you’ll allow us to do it when the second half of this article comes out, but the nature of the Church is basically for us to be made holy as we study His word and prepare for His coming. Is it not?

Showers: That’s right, and the word ‘Holy’ literally means ‘divide.’ So to be holy is to be divided from other persons and things. Now, not geographically divided from them, but divided in the sense that you’re different, distinct, maybe even unique; in contrast with what’s common and ordinary. By the way, there’s an opposite for ‘Holy’ in the Bible, which is ‘Profane.’ And that means ‘what is common, what is ordinary.’ And so the implication is God intends the Church to be different or distinct in contrast with what the world presents as the common ordinary things of life for human beings. He wants the Church to offer people in the world something different from what the world offers to them. And so if we’re going to start conforming the Church to what the unsaved world wants it to be, then the Church is going to lose that distinctiveness-- that holy nature of being different, distinct, unique in contrast with what is common and ordinary. And that’s what God intended the Church to be: to be different or distinct from what is common or ordinary in the world.


____________________________________________________

Did you catch that last part?

...if we’re going to start conforming the Church to what the unsaved world wants it to be, then the Church is going to lose that distinctiveness.

And what did Jesus say about this?

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

--Matthew 5:13

The reason the unsaved find many churches so attractive is because those churches have 'lost their savour,' and therefore good for nothing in terms of reaching the lost for Christ.

This particular interview caught my attention because I've been seeing this very thing happening in today's Church; I've seen it on television, in various congregations, and while 'discussing' Bible doctrine here online, and I too view it as a worrisome trend.


Jimmy's other guests today included regular contributors COL Bob Maginnis, Ed Horner, and Rob Congdon, and the topics they covered were Iranian nukes, an Iranian missile strike, the Ramadan feast at the Pentagon, China selling arms to Iraq, the end of the Feast of Tabernacles, the EU's treaty talk, and the EU's split over the Balkans.

The above interview was only 12 minutes of Jimmy's weekly hour-and-a-half broadcast, each and every Saturday (Noon to 1:30 Central). It took me 3 hours of listening to the downloaded podcast to accurately transcribe the interview. I love this show and try to get into the delivery van by noon every Saturday so I can listen while bringing surprised smiles to the faces of unsuspecting people with 'bouquets of thoughtfulness and appreciation.'

...is the text of a one-minute speech made Thursday morning on the floor of the House by Colorado Representative Doug Lamborn:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the liberals' fraudulent attacks on Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who reads the widely available transcript, as I have done, sees that Mr. Limbaugh was appropriately referring to the pretenders who pose as medal winners, or who falsely claim to have committed atrocities in Iraq, when he used the phrase "phony soldiers." No, the real scandal here is that liberals in America and here in this Congress are willing to manipulate facts to smear those they disagree with. But there's an even more insidious agenda by liberals going on, and that is to reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which is actually a way to silence conservatives on the radio waves. Mr. Limbaugh deserves mega kudos for being a forceful and effective voice on the side of common sense and for being an example of the First Amendment in action. After all, isn't that what our country is supposed to be about?

Say hello to Representative Steve Israel, Democrat, from New York's 2nd District, typical of the Modern Democrat-- Either lied to, or a liar himself:

...I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I heard of the comments of Rush Limbaugh, when I heard him impugn the integrity of our soldiers, when I heard him call them phonies, I had just about had it. How dare he attack our soldiers. How dare he impugn their integrity. How dare he attack their credibility. There is no place in America for anyone to attack our soldiers while they are fighting in combat or when they have come home. I don't care what the reason, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in America for that, particularly coming from someone who believes that he is the "gold standard" of patriotism, who believes he has a monopoly on patriotism, who has accused anyone who dissents with a particular policy with which he disagrees as a traitor. What is patriotic, Mr. Speaker, about calling American soldiers phonies? What is patriotic about that?

If ever there was anything that suggested to me a dissent beyond the line, I would never call it traitorous, but I can't think of a better example of giving aid and comfort to our enemies than somebody who would call our soldiers phony while they're fighting, who would attack them while they're defending us.

He crossed the line, he crossed the line of fair play, he crossed the line of hypocrisy. This standard-barer of patriotism attacking American forces, it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Not only because it is hypocritical and not only because it is an attack on our Armed Forces, Mr. Speaker, but because it comes from somebody who never fought for our country, unless you consider being a disk jockey to be worthy of combat pay. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of this kind of hypocrisy and this kind of attack.

I went to Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday, and maybe that's why I'm so fired up, Mr. Speaker. I visited Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday and with young men whose limbs have been amputated, whose futures have been changed. How dare anybody suggest that because one of them may disagree with a policy that that person is a phony. Thank God we live in a country that gives us the right to agree with a policy to go to war. You have the right to disagree, you even have the right to remain silent, but no one has the right in this country to call any member of our Armed Forces "phony."

...and the Democratic Party owes them an apology.

Remember John Kerry, John Murtha? Dick Durbin? Chuck Schumer? Theodore "sink or swim" Kennedy? Hillary Clinton? Now Congressman Israel steps into the fray either entirely uninformed, or yet another bold-faced liar.

Thing is, Rush didn't accuse ANY U.S. Soldier of being phony (or a suicide bomber for that matter). He accused Jesse MacBeth-- or should I say, Jesse al-Zaid? Yes, that is the actual name he was born with --of being phony. But Democrats don't care about the truth. They care about power, and squashing all opposition. A lot of them know, or even care to know what the Constitution actually says. If they did, men like Ken Salazar from Colorado would know the Constitution doesn't allow for the censuring of private citizens. Democrats got all bent out of shape when Republicans created legislation that affected a single American-- Terry Schiavo --but now, hypocritically, they're trying to do the very same thing... trying to pass legislation to condemn a single man... for NOT saying what they're accusing him of.

And let's be clear on one thing: These Democrats are not stupid. They have to know the context in which Rush said what he did, but the truth doesn't matter to them. Truth, to Democrats, is a small furry animal to be squeezed by the throat till it says what Democrats want it to say.

What we are watching are the beginnings of a major political party falling into a brand of communistic totalitarianism-- "Jack-booted thuggery" as I described in an earlier post. This whole scene is far too Orwellian for comfort, and the Democrat Party is so filled with hate it's truly frightening. Based on the charges outline by Congressman Steve Israel, without a doubt, Democrats owe all of America an apology for their lies and treachery, and for the treatment they've given the American Soldier. They are truly disgraceful. And if the implications of the Democrat Party's complete abandonment of personal and political integrity weren't so gosh-darned frightening, it would be comical.

Today's Democrat Party is, arguably, the most dangerous enemy this nation is currently facing.



--------

Read what some on the right think of Rep. Israel and the Greater failure known as the Democrat Party and their Corporate-Lie here

Just to rub salt in the wound, here's what Rush had to say this afternoon about Congressman Israel and the Democrats:

I want to say one other thing, going back to Steve Israel, when he says I'm giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Who, in lying about all this, who has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy? When Osama Bin Laden, or whoever, releases one of these famous tapes, whose talking points are they using? The Democrat Party's. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes to the United States, or hell, from his little balcony over there in Tehran, when he starts in on the US, whose talking points is he using? The Democrat Party. For crying out loud, the guy even criticizes Bush for Hurricane Katrina. The little pip-squeak from Tehran. They use Democrat talking points, Congressman Israel. It is plain as day for anybody. You want to talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- who is it that our enemies hope win elections? It is you, Congressman Israel, and your party. Bin Laden and, what's his name, Ahmadinejad, are all hoping that your party wins elections. That's what would embarrass me.

It would embarrass me to see this little pip-squeak come over here, be invited to speak at Columbia, he's a maniacal mass murderer, he sounds just like Democrats. I would be embarrassed if I were a Democrat and this guy starts talking about my country the way he does, "My gosh, he sounds just like I do, this is horrible." But you guys seem to embrace this. You seem to embrace the enemies of the United States. If they're on your side politically, if they hate Bush, if they can help you succeed in losing this war so you can hang that defeat around Bush and destroy his presidency and get it for yourself, you seem to embrace it. What makes this smear on me so patently ridiculous, is it has zero substance to it. It is a total fraud, and you guys buy into it hook, line, and sinker. You speak of me in ways you will not speak of our enemies. You speak of me, Wesley Clark, censor me, Ken Salazar from Colorado wants to censure me and I can't even be censured because I'm not a senator. Has he read the Constitution?

These are morons. Harry Reid, I don't care, Jan Schakowsky, all these people have gone to the House floor or the Senate floor, Tom Harkin, demeaning himself and his family with personal attacks on me from the floor of the Senate. These people are saying things about me, ladies and gentlemen, they would not say about Bin Laden, that they will not say about Ahmadinejad. They will not say these things in general about our enemy. In fact, they have been highly critical of active duty military, impugning their ability to win, making up stories about atrocities that they never committed. And yet, you won't speak that way of our real genuine enemies. (interruption) Well, that's true, Durbin -- but there's so many to remember. Kerry, insulting their intelligence. Kerry has built a career on attacking active duty military, starting in 1971. Durbin comparing our troops in prisons to Nazis and Soviet assassins and Pol Pot's murderers. You think that doesn't aid and abet the enemy, Mr. Israel?

This is real serious stuff you guys are engaging in. You are genuinely aiding and abetting the enemy. It would be nice to hear you have some critical things to say about the enemy, because you don't have to lie about them to be critical of them, Congressman Israel, or Senator Reid. You don't have to lie about our enemies; you don't have to lie about Fidel Castro; you don't have to lie about Hugo Chavez. You gotta make it up about me, though. You have to purposely, willingly, make it up about me, and people like me that you smear and attack. I'm by no means the only one.

On a side, and completely unrelated note, the Governor was in the studio during the news this afternoon. Being at the audio board I missed my chance to shake his hand and tell him I appreciated the great job he's doing.

Have a nice day, everyone.