Thoughts

Anwar al-Awlaki

2011-01-22T15:28:00.002-05:00

Anwar al- Awlaki, an American citizen, wants us dead. He holds dual citizenship in the U. S. and Yemen, where he is hiding. He is a cowardly Radical Muslim cleric who hides in one country while attacking the citzens f the country of his birth. (This disgrace to America was born in New Mexico.)

al-Awlaki calls us "devils" and sanctions our murders under the cloak of religion. The Quran, which is his sacred book, says, "Fight and kill the unbelievers (in Islam) wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war" (9;5), and "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you" (9;133). These quotes could be multiplied many times in the Quran and other early Islamic sources.

al-Awlaki and all other "Americans" who propagate the idea of the wholesale murder of American citizens while hiding in foreign countries should, at the very least, be stripped of their citizenship. But more than that should be done: They should also be tried for treason. Free speech? Are you kidding me??? This is far worse than shouting "Fire!" in a theater. This is advocating deliberate murder!

-30-

What is the Matter with You, Tony Hayward?

2010-06-21T06:34:00.009-04:00

Tony Hayward, CEO of British Petroleum, must be insane! Or callous! Or just plain stupid! It is pretty hard to determine which. Or whether it is a combination of two, or all three.

On June 19th, he displayed the arrogance of the Alan Mulally (Ford), Robert Nardelli (Chrysler), and Richard Wagoner (GM) when these auto company CEOs took their private jets to Washington to plead with Congress to bail out their bankrupt companies. When that occurred, I thought that was the ultimate in arrogance and stupidity.

Well, congratulations, Tony! You have taken arrogance to a whole new level! What were you thinking, mocking the entire Gulf Coast region of the United States, suffering from the damage caused by a ship of your company (BP) spilling more oil than has been spilled in any other disaster, by racing your yacht?

Are you insane, Tony Hayward? I'm no psychologist, but your action suggests you have more than a little narcissism. Racing your yacht was an atrocious act of selfishness given the circumstances. It demonstrates a lack of empathy with those struggling to make a living in the Gulf at the very least.

Are you callous, Tony Hayward?? No question about it - you are! By racing your yacht, you showed a very callous disregard for the people of the Gulf Coast, for whom your company's spillage of oil has caused immense problems. Two of the main industries there are fishing and tourism. To say these have been adversly effected is putting it mildly. BP's oil has killed many fish. Thus the commercial fishing industry, which were expecting, for instance a record red snapper catch, is at a virtual standstill. Yet you, Tony Hayward, mock these people by racing a yacht! The charter boats carrying tourists who want to fish, now can't, because the fishing is destroyed by this massive invasion of oil. Yet you, Tony Hayward, race your yacht! What of all the men, women and children who plannned to vacation there? How about those there now trying to save the marine life the oil is killing? Callously racing your yacht sends a message, Tony Hayward: You don't care!

Are you stupid, Tony Hayward? I doubt it. But smart people do stupid things. Your ill-timed yacht racing, which rightfully disgusts the people, not only of the Gulf Coast, but all over the world, was an incredibly foolish thing to do.

What IS the matter with you, Tony Hayward?

-30-

A Judge's Irresponsible Ruling

2010-05-04T15:20:00.009-04:00

It figures. The American Civil Lunacies Union is at it again. They took the case of one Robert Brayshaw, and challenged a good law, and won.

I, for one, am appalled. The law in Florida made it a crime to publish the addresses and phone numbers of law enforcemment officers to intimidate, hinder, or interfere with their duties. Now it is no longer law.

A Federal judge, one Richard Smoak, at the behest of the A. C. L. U., has declared the law violates Brayshaw's free speech rights.

Baloney!

I take a back seat to no one in desiring to protect any man 's legitimmate Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, but even I know there are limits to this right. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't for instance, protected speech.

Policemen's personal information is unlisted for very good reasons.

1) There are a lot of people who hate cops. Given the opportunity ot harrass them, they will do so. This imformation would be a powerful weapon in the hands of such people. They could call the officer's family all hours of the night. With the address, they could vandalize his property, and this is just the minimum damage they could do.

2) Just being a policeman means his life is in potential danger all the time. He knows he could be putting his life on the line any time he answers a call. Sometimes he must make arrests, and the people being arrested and their families are not going to like it. Having the personal information of a cop gives vindictive family members leverage to do great harm to him and his family. Some options might be threatening his family over the phone, burning down his house, and/or killing or kidnapping his wife or children.

Rights are balanced with responsibilities. There is no legitimate reason to endanger our law enforcement people by allowing the publication of their personal information. In view of the possible consequenses, Smoak's ruling is totally irresponsible and must be overturned.

-30-

"Vile Gossip?"

2010-04-05T09:52:00.008-04:00

The Roman Catholic Church has 400,000 priests serving world-wide. Pope Benedict XVI is now the leader of this vast organization. Yesterday on Easter Sunday, Mass was held at the Vatican, and a tribute was given by Cardinal Angelo Sodano to the Pope and the priests. He claimed that "vile gossip" by the anti-Catholic media is fueling publicity concerning some perverted priests who sexually molest young boys and women.

I agree that the claim of molestation by priests is "vile." But gossip can be either true or false, and allegations have been made of this for generations. In the time of Abraham Lincoln, a former priest named Charles Chiniquy wrote a book called, The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional. He charged that women were molested in the Confessional many times by priests, and gave many instances throughout the book. Other instances of "vile" gossip about priests go back at least to the 12th century when history records instances when even Popes fathered children, and there was even a female Pope, Joan.

I believe there have been, and are instances in which false allegations of sexual molestation have been made against priests, just as they have against other Christian ministers. This is unfortunate, but it does happen. But as in the case of other Christian ministers, allegations of molestation against Catholic priests are true. I also believe the Catholic Church authorities have many times protected their priests from the proper moral and legal consequenses of their actions.

It is the covering -up of the molestation that I find most disturbing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church claims, in paragraph 2032, "To the Church belongs the right always and eveywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of men" (pg. 491).

With every little boy molested by a Roman Catholic priest, the right of the Church to make such an assertion diminishes. Every time a woman is raped by a Roman Catholic priest, the moral authority of the Church is more laid open to question. But when the leadership of that Church covers up the criminal, immoral, and reprehensible behavior of her priests, they have lost the right to dictate morality, even to a dog. (Dogs have better morals - they don't cover things up; they dig them up!)

"Vile gossip?" Unfortunately, the gossip is vile and true. In order to assert any moral authority at all the Roman Catholic Church must clean up its act: 1) She must stop covering up for priests who molest children and rape women. 2) She must cooperate with secular authorities in bringing these priests to justice. They must pay for their crimes. 3) She must repent of her sin before God and the offended people, and begin to behave far less cavalierly and arrogantly than she has in the past. She must never cover up for another priest - ever!

How dare the Roman Catholic Church assert the right to dictate morality - She has neither the moral integrity nor the credibility to do so!

-30-

Pretty Crosses, Ugly Death

2010-03-23T10:08:00.034-04:00

The cross. What image is projected into the minds of most Americans, and, indeed of people all around the world, when they think of it? Maybe a well-remembered cross on a church steeple seen in childhood is the vision of some. Perhaps it is a wooden cross inside a church building so smoothed out, sanded, and laquered that it is a beautiful ornament in the church. There may be golden crosses on display in other parts of the building as well. In a church garden, you may see a stone crucifix, a cross with a stone image of Jesus being crucified upon it.

Many Christian women wear chains around their necks with many different types of cross designs hanging from them. Gold, silver, and pewter crosses can all be seen hanging from the necks of women, and even some men. The possible designs for these crosses are too numerous to mention, but, beside the ordinary shape, there are the Celtic and St. Andrew's styles. Crosses are found in cemetaries on headstones. All of these, if they are well executed, are meant to be objects of beauty. I'm sure many of the artists who design and craft these beautiful works of art really love the Lord and wish to honor Him in their work and lives. And I'm sure many do.

Nevertheless, I have a lot of ambivalence about turning the cross into an image of beauty: To be crucified was an exceedingly ugly way to die.

The cross was one of the most excruciating instruments of torture ever devised by men. In fact, the word "excruciating" comes from two Latin words meaning "out of the cross." Its humiliation and pain are unimaginable.

I cannot imagine the humiliation of being stripped naked in public and tied to a post, or the pain of being whipped until my whole backside is a mass of blood, welts and bruises.

I cannot imagine the humiliation of having Roman soldiers place a purple robe on me or of their sarcasm and mockery in "proclaiming" me a king, or the pain of a crown of thorns being forcefully shoved into my head, and the the thorns beaten into it with rods.

I cannot imagine the humiliation of being publicly forced to walk 1/3 of a mile down a road carrying the arm piece of the cross tied so my arms are stretched out, or the pain of it, with the soldiers continually goading me on with their whips.

I cannot imagine the humiliation of being publicly displayed naked, impaled on a tree, or the pain of the spikes in my hands and feet, or the roughness on my whipped back on the bark of the tree, or the torture of having to push up with my legs just to breathe.

I cannot imagine the humiliation or the pain of the cross. In implied contrast to the beauty of artisticly fashioned crosses, it was a terrible way to die.

Depicting this well is the Isenheim Alterpiece, painted by Matthias Grunwald for St. Anthony's Monestary in Isenheim, Germany. The first time I saw it, this portrayal of Christ's crucifixion shook me to the core of my being. It is NOT a pretty picture. It is a stark image showing some of the true horrors of death on the cross. There is nothing serene about the face: In this Jesus' face is contorted in agony! His extremities are twisted and the torso is battered and bloody. It shows crucifixion in much of its horror, brutality, and torture.

One movie that portrayed the brutality of the crucifixion was Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. This makes all other movie depictions of the crucifixion I have seen seem "prettified" and tame. The flogging scene in this movie is far and away the most brutal and savage such scene I have ever seen, and I have seen many. I won't even try to add any more adjectives to describe the horror of the walk down the Via Dolorosa or the crucifixion itself. The only reason I don't think it went too far in its brutality, is because we we live in a generation with "itching ears," and maybe seeing the reality of it might shock some into realizing the depravity of man and the love of God it took to save us.

So, I have a problem with pretty crosses.

Pretty crosses diminish the power of the real thing. They do not truly represent the reality of the cross at all. People don't wear pretty gallows around their necks, nor are there prettfied electric chairs in public places, not even on cemetary headstones. NO! These are things of scandal and shame! What makes the cross any different? It was also a device for executing criminals.

Not long ago, I attended a worship service. In the center of the pulpit area was a huge cross, and it was a beautiful piece of art. Its wood was smooth, sanded and laquered to an amazing finish, and it was perfectly symmetrical. It was too pretty.

In Acts 5:30, we read, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (See also 10:30 and 13:29.) Galatians 3:13 says, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." I Peter 2:24 tells us of Jesus Christ, Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree..."

To state the obvious, the cross was a tree! Trees in their natural state are not symetrical or smooth, but have a very rough bark, which would only compound the discomfort and suffering of the crucified man, whose back has already been lacerated by whips. How can a pretty and smooth cross possibly well-represent all the pain and anguish of this agonizing, cruel death? The battered, bloody corpse of Jesus had to have looked like a horror before the burial!

I wish I wouldn't have to say this, because I know it will probably upset some very dear friends of mine. Nevertheless, I would not be doing right if I do not say it. Pretty crosses would more represent the entertainment evangelism of our day, which bolsters carnality rather than the things of the Spirit. Entertainment evangelism scratches itching ears (II Timothy 4;2-4), telling people the lies they want to hear rather than the truth they need to hear.

Jesus did not die to make people prosperous on earth. Nor did He die so men would enjoy perfect health from cradle to grave. People can give their money to Prosperity preachers until doomsday, but most of the time, the only people getting rich will be the preachers! Of course, I believe God heals when it suits His purposes to heal, but the Lord does not always do so. There are lessons learned through pain that can be learned no other way. There is a great need for Christians to face reality in this matter, especially. He died to free us from sin so we would be able to serve Him, not just in this life, but forever.

On the other side of the cross of death, there is eternal life for those who will believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atonement on the cross. In this life you may know the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings (Philippians 3:10) if you choose in this life to take up your cross and follow Him (Mark 8:34). At the Judgment Seat of Christ, you will face what you laid on Christ, the foundation of life (I Corinthians 3:12-15), "Now if any man build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." The life of a saved man who serves Christ will be rewarded. The life of a born-again Christian who coasts his way through life doing nothing for Christ will have no honor, but will be saved as by fire. He will be in heaven, but he will have no crowns to cast before the Savior's feet.

On the other side of the cross of death, if you, in this life, choose to take up your cross and follow Him, all honor and glory shall be yours. If you now die to yourself, the Lord will raise you to heights of power and joy no one can imagine.

On the other side of a pretty cross, there is only the back side.

-30-

"OWWWW!"

2010-03-19T14:22:00.020-04:00

Writing this post terrifies me. This is the final of my "Pain" posts. It is about sadomasochism. I will be blunt right from the beginning - this is a sexual perversion!

A man is tied to a post, his bare back flogged with a whip by a dominatrix.

A woman bends over a chair. Her dominant spanks her bottom with a paddle.

In both of these scenarios, all involved are consenting adults. The man is a paying customer of the woman flogging him. With the woman's permission and desire, the paddle is wielded by her boyfriend. So, if everyone is consenting to their roles, it is ok, right? Wrong!

Sadomasochism is a word combining two psychological perversions; Sadism, which is getting a kind of pleasure or satisfaction from inflicting pain on others; and masochism, which is getting a kind of pleasure or satsfaction from experiencing pain. The dominatrix and the dominant are sadists, and man tied to the post and the girlfriend are masochists.

Two men gave their names to these perversions. The Marqius de Sade gave sadism its name. He was an evil, perverse man who whipped prostitutes and wrote about cruelty the way romance writers do about love. I had the misfortune to read his book, Justine. It was the most depraved, disgusting and dirty book I have ever read. I cannot imagine a more pornographic book than that. It made me sick!

The term masochism derived from a German writer named Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. He was a masochist who derived pleasure from being whipped by prostitutes,. He wrote a book called Venus in Furs. Both men had bizarre sexual appitites, to say the least!

They were both perverts.

There are other Biblical arguments I could use, but I will use only two. To me this is so defiling, the less I have to say to get my point across, the happier I'll be! I am hoping to help some man or woman come to his or her senses before becoming involved with it. If one into Sadomasochism reads this, I can only pray he or she will get out of it!

My first biblical argument that S & M is a perversion is found in Proverbs 11:17: "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul, but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh." The sadist only creates problems for himself. By stirring up forbidden passions, he is doing nothing but wrecking havoc on his own soul. Stirring up cruelty and anger disturbs the mind, and the Marquis de Sade spent much of his adult life in the insane asylum at Charendon, France, where he died. In a way, the masochist is worse than the sadist, since the cruelty is LITERALLY troubling her flesh by wounding her body. The fact that she is allowing, and even desiring pain, is a perversion of the nature of things the way God created them. Pain is supposed to come as a warning - it is not to be enjoyed!

My second Biblical argument against S & M is found in Ephesians 4:30-32: And grieve not the Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and all evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

Several observations come to mind when it comes to these verses: 1) The Spirit of God can be grieved. We are to put away those things listed which grieve Him. I'll focus on one; malice. The Greek word is kakia, from Kakos, evil, naughtiness, malice. The English word comes from the Latin malus, evil. The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines malice this way: "A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; spite." The American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster (1828), Defines malice this way: "extreme enmity of heart or malevolence; a disposition to injure others without cause, from mere personal gratification or from a spirit of revenge; unprovoked malignity or spite."

Sadomasochism displays a disposition to cause pain for the sake of mere personal gratification! Malice is basically the sum total of the evils mentioned that grieve the Holy Spirit. This desire to harn others stands in direct opposition to the spirit of love and forgiveness found, not only in verse 32, but throughout the Bible.

In Acts 7:60, just before the first Christian martyr, Stephen, died from stoning, he prayed for the people killing him, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." In other words he was praying that God would forgive them. This same attitude was displayed by the Lord Jesus from the cross when He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

Both sadists and masochists are angry people. The difference between them is that sadists turns their anger outward, against others, and masochists turn theirs inward, against themselves. Both are wrong. The Lord tells us to "put away anger."

It is one thing for a parent to use corporal punishment to correct a child, or for society to punish criminals, even by flogging, as some Islamic societies do today. It is quite another thing for an individual to seek gratification, sexual or otherwise, through the infliction of pain on himself or others. This is pure preversion done with an evil motive: selfish gratification.

To put away anger and malice makes for a much happier life.

-30-

AIEEE!

2010-02-25T08:54:00.035-05:00

There is a lot more to be said about pain than could be said in one blog post. I have no doubt that some readers think that there is a lot more to be said on the subject than I said. Those readers are right. There are complications to the problem of pain that have tied philosophers' brains in knots since time immemorial. I acknowledege I don't have all the answers, and probably don't even know all the questions!

In the first post, we dealt with the easy aspects of God's gift of pain. We saw that pain can be a consequence of doing wrong. It is a warning sign of possible danger spiritually and physically. It can even prevent a man from going to hell.

There are things that happen in this world that humans have no control over. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and lightning are just three damaging phenomena that teach us that we humans are not as powerful as we would like to think we are. These and a multitude of ther natural phenomena cause a tremendous amount of pain and death in our world. There is also the obvious pain of physical and mental sickness that plagues our world.

In this post we will see how God's gift of pain is misused and abused. The first and most obvious abuse of pain is torture. Represssive governments use extreme pain and humiliation to force their citizens to obey them. The Roman Catholic Church used the tortures of the Inquisition to keep people slaves of their doctrine. (Our government's use of waterboarding is very mild in comparison to such things as the rack and the strappado!

Then there is spousal and child abuse. I have said in various posts that a good spanking is proper discipline and punishment for children. However, it can be done to excess. This is what I am talking about here. For instance, in a South Carolina school years ago, a 16-year-old girl named Shelley Gasperson was spanked with a sawed-off baseball bat! Not for one minute do I believe that was not abuse! Flagrant abuse like this has no place in any school! Miss Gasperson sued the school and of course won, this at a time when the use of corporal punishment was not questioned. In Jonestown in Guyana, anyone, at the whim of Jim Jones, adult or child, was subject to possible corporal punishment. Some were beaten with a paddle until their bottoms looked like raw hamburger. This is raw abuse! Other forms of abuse are shaking babies, verbal abuse, punching or kicking the stomach area (especially a pregnant woman). The list could go on and on, but I'm sure the reader gets the picture.

The true subject of this post is "unjust" pain. One of my earliest memories was starting to go inside to use the restroom after playing outside. I was about 3 or 4 years old at the time. My father stopped me and asked me to get the newspaper. I went to get it, but really had to pee. So I did it in the grass. The next thing I knew, Dad picked me up, threw me over his knee, and gave me a spanking I still have not forgotten! But the thing that hurt the most was the injustice of it: Dad spanked me for obeying him! That is why I remember it.

Why do evil men win, and good men lose? Why is it that a good man struggles against pain and weakness all his life, and his evil neighbor seems to coast through life with strength and wealth? It does not seem fair, this thing called life.

People all over the world yearn to be free. But repressive governments all over the world are able to stifle the desire for freedom through imprisonment and torture. The use of gulags, concentration camps and other forms of exile cause great pain to victims and their families. America has been so fortunate that most take freedom for granted. Yet the possibility that concentration camps are being set up for Christians here looms large. James Russell Lowell, in his poem, The Present Crisis, put it well,

"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne."

In the Bible, the two most prominent examples of men suffering unjust pain are Job and Jesus. Two seperate issues are involved: (1)Because Job suffered so terribly, he must have sinned terribly, and (2) Jesus suffered to redeem sinners.

Job lived about the time of Abraham. He was the richest man in the east. He was also a man who feared God and hated evil. But there came a time of testing for him that has been rarely been put upon any man. In one day, he lost all his possessions, all of his children were killed, and he was given painful boils from head to toe. Worse yet, there was no explanation for this sudden turnaround in the life of this good man.

Job had three good friends came to visit him in his time of affliction. They found him so changed in appearance, they did not recognize him. In accordance with the customs of morning in that day, they wept with him, rent the mantles, and sat with him for seven days and seven nights without saying a word. As good friends, they grieved with him.

Then came the big debate. Job cursed the day he was born. Then the friends and he got into a prolonged debate as to why all the pain and problems were suddenly heaped on Job. Job had no idea why. He cried against the injustice of it all. His friends thought Job had committed a lot of terrible sin and God was punishing him. Job never wavered in his insistence that his friends were wrong.

In fact, in spite of not knowing where his ordeal was coming from, Job demonstrated a tremendous faith in God. After he lost his possessions and his children, he worshipped God, saying, in 1:21, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Then after his health was taken, when his wife told him to curse God and die, he said to her (2:10), Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

There are more, but I want to cite two passages of the debate in which Job's faith shines through the darkness. In 23:8-13, Job demonstrates faith in God even when he is facing accusations he knows are false, aand it looks like everything is against him: "Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him. On the left hand, where he doth work,but I cannot behold him: he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him: But he knoweth the way I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold. My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." Even through all the pain and anguish, through all the accusations of wrongdoing he still looks to the end of his ordeal, and has faith that God will vindicate him.

In the other passage, Job looks to his vindication at the final judgment (19:25-27): "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Even if he must wait until the last judgment, Job believed he will be vindicated!

Job never really knew what hit him. He was never told on earth (as far as we know) that there was another character acting in this story named Satan. He told God that the only reason Job feared God and hated evil was that He kept Job wealthy and healthy. He told God that if He takes away everything Job has, he would curse Him to His face. This whole thing was a contest between God and Satan. Job did not fail God.

God did not fail Job. He set his friends straight. He gave him twice as much as he had before. If he was the greatest man in the east before his trial, God made him twice that in the end. He and his wife had ten more children. After his ordeal, Job lived 140 years, and saw four generations of children. The last verse of the book (42:17) says, "So Job died, being old and full of days."

I do not know whether or not God explained what was really going on to Job while he lived on earth. It does not matter. The Lord did not owe him an explanation, any more than He owes us explanations for the pain we go through.

There is another character in the Bible Whose sufferings are explained to us: the Lord Jesus Christ. We know why He went through the pain He went through. It was for us.

Jesus Christ was the only perfect man who ever lived. He was born in a stable, not a palace. He was not reared in luxury, but as the son of a hard-working carpenter. Most of His childhood was spent in a town called Nazareth, which had a bad reputation. One of his disciples, Nathaniel, asked before meeting Jesus, "Can there anything good come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46). The town was a bad neighborhood! Yet a sinless man was reared there, in poverty yet!

Although He was God in the flesh, He still felt all the pain and suffering anyone else did. Summer heat. Winter cold. Hunger. Thirst. Exhaustion. He felt them as surely as you or I would. In other words, in most ways, He was an ordinary man with nothing physical to cause Him to stand out in a crowd.

Yet His mission on earth was extraordinary: He would live a perfect, sinless life, and then die the most excruciatingly painful death devised by man. Jews and Romans had their part in the unjust sentence of death. The Jews brought him before the Roman rulers, because the leaders wanted Him dead; he went against their ideas of political and religious "correctness." Because of the laws of that day, they had to get the Romans to execute Him.

It was not fair! Political pressure from the Jewish leaders caused Pontius Pilate to allow His execution despite the fact that he said, "I find no fault in him" (Matthew 19:6). Talk about a trial that reeked of injustice; this was the ultimate!

Jesus was taken first to be whipped (Matthew 27:26). The Roman way was much more severe and brutal than say, the American Colonials. The victim was stripped naked and tied to a post. The whips were made of leather laced with pieces of metal and bone. Pieces of flesh were ripped right off the victim's body by the whip. Many did not survive the lash. Those that did were in unimaginable pain before even making it to the cross. And that was just the beginning for Jesus.

Then the soldiers took a robe and put it on him, and a made a crown of thorns and smashed it into His head. Then they beat the thorns into His head with rods. They did this because He claimed to have a kingdom "not of this world."

After that humiliation, He was stripped again and made to carry the cross piece one-third of a mile to Golgotha, where He would be crucified. The cross piece was tied to His shoulders and He and the others trudged and dragged themselves to the place of execution. If they staggered or slowed down, the lash would tear into their backs again. Jesus fell more than once, and finally they forced Simon of Cyrene to help Him carry the cross.

At Calvary (the Latin name for Golgotha), The cross-piece was laid over the vertical piece and nailed. Spikes were driven into His hands, and his arms were fully stretched out. Then His feet were spiked to the cross. To prolong the agony, a small "saddle" had been added to the cross for the feet to rest on. This enabled the crucified man to push up and breathe. Then Jesus was "lifted up." (John 3:14) The cross was lifted into a hole in the ground deep enough to stabilize the cross standing up. When it hit bottom, it jarred every nerve in the man's body. After that, it was only a matter of time before death. In agony, the victim would push up and down on the saddle in order to breathe. This could go on for days before death would finally occur. In Jesus' case, it was six hours.

But even here, Jesus was in control. In John 10, Jesus is the Good Shepherd. In verses 15-18, He said, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father." Our awesome God was in control, even from the cross!

So Jesus died in the most unjust execution ever. He never did anything wrong in His life, but gave that life for us. The Apostle Paul wrote of Christ in II Corinthians 5:21, God Hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle (3:18) said, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."

Three days later, Jesus rose from the dead. He is alive forevermore! Paul said in Romans 1:4, Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God wih power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead."

Job probably never knew on earth why he was suffering so much pain. but he knew that his Redeemer lives! The Lord Jesus Christ knew why he was on the cross: He was Job's Redeemer, and mine and yours also. Some day justice will prevail.

But for now, have faith in him.

In closing, I allude back to Lowell,, and finish quoting the verse:

"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, -

'Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,

'Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.'"

+++

OUCH!

2010-02-13T05:53:00.032-05:00

I want to talk about pain. I know it is not a pleasant subject, but there are things that I will say to provoke thought and maybe do a little good in this world.

Does anyone really like pain? Of course, I can't speak for everyone, but I sure don't! Even pain-seeking masochists probably don't like it, but are really after something else. Most people would love to not be able to feel pain.

There are people who cannot feel pain. They are the unfortunate ones. That is one of the major problems Hanson's disease, or Leprosy, brings. There are people who have stepped on nails and not known they have done it, because they can't feel it. This is very dangerous because of the possibility that disease might set in, and the foot might have to be amputated. A child who is unable to feel pain might put his hand in a fire, and lose the hand.

Do not envy them. Pain is a warning that something is wrong. Someone who feels a nail would be able to get to a doctor and prevent it from becoming worse. Even a child able to feel pain will remove his hand from a fire!

Pain is a gift from God to protect us from worse injury and premature death. It is like a Police siren, which is painful to the ears and highly annoying. It tells you there is an emergency, and you'd better get out of the cops' way, or you are liable to get hurt. It tells you to stop or slow down before you get hurt worse.

Pain can also come as a consequense of doing wrong. For example, one time I was baby-sitting
my six-year-old sister years ago. She was told to do what I told her by our parents. I was told to have her go to bed at 9:00. I followed their instructons and told her to go to bed at 9:00. She refused. I tried everything I could think of to get her to go to bed, but she disobeyed me. At 10:00 our parents got home. I got chewed out for failing to get her to go to bed by my step-mother. A few minutes later, I went to my bedroom. the bathroom door was open, and my sister was crying, and I could see welts on her bare bottom in spite of her rubbing. I knew what she was feeling: When I was her age, I had my share of Dad's spankings, and he spanked HARD! But the only thing I thought then was "It serves her right!" The spanking was a consequence of her disobeying me when, acting on my parents' behalf, I told her to go to bed.

I believe spanking is a legitimate use of God's gift of pain. Many, if not most American children growing up today are not taught there are consequences to their actions. They tend to think they are entitled to take what they want when they want it. As adults, we know that is not the way they world works. Children who do not learn obedience at home are far less likely to do well when they must do what they are told by other authority figures. A spanking when young is a lot easier to handle than a job firing or a prison sentence is when older! Parental discipline is good because it helps the child learn to discipline himself, so he has less problems with the way the world works.

Taking this a step further is pain is a warning of God's judgment. A Christian is faced with a choice of whether or not he will follows the will of his Lord in his life. This could be the individual will of God for his specific life, or a principle of Scripture. If he refuses, the Lord will chastise the Christian to bring him in line with His will. He will bring things and people into his life that will be very unpleasant and painful. The sooner the Christian conforms to His willl, the sooner the chastisement will end. The Father is, in effect, spanking His child. The figure is in fact used in Hebrews 12:6: For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth (whips) every son whom He recieveth. Verse 11 tells us why God does this: Now no chastisement for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterwards it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby.

God also brings pain on unbelievers to warn them to repent of their sin and receive the salvation Jesus Christ died to give them. Unpleasant and painful circumstances come into the lives of unbelievers which the Lord designs to bring them to Him. It could be financial loss, sickness, divorce, the death of a loved one, or any number of other things. As it is better as a child to endure parental spankings rather than have assorted problems later in life, infinitely more so, it is better to endure pain here, and be born again by the Spirit of God, and have a dwelling place with God in heaven, than to live as pain-free a life as possible here and wind up languishing in hell for all eternity! I would not wish that on anyone!

The Prophet Isaiah (53:5 and 6) prophecied this of Jesus Christ: He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chatisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. On the cross, Jesus died to atone for our sins and give us a right standing before God. He took the pain of hell so we would not have to. The perfect Son of God was punished for us.

But you must accept Him and His forgiveness. Since Christ died for our sin, we have no right to go on sinning. No, our lives are never perfect as long as we are here on earth, but they will be changed, and continue to be changed. After you have exercised faith in God for salvation, You will be a new creature; old things pass away; behold, all things become new (II Corinthians 5:17). Therefore as the end of verse 20 says, Be reconciled to God. Do not try to clean up your life yourself. Only Jesus' blood can make you fully clean.

You have a choice: eternal life with God in heaven, or everlasting torment and pain in hell, forever dying. In heaven pain will not exist. There will be no reason for it there. In hell, God's gift of pain will be a constant reminder of your sin, as well as its punishment. This is a no-brainer: Don't choose death and pain in hell. Choose the new creation. Choose LIFE!

-30-

A Family's Disgrace

2009-07-24T10:14:00.010-04:00

I could not believe this: An 8-year old girl in Phoenix was brutally raped by four boys between the ages of 9 and 14. The police there said it was one of the most horrific cases they had ever seen. That much of the story is in itself unbelievable.

But the most shocking and disgusting aspect of the case is that the girl's father is blaming the victim! This buffoon is one of the worst fathers I have ever heard of in my life. Those boys lured his daughter behind a shed with chewing gum and raped her, and Daddy blamed her for bringing disgrace on the family! THAT is the truly unbelievable aspect of this saga. If any one is bringing disgrace on his family, it is the pathetic male the girl has for a father!

I call him a "pathetic male" because he is not worthy of being called a man. A real man would stand by his daughter with compassion for her. Not this idiot. A real man would put his ego aside and try to help the girl. Not this moron. A real man would be doing everything he can to put away the punks who committed this cowardly act against his daughter. Not this creep.

Mr. Pathetic Male told the police right in front of her, "Take her. I don't want her."

Mr. Pathetic Male brought more disgrace to his family than his daughter ever thought to do by his egoistical blaming of his daughter for her "disgrace."

Mr. Pathetic Male seems to think the rape was all about him and his family. He is ashamed because his daughter was raped. He blames his daughter instead of the punks who raped her.
He does not deserve a family.

The girl needs help, not shame. Since the Pathetic One does not want her, she is probably better off without him. His whole family might be better off without him. I don't see how he lives with himself.

If I had a daughter that was raped, I would do everything in my power to see that gets help she needs to recover.

If I had a daughter that was raped, she would have all the compassion it is within my capacity to give her. I would support her no matter what.

If I had a daughter that was raped, I would do everything I could to see to it that her attackers are taken off the streets for as long a time as possible.

O Pathetic One, you are worthy only of contempt.

O Pathetic One, you masquerade as a man, but, you are nothing but a little boy in a man's body.

O Pathetic One, you need to grow up!

-30-

She's Not Standing By Her "Man"

2009-06-29T15:31:00.010-04:00

Hooray for Jenny Sanford! This very attractive lady has moxie! She's not standing by her "man."

Unlike Hilary Clinton, Silda Spitzer, and numerous others whose husbands' hands have been caught in the sexual "cookie jar," she did not humiliate herself by appearing with Mark Sanford while he delivered a tearful "apology" to her and the rest of the people of South Carolina for going to Argentina, of all places, and continuing an affair he had down there! Shame on this Bible-thumping hypoocrite for not meeting his own moral standards.

Jenny Sanford would not put up with it. Mark Sanford doesn't deserve her. Unlike the women who acted according to he song by Tammy "Whine"-ette, she was intolerant of her husband's adultery. He brought scandal on himself and his entire family, on his state and nation with his irresponsible disappearing act. Maybe the apology was sincere, but that is irrelevant. He breeched his own ethical code, and as a state Governor was not attending state business when he should have been. His wife was certainly not impressed. Nor were the people who work in the state house of South Carolina. Nor were the governed.

She's not standing by her "man," and why should she? He did not stand by his marriage. He committed adultery! Is he a real man? Real men stick by their wives. They are not weaklings who cut and run in temptation. Jenny Sanford expected, and had the right to expect her husband to be faithful to his vows. He wasn't. This is what a "man" does, not a man. Mark Sanford does not deserve Jenny. He should go back to Argentina and find his tramp. Then he should stay there.

Jenny and the State of South Carolina deserve better.

-30-

The Baby Killer's Killer

2009-06-02T10:11:00.015-04:00

Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas while the doctor was performing his duties as an usher. One cannot possibly imagine the chaos and shock the shooting caused for everyone who saw it. Murdering a man in a church service is about as profound a sacrlilege as can be conceived of. Never mind what the doctor did for a living; murder is still murder regardless of whether it's an abortion or a shooting in a church.

Dr. Tiller was an abortionist who did third trimester abortions as well as the more legal ones. As a result, he was a "lightning rod" for pro-lifers who were always at his clinic to protest the taking of human life. According to his website (drtiller.com), he performed about 60,000 abortions.

That is 60,000 murders comnmitted; a minor holocaust in itself. They were murders planned and premeditated, scientifically carried out. They cannot be condoned.

Although the doctor reaped what he sowed, his murder should be condemned as strongly as the abortions he did for a living. Murder is murder, period.

Who is Scott Roeder, the baby killer's killer? He is a mentally ill man, a fanatic about many things. He is a man who took it upon himself to plan and carry out a murder just as sure as Dr. Tiller planned and carried out his murders by abortion. He planned his entrance into the church carrying a gun. He planned on shooting Dr. Tiller to death and, as surely as the doctor committed his murders by abortion, so Scott Roeder shot and killed him. This was as cold-blooded an act of murder as any of the doctor's abortions. It was also just as wrong.

It is true that the legal practice of abortion must end. Protests and legal battles must be fought with a view to stopping it. But killing abortionists is not the way to do it. This only brings the killer down to the level of the killer he is fighting and makes people who are fighting abortion through legitimate means look bad. The headlines scream when someone does this, creating mass hyteria agaainst the anti-abortion movement. It is really bad advertising.

Murder is murder, whether it is done by or to the doctor.

-30- ----

"Test of Love" or Dare?

2009-04-11T09:02:00.029-04:00

In this insane world, one of the nuttiest things I have ever seen is shown on television on Saturday nights. It is a "reality show" called Stag, where they show bachelor parties and then show the videos to the prospective brides. The whole title of the program is Stag: A Test of Love.

The basic premise of this idiocy is that love needs to be tested before a couple is married. So the man is given a batchelor party by the show's producers and his "friends," loaded with alchohol and all kinds of sexual temptations. They bring in strippers and other sexually enticing women to tempt a woman's fiance into:

1) drinking too much, and,

2) getting into sexually compromising positions.

After the party is over, they play a video of the prospective husband's antics for the young lady to see. This might be entertaining television for the more immature people in our society, but to the man's fiancee the results can be devastating.

They call it a "test of love." I call it a childish dare. Adult children need to grow up before they play adult games, especially if they are playing with a couple's future happiness. If a man really loves his future wife, he will not allow this kind of temptation to even be put before him. In other words, forget the bachelor party! One of the most childish things to do is to dare someone to do something they know to be wrong or dangerous. People are not cowards when they are dared to do something wrong or stupid and they refuse. They are smart.

Stupid is drinking an excessive amount of alchohol and then driving. Stupid is also, under the influence, going into a strip club and making a fool out of yourself with a stripper. Stupid is also, if a man is about to be married, driving or being under the influence as a passenger in a car and going to a hotel where strippers are and making a fool out of himself by messing around with some woman in front of a video camera, especially when he knows his future wife will see the video. Of course he may be too drunk to know what he is doing. But she will still see the video, and might become his ex, and he will be the only loser.

His "friends" will "win," because they will have had a "good time at the expense of his future. The producers will win, because they will have their show to air. Even the bride will win, because she will be shown how much the man thinks of her, and will (hopefully) look for someone better than a fool who would risk his marriage this way.

Being smart is having nothing to do with this garbage. A man does not demonstrate integrity by deliberately walking into a situation with his eyes open and hoping he doesn't fall. A man of integrity will run away from sexual situations and stick close to his future wife. If he truly loves her, he will not put her in this kind of situation, which could only cause her deep distress.

So while some people are watching a man possibly destroy his marriage before it starts by taking this moronic dare, I will be watching America's Most Wanted.

-30-

Materialism Gone Insane

2008-11-29T09:04:00.011-05:00

In a New York City Wal-Mart, one of the most needless tragedies possible occurred on November 28, 2008. Jdimyati Damour of Queens was trampled to death after opening the doors of the store to a bunch of bargain-hungry, greedy customers. Not only that, the crowd also trampled a number of other store employees who were trying to rescue Damour. To make matters worse, angry customers kept right on shopping after store officials closed it because of the man's death.

This is a case of materialism gone insane. Such a thing would have been inconceivable to those who have a tiny modicom of decency and manners. A couple of seconds would have been all it would have taken to let the man get out of the way, and then the crowd could have shopped to their hearts' content, as did millions of shoppers all over the country.

"Black Friday" is what the day after Thanksgiving is called, supposedly because it is hoped that the stores will make so much money that day, they their finances will be in the black ink for the rest of the year. Of course, for Damour's family and friends, "Black Friday" will from now on have a much darker connotation.

I understand that economies are in crisis all over the world, but this is ridiculous! The life of the man those people took is worth more than the whole Wal-Mart Corporation. In the Bible, Jesus Christ said in Mark 8:36 and 37, "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" In Matthew 10:31, He said, "Ye are of more value that many sparrows." One human life is of infinite value, and I believe the founders of Wal-Mart would agree with that. Certainly, it is of more value than the cheap baubles obtained by those impatient morons after trampling the man to death.

This incident is troubling on several levels. The very fact that a man died is merely level one.

The second level is what it shows in the shift of our core values as a nation. The fact that the customers got angry and would not leave the store after it was closed indicates a loss of decency among many people. People valued a cheap bargain more than a man's life. Have we really degenerated so as to be like some nations of Asia, where life is cheap? Damour's life was certainly cheap to those who trampled him.

The final level on which this incident is troubling is the way it looks to the outside world. There are some counties of the world, where Islam is prominent, that because of their view of our materialism, they call us the "Great Satan." I cringe at the thought of the propaganda use this incident will have there to back up this claim. I can see the headlines in Muslim newspapers:

Man Dies for Shopper's Bargains

Victory for the Great Satan: Man Killed by Greedy Shoppers

Imams will be on their self-righteous high-horses in their sermons, proclaiming the evil of America, and how the Great Satan killed perhaps one of their own, conveniently overlooking the facts that the poor can be just as materialistic as the wealthy, and that their people are as guilty of the sin of envy as many Americans.

If there are Wal-Marts anywhere in the Middle east, they will probably demand that statues of Damour be erected at all the stores there to remember the shoppers' greed. (Of course, it might be a good idea to have one in the New York store where he was trampled to death.)

Of course, Damour's death is a tragedy. My heart goes out to his family and friends. I doubt anyone went to the store in New York intending to kill, but nevertheless, a man was trampled to death. It was a case of materialism gone insane, but it speaks volumes about how the value of life has declined relative to the "value" of things.

-30-

The Crystal Mangum Lies

2008-10-24T09:09:00.017-04:00

In March of 2006, a black stripper named Crystal Mangum accused three white Duke University Lacrosse players of sexually assaulting her. Of course, the scandal became front-page news, and the University wound up cancelling the rest of the lacrosse season, and the young men spent time in jail because of the accusations. This was all because of a shoddy police investigation headed by Prosecutor Mike Nifong, who was out to get himself re-elected District Attorney no matter how many innocent people got hurt in the process. Later, of course, the men were exonerated. The North Carolina State Attorney declared them innocent.

The men moved on with their lives. Unfortunately, Chrystal Mangum apparently did not. Instead she has written a book about the "attack," called "The Last dance of Grace: the Crystal Mangum Story," in which she claims she really was attacked by the lacrosse players.

Back when the story was making headlines in 2006, I followed it as closely as I could. It was one of the few times I have ever had doubts about the guilt of the accused right from the start. The case against the players never made sense to me. It quickly became apparent to me, and I am sure to many others, that Mike Nifong was using the case to boost his election chances. The players were victims of dirty politics as much as anything else. He withheld DNA evidence which would have cleared them from the defense lawyers and ignored ironclad alibi two of them had. There were also too many discrepancies in Mangum's story for it to be believable. She told different stories to different investigators, and with the media played the "race card" for all it was worth. She pretended she, as a black woman, would not be treated fairly against white University athletes. Shamefully, her whining worked for a while. Now she is whining before the public again with her book.

Now in reaction to the book, one of the accused students says he and his family are contemplating legal action against Mangum. I don't blame him, since the book defames his character. I'd like to see the book suffer a fate like that of O. J. Simpson's "If I Did It," and work against her. Not only should the family seize the book and any royalties from it, but maybe the players could rebut the story within its very pages! One thing is for sure: Crystal Mangum should not profit even one penny from her lies.

It is remotely possible Mangum was attacked by someone else that night. There is no doubt in my mind: As far as the murder of Nicole Brown goes, O. J. did it. Regarding the "attack" on Crystal Mangum, the lacrosse players did not do it.

-30-

An Avatar Scorned

2008-10-24T09:08:00.026-04:00

"Hell hath no fury like an avatar scorned." So wrote Andres Guadamuz on his "TechnoLlama" blog. The story is that a Japanese woman was playing game called "Maple Story," and without warning, her virtual "husband" divorced her.

The woman did not take the technodivorce graciously. Instead, she committed virtual murder. Using his password, she deleted his avatar from the game. (So much for good sportsmanship!)

The "murdered" man did not take any more kindly to her act of revenge than she did the "divorce." He went to the real police, and had her arrested under the real anti-hacking laws. Suddenly virtual reality was thrust into the real world. Now she is under real arrest subject to a real trial, with the possibility of real jail time, and she might have to pay a fine of half a million real Japanese yen.

Frankly, I think this is being taken much too seriously by the government. There is no prize money in this game, so there is no monetary loss possible. It seems to me that government computers could be put to better use fighting actual cyber-crime, such as cyber-fraud and cyber-bullying. This kind of silliness should not have any kind of ridiculous priority for investigation, let alone take up the time of a criminal court. It would be up to the man to decide whether or not to pursue it in the civil courts.

This does not mean I believe there should be no punishment for the "murderess." It believe in the virtual "death penalty" as much as I do the real thing. As far as "Maple Story" goes, I would suggest that HER avatar be deleted and she never be allowed back in the game again.

How to inflict this virtual "capital punishment?" I would suggest a public online execution. Maybe a hanging. Keep her playing "hangman" until her avatar is finally hanged. Maybe by the electric chair. Make her watch her avatar being slowly sizzled until it is finally shown deleted. However, a lethal injection of viruses into her computer would be "cruel and unusual punishment."

-30-

Burning For Burning

2008-09-22T08:53:00.007-04:00

A fifteen-year-old boy in Bay City, Florida was charged with scalding his 4-year-old cousin with boiling water. He was baby-sitting the child when he got angry with her and poured the water on her back, blistering and severely scalding her.

The kid will probably serve time in Juvie, and hopefully learn his lesson, but I am sceptical of this. My guess is the system will put him through Anger Managemet classes based on modern pop psychology, which hopefully will do some good. Maybe, maybe not. He might come out hardened and some day wind up with a criminal record for committing worse crimes. I hope for the best, but don't expect it from the juvenile justice system.

What I would do is make him feel her pain.

The Bible, in Exodus 21:22-25, gives an instance when the punishment should fit the crime exactly. What was done to the victim should be done to the perpetrator. It says, "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Bible scholars tell us the this is a very big advance on the law codes of the ancient world, such as the Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon. Prior to this the legal codes prescribed what a modern mind would find incredibly cruel and sadistic punishments. One would be to tie the felon into a hollow log and let the ants and other vermin subject him to a slow and painful death.

Both then and later, the Exodus passage was applied to more than just the given situation. It is the ultimate in just punishment.

Perhaps the best thing that could be done to that boy would be to pour scalding water on HIS back and let him feel the blistering and scalding that little girl felt. The pain might serve to turn him into a more compassionate man instead of the little boy he is, who cannot control his sadistic impulses. A "burning for burning" might be the cure for him: Hopefully, regardless of how he is punished, he will never again hurt another little girl.

-30-

A Tribute to Solzhenitsyn

2008-08-07T15:47:00.101-04:00

SAlexandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian thinker and writer, died at the age of 89 on August 3rd. On June 8, 1978, he delivered the Commencement Address at Harvard University, A World Split Apart. An examination of this speech shows it to be prophetic and perhaps more relevant to the world today than when it was originally spoken. In this blog, I will examine excerpts from the speech to show what I mean. This is my tribute to a great thinker and a great man.

The speech centered on "certain aspects of the West in our days as I see them," and the flaws Solzhenitsyn saw in the West have only gotten worse in the past 30 years.

The first flaw Solzhenitsyn noted was a decline in courage. He said this "may be the most striking feature which an outsider notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on society."

This decline in courage is far worse now than is was in 1978. September 11, 2001 was a terrible watershed in world history. The planes damaged a lot more than three buildings; they took something out of the psyche of the world. Terrorists have taken the world hostage and in the name of their religion, wish to force the adoption of sheria law upon the whole of it. (Personally, I have no wish to live in the 7th century.) In the United States, they have managed to convince many that Islam is a "religion of peace." Well, Christians didn't fly those planes into the World Trade center and the Pentagon. Neither did Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs. The cowards who did that dastardly deed were Muslims.

Of course, there are many Muslims in this country who do want to see a peaceful world. I have no wish to exaggerate the previous point. But the "Fundamentalist" Muslims are anything but peaceful. They are out to conquer the world for Islam, and they will stoop to any threats and destructive behavior they think will help them achieve their ends. With them the end does justify the means. The last thing we need is our government giving them the "civil right" not to be profiled in airports. What about other peoples' right to have their right to life protected? That is worth a lot more than protecting the "right to privacy" of some coward who might be planning to run an airplane into a building. Is it going to take a second 9-11 to wake the government up to how dangerous these people are, and start using common sense in profiling?

I also think the our government is too busy cowtowing to Saudi Arabia, because we "need" their oil. No, we need to be America, and stand on our own two feet. If that means a drastic cutting back on the use of oil on the part of the public, so be it! There are other sources of energy that should be developed, and I don't mean messing with our food supply! Robbing Peter to pay Paul by replacing oil with corn is nothing but destructive. Solar energy is a good place to start. Shame on the big oil companies for not developing other sources of energy years ago! Thanks to their greed and selfishness, we lag far behind where we should be. Their buying of energy-saving inventions for the purpose of keeping them off the market is inexcusable. I would love to see one of the big oil companies have the guts to actually use some of the things they have bought to turn our energy crisis around. I for one would applaud such a move.

A lack of courage is also shown when facing the left-wing extremists as well, especially facing the "Green" movement. Al Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize about as much as I do (and I don't pretend to deserve it at all). How does stirring up a lot of hysteria about nonsense like "global warming" earn a man any prize at all, especially one as prestigious as Nobel? The answer is simple: The prize goes to a left-winger who does the most to promote political correctness, as though promoting "unity" is the same as promoting peace. I can think of numerous men who have actually done things to promote peace in our world and actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Someone like Franklin Graham, the Founder of Samaritan's Purse, who is promoting the welfare of the poor all over the world, comes to mind as being far more deserving of the prize than an arrogant, intolerant nincompoop like Al Gore, who has done everything he can to silence credentialed scientists who are critical of his views. Yet our leaders don't have the courage even to listen to men with PH.Ds and other post-graduate degrees who see through his nonsense. It is pathetic, this lack of guts!

Most seriously damaging to the American way of life is the cowardice of our own leaders in not only allowing, but actively promoting, the erosion of the civil rights of citzens under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Congress is specifically forbidden by the Constitution from putting laws on the books abridging our freedoms of speech, press, and peaceable assembly. But certain power-hungry elitists have taken control of our government and are promulgating laws which totally defy the First Amendment of our Constitution. Where are Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson when we need them? Do we have anyone left in any of the branches (executive, legislative, or judicial) who has the courage to stand up and "just say NO" to these elitist politicians? Congress did not even have the guts to pass the First Amendment Protection Act to protect Free Speech from the intrusions of foreign governments and elitist billionaires! Imagine the big U. S. A. not even standing up to a little peanut nation like Saudi Arabia and their attempted Muslim takeover of our nation. This shows how stinking corrupt and elitist our government is, demonstrating the importance of the First Amendment. The less power that is in the hands of ordinary citizens, the more corrupt the government is going to be. Yet the citizens have no more courage than the the leaders. This decline in courage, as Solzhenitsyn says, is "the beginning of the end."

Another flaw Solzhenitsyn noted in the Harvard speech was too much safety and well-being has made people greedy. We have been spoiled. He said, "When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments were are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come to being during these same decades. In the process,, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development."

Western culture has made tremendous strides since 1978 to increase the well-being of its people. Communications are better. The Internet was unknown back then. Al Gore hadn't "invented" it yet. Better food and housing is available to most. More small businesses operate in America now than any other time in history, so more people are in control of their lives. The problem is that people are now as human as ever. Human nature has not changed. People still want more and better even when it is not necessary. People are still greedy and are out to get whatever they can regardless of the consequences. The wealthy still must "keep up with the Joneses," and accumulate more stuff and greater prestige, while the poor make greater demands on the government for what they are "entitled to." Of course, those in the middle class are just as prone to greediness as are the rich and poor. They also want more and better stuff, and many can't live without the latest gadget and geegaw that comes down the pike. Many tend to buy their kids everything they want, creating a generation of spoiled brats who don't know the value of a dollar (as if the dollar is worth much now). What is this generation going to do when they must raise their own children, if they don't know how to manage money themselves, having been given everything they want all their lives? How are they going to overcome being awash in materialism?

Unless the spirits of our children get some attention, they will eventually find that excessive materialism has a very steep price tag. Competition wrongly handled breeds apathy and selfishness, the very opposite of spiritual development. It has been said that "Whoever dies with the most toys wins." This statement is completely false. Whoever dies with the most toys is still dead, and since he doesn't get to take his toys with him, he actually gains nothing. There are depths of spirit that the materialists cannot understand, particularly if his balance sheet at the end of his life shows no more than monetary figures. When he dies, he loses everything - all of his toys. Ignoring the spiritual part of one's self is the most dangerous things a person can do. In the Bible there is the story of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and asked Him how to inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:16-26). Under Jesus' questioning he claimed to have kept God's commandments from his childhood. Jesus replied, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" (verse 21). The young man walked away sad because he was very wealthy, and chose his money over eternal life. He valued the temporal over the eternal, and selfishness over care of the poor. Many people since have done the same thing, and have lost their souls to greed. Is the obsessive clamoring for wealth really worth the price? Even if you take the idea of hell out of the equation, and assume this life is all there is, all the competition and greed for wealth will only leave a man's soul and spirit barren and wanting more and more, never satisfied nor happy. As Solzhenitsyn said at the end of the section, "Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask." Now, thirty years after these words were spoken, the mask is nearly torn away.

Another flaw inherent in Western society, according to the Harvard speech, is its organization based on the letter of the law, or, in a word, its legalism. To quote Solzhenitsyn, "Western society has given itself the best organization suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad...Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his product to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

'I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.'"

Why write a decent and good book when you can sell a mediocre one in less time, and make millions with less effort? Why produce a movie of decent values when you can rely on the sensationalistic and become well-known and successful by producing the vile kitsch and trash that are commonly hits in the theatres? Why mess up your social life by putting your supreme efforts into rearing your children? They can raise themselves. Why care what happens on your job? You are going to draw the same paycheck any way. Get away with as much as you can, and contribute as little as you have to. Take, don't give. Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country. This is precisely the thinking that prevails under this kind of legal system. This sense of entitlement is exactly what is prevalent today, and is why America is falling apart. This is what the moral malaise and the government giveaways have produced; mediocrity in America. Humanity's noblest impulses are indeed paralysed by legalistic concerns and must take a back seat to the prevalent "entitlements."

In connection with this is another flaw; the direction that freedom has taken. Solzhenitsyn said, "In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly...dozens of traps will be set
for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy...Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil."

There is very little decency left in society now. The freedoms that used to defend our society against moral corruption have been turned into little licenses to corrupt it. The notion of responsibility has been forgotten and abandoned. The Founding Fathers are probably looking down from heaven, amazed at how fast the values they wove into the nation's fabric have been ripped away. One of the main values is the idea that freedom has responsibility with it. "Freedom of expression" has been used irresponsibly in the courts to legalize such destructive things as burning draft cards and American flags, and to allude to Solzhenitsyn's speech, the production of pornography, horror movies and media laced with crime, which put evil ideas in the heads of the more irresponsible people in our society. The fact, in spite of assertions to the contrary, is that there are people, especially among the young, who act on what they see, hear, and read. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the murderers of Columbine High School were heavily influenced by hate media. Their computers were full of it.

Another problem is irresponsibility at the polls. Most people, when they vote in elections, do not have the best interests of the whole nation at heart. They are more interested in their own "entitlements" and what they can get out of the government than they are in what is good for the country as a whole. This is the reason Congressmen get away with voting tax dollars for "pork" for their districts. It is in their self-interest to get what they can by raiding the nation's Treasury, disregarding the harm they do to the country as a whole. As long as their districts get what they want, their greedy constituents will keep re-electing them. This is why the McCain-Palin slogan, "America First" should be kept in mind by every voter. Some have called the slogan "self-serving," but the fact remains that many American voters have not considered that their greed plays into the hands of those who wish to cause the downfall of our nation. What is good for the country might not always be good for certain individuals, including ourselves. Sometimes it is better to put what we want aside and vote for what is good for the whole nation, because if handled irresponsibly, freedom exercised can have destructive consequences, especially if the people vote in a dictator. Don't think it can't happen here. The people of Germany, in 1933, elected Adolf Hitler chancellor. If people get too focused on protecting their security, freedom will be lost.

Another flaw in western culture Solzhenitsyn spoke of is abuse of freedom of the press. He says of the media, "How many hasty, immature superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both stimulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: 'everyone is entitled to know everything.' But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

'Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas...

'Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers give enough stress ad emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.'"

Political correctness has all the advantages of the free press. They can print whatever they wish and ignore other points of view. The Liberals own the media and so hold all the cards, and are able to tell the unthinking public how to vote. This is the only reason Barack Obama is the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. They will tear into George Bush over his alcoholism years ago, but say nothing about Obama's illegal cocaine use. Television mocks Sarah Palin, but there would be an uproar if someone satirized Michelle Obama's hatred of America. They bring up McCain's voting with Bush, but no one is supposed to question Obama's connection with hate-mongering Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama gets to play the "race card" as much as he desires, pretending that anyone against him becoming President is a racist. This is something I very much resent. I am against him becoming President because I believe his policies and those of the Democratic Party could not be worse for America. I believe if he gets in, he and the Liberals in Congress will tear this nation apart.

I fear for my country. I don't see either the economy or Iraq and Afghanistan as the biggest issue facing us today: The most important issue facing this nation today is the erosion of our civil rights under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. I am outraged by this, and would love to know if there is anyone else as angry as I am! Congress is not only full of cowards who will not defend the Costitution (as they swore to do), but with elitist traitors who have betrayed the American people. Yet the press does nothing in the way of reporting the nonsense bills being passed through Congress. The corruption will only get worse if this persists. The same cowardice that has infected Congress has become a full-blown epidemic in the press.

Another flaw Solzhenitsyn finds in Western culture is what I would term cultural correctness, the twin brother of political correctness. At Harvard, he said, "Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully seperated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or bne heard in colleges. Legally your reseachers are free, but they are conditined by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent iundependent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a hers, shutting off successful development."

In other words, the culture becomes as corrupt as the politics. Which corruption came first? This is the chicken and egg question asked again. The answer really doesn't matter: They work hand-in-hand to corrupt society by forbidding and censoring alternate viewpoints and ideas. This is why elitism is successful: The elite hold the power to decide whose ideas are "fashionable," to use Solzhenitsyn's term, and therefore will be published, and whose are "out of fashion," and won't be able to get media exposure. Politics and culture tend to corrupt each other. One hand dirtys the other in a mutual blackmail pact. The writers don't expose political corruption (unless it is on the oppositon's side), and the politicians don't go after the media. So much for a "free press!"

Later in the speech Solzhenitsyn said, "There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or the lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy."

History is rarely listened to. Over and over again, cultures became morally decadent, and decent statesmen are replaced by cheap politicians, resulting in the corruption of the culture and the politics. Morally corrupt artists like Robert Mapplethorpe are subsidized by the government and politicians like Bill Clinton are elected to public office. There was a certain amount of outrage over Clinton's antics, and some anger over Mappelthorpe's blasphemy, especially when it was found the taxpayers were paying for it. The American people didn't elect Clinton to fool around with Monica Lewinski, nor do I believe the average citizenry appreciated their money paying for a depiction of Jesus Christ in a vat of urine, called Piss Christ.

There was considerable outrage over those things when they happened, but I wonder if there would be much today. Today, our society is far more morally corrupted than it was then, so it is possible that such things would not so much as raise an eyebrow. The reason I say this is the language that comes out of people's mouths today is straight from the gutter. The Name of Jesus Christ is constantly used in vain. Pornography is everywhere, now corrupting women as well as men. As far as politics go, we just elected an inexperienced Liberal President of the United States. The whole world has gone Obama-crazy. He is Solzhenitsyn's worst nightmare. His associations with hate-mongers like Jeremiah Wright and radical Left-wing organizations like ACORN are just plain scary! This could not happen in a normal democratic society; only a severely corrupted one. Unless our society goes back to the moral foundations on which it was founded, our destuction is assured.

The final flaw discussed by Solzhenitsyn in ther speech is the most basic and important one. It has been alluded to throughout this blog. It is that Western culture has embraced Humanism and forsaken its Christian foundations. This has only gotten worse since he gave the speech. He is a modern-day prophet, and in some ways it reads like a jeremiad. Solzhenitsyn said, referring "to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for govenment and social science and coould be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man being seen as the center of everything that exists."

Indeed, man has done his dead-level worst to be rid of the concept of a higher power than himself running the universe. In his arrogance, he has placed himself at the very center of the worlds, and pretended that God does not exist.

But, as Solzhenitsyn said, "However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceeding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedon simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded in the West: a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer."

Whether Secular humanists like to admit it or not, American moral values came not from Deism or Atheism, but from Christianity. While it is certainly true that there were Atheists and Deists among the Founding Fathers, America still was founded on Christian moral principles. The Founding Fathers, including the Deists and Atheists, if they were to see it, would be horrified at what their descendants have done with the freedom that they fought so hard to win. The irresponsible abuse of freedom has resulted in legalization of abortion, gambling, and a host of other evils. The moral fiber of the American citizenry has been adversely effected, leading to increases in crime and unsafe schools. The arts have been "dumbed down," so most of what passes as entertainment would insult the intelligence of a donkey. Sensationalism, sex and violence are the swill the modern media expect people to digest. It is very hard to discern the truth in news any more, because everyone slants it to fit their own agenda.

At the conclusion of his speech, Solzhenitsyn said, "If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. it will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

'This ascention will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward.'"

Thirty years have passed since Solzhenitsyn gave the speech at Harvard. I wonder if he, at the end of his life, would have changed his conclusion. There has been no great spiritual surge, but more degeneration. Throughout the world, terrorists are seen as heroes. Suicide bombers supposedly go to heaven, while their victims languish in hell. It takes some kind of twisted logic to convince American citizens to give up their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, while our soldiers are in Afghanistan and Iraq sacrifice their lives to give them what the same government is stealing away from its own people.

A spiritual upsurge is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps this is preparation for the end. The Bible speaks of a time of great tribulation before the return of Jesus Christ to rule the world with justice and equality for all. Thsi will be a terrible time of even greater degeneration and decline all over the world. It also speaks of a way out; the rapture. If one has trusted in Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord, he will leave before the time of the tribulation. Solzhenitsyn was ready. Every living believer in Christ is ready. I am ready. Are you?

-30-

Congress's Ultimate Unconstitutional Act

2008-07-16T19:07:00.006-04:00

I am no longer a Republican, but am now with the Constitution Party. I was a Republican the whole previous time I voted, but now feel betrayed and will probably never again vote for a Republican Presidential candidate. A number of things have angered and disillusioned me about the G. O. P. in the last couple of years, and this post is about the most offensive: The 2006 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.

This is supposedly a campaign finance reform law. It is really an attack on the First Amendment
of the U. S. Constitution. It strips good and law-abiding citizens of their rights to free speech and assembly during the last sixty days of an election.

McCain-Feingold reminds me of Adolf Hitler's Enabling Act, which he shoved down the throats of the German people through the Reichstag (Germany's equivalent to Congress) in 1934. It gave him total dictatorial powers, completely bypassing the German Constitution so it was not worth the paper it was written on. Hitler could pass any law and had a free hand to do anything he wanted to. He had total power, and we know how he used it, or should I say, abused it.

Now John McCain's signature legislation (which, by the way Obama voted for and our President refused to veto) is an excellant reason among many not to vote for him for Presiudent. It is the most obviously unconstitutional abuse of power ever to pass through Congress. It is an Enabling Act for politicians and the press to keep "we the people" from cramping their style! Especially around election time the politicians and the Liberal press need reality checks from "we the people" to keep them from utterly corrupting themselves! Don't talk to me about trusting them. This legislative abuse of power, Congress's Ultimate Unconstitutional Act, is the ultimate reason they cannot be trusted.

How dare Congress put themselves above the Constitution in this way! If those legislators who voted for this don't want to be responsible and accoutnabl enough to the American people to listen to them, especially right before an election, they should get out of politics or run for office in China! I for one am not the least bit interested in living under an American dictatorship.

Neither the politicians nor the Liberal press have any right to tell me when I may and may not speak or write on any issue. They are only after dictatorial power for themselves. McCain-Feingold spits in the faces of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and every soldier, sailor and marine who has ever fought or died for our nation's freedoms.

Come to think of it, it is time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. They are needed here to fight Barack Osama and Sadaam McCain!

-30-

A Perverse Ruling

2008-06-26T08:12:00.022-04:00

On the night of February 23, 2005, John Evander Couey kidnapped, raped, and murdered Jessica Lunsford and buried her under the front porch of his house. On March 7, 2007, he was found guilty and later sentenced to the death penalty.

On June 25, 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that short of murder, the death penalty cannot be given for the rape of a child. This ruling changes nothing for Couey, of course, nor should it. But the death penalty might have changed things for the Lunsford family. Used at the right time, it would have saved Jessica's life.

Couey has a long criminal record, including 24 arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and more to the point, indecent exposure. As far back as 1978, he was accused of grabbing a 5-year-old girl in her bedroom and kissing her. For this he was sentenced to ten years in prison, but paroled in two.

After release, he moved in with his estranged mother and stepfather, and attempted to rape his 5-year-old stepsister.

In 1985, he married Karen Joan Goshe, and in 1990, the marriage was dissolved when she discovered him sexually abusing her older daughter.

The following year, he was finally labelled a sexual offender when he was found guilty of lewd behavior with a five-year old neighbor girl.

This "man" was a career criminal; a serial sex offender. He is a danger to any child he comes in contact with and always will be. Because he was handled with kid gloves (no pun intended) by his family and the justice system, Jessica Lunsford is dead.

They say John Couey had it rough growing up. FOUEY!! That is no excuse for what he did to Jessica or any of the other girls he fondled and raped. A lot of people have hard childhoods and adulthoods and don't go out and rape little girls!

They say John Couey is borderline retarded. HOUEY!! Chris Burke is retarded, but he did a splendid job as an actor in the television series "Life Goes On." He did good with his disability. Couey uses his as an excuse for evil.

They say John Couey is small and was bullied when he was young. That is still no excuse. I am small, and was bullied as a child also, and furthermore, I have had cerebral palsy since I was born. I have never raped little girls. Anyone willing to excuse him for his crimes on this basis, well, his reasoning is just plain SCROUEY!!!

Now we come to the crux of the matter. I believe the ruling in Kennedy vs. Louisiana is a perversion of the Eighth Amendment, which says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Our Founding Fathers certainly saw nothing wrong with the death penalty for a number of crimes, including rape. And I have a feeling that in the case of the rape of a child, many of them would themselves have been happy to have been the executioners.

Death is not a penalty out of proportion for the crime of adult rape, let alone child rape. Sexual molestation destroys the life just as surely as murder does. The physical consequences are bad enough, but the psychological are more devastating, making some victims wish they were dead, and even causing some to commit suicide.

In the case of any rape, especially a brutal one, there is no way the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. To not execute the perpetrator of a child rape, especially, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - of the victim!

One more thing. There is no question that once a pervert is put to death, he will never again rape another woman or child.

-30-

What Johnny (McCain) Can't Read

2008-05-25T14:29:00.023-04:00

Here is part of a very famous document translated by computer into German:

"Kongress stellt kein Gesetz respektieron eine Niederlassung der Religion, oder das Verbot der freien Ausubung oder Verkurzen die redefreiheit, oder die Pressefreiheit oder das recht der Menschen friedlich zu versammeln, und die Petition fur eine Wiedergutmachung von Beschwerden."

German is not the original language of this document, so Johnny can be excused if he cannot read it. It might have been originally written in German had the people voted to make it the official language of its country of origin.

This is the same in French:

"Congres ne fara aucune loi respectant un etablissement de la religion, ou interdisant le libre exercice de cillici, ou la droit des personnes de se reunir paisilement, et de demander un redressement des griefs."

French is spoken in a part of a neighboring country to the country of origin of this document. Before this was written, the French helped make it possible for the document to be written. Even so, Johnny may be excused if he cannot read this translation.

This is the same in Spanish:

"Congreso no hara ninguna ley respetando un establecimiento de religion, ni prohibara el libre ejercicio de los mismos, o limitar la libertad de expresion, o de la prensa, o el derecho de las personas a reunirse pacificamente, y la peticion a la reparacion de agravios."

Johnny might be able to read this, being the Senator from a state along the Mexican border. But even if he can't read the translation he is still excused.

However, this is the original text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition for a redress of grievances."

This, of course, in perfectly understandable English, is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America! It is not a translation, but the original language. Yet Johnny McCain can't read it. Neither can 298 other members of Congress. That's 240 House members and 59 Senators. Neither can some Judges who call the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act constitutional. This "law" restricts the freedom of people to speak on politics the last 60 days of the campaign. Under this travesty of a "law," the people cannot assemble to demonstrate on political issues.

Poor Johnny! His education left him very illiterate. Perhaps every member of Congress and all Federal Court judges all need to go back to Elementary school and learn to read. Maybe not. Perhaps it is just the word "abridging" they don't understand - after all, that is a three-syllable word! Maybe it is only Middle School they need to go back to.

I guess our dear President can't read it either. Otherwise he would have vetoed it. I guess what the Constititution says really doesn't matter to those who want the power to arbitrarily decide what the Constitution is supposed to say. For too long, the Liberals in the Courts have gotten away with twisting the Constitution to say things that would have been anathema to the writers of it.

Now Congress has joined them. What is worse, Johnny McCain, the leading proponent of this idiocy, is running for President! One question: If Johnny will violate the oath of office he took as a Senator, to preserve and protect the Constitution (which includes free speech and the right of peaceable assembly), then how can he be trusted to not do it as President?

The very idea of a five-year prison term just for speaking out, whether politically incorrect or not is straight out of the Communist Soviet Union, and should not even be spoken of, let alone made law in the United States of America. This is a disgrace to the very freedoms our troops are fighting for in Afganistan and Iraq. Our freedoms are being eroded here while we are over there supposedly fighting for their liberty.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Johnny is actualy a literate hypocrite among the other literate hypocrites who are power-hungry and wish to be dictators. Years ago, Patrick Henry, one of our Founding Fathers, said, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me liberty or give me death! "

Henry took a stand that resulted in the freedoms we as Americans hold dear. Now it is our turn to stand. Let's throw the bums out of office in November, and take back our heritage and rights as Americans. Then let us be more vigilant than we have been in the past. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

The price of falling asleep is tyranny.

-30-

Joseph Fritzl: MONSTER!

2008-05-08T13:30:00.008-04:00

One definition in the Random House New College Dictionary of the word monster is "one who excites horror, as by wickedness or cruelty."

Poor Joseph Fritzl. He does not like being characterized as a monster by the world press. Why would they say such a thing about him?

Is it possibly because this man, who lives in Vienna, Austria, raped and brutalized his daughter Elizabeth repeatedly over 24 years while keeping her as a sex slave and prisoner in his dank, airless cellar?

Maybe it is because he fathered 7 children with that daughter and imprisoned three of them with their mother.

Perhaps it is because when one of the babies he fathered with Elizabeth died, He cremated his body by throwing him in his heating furnace in order to, as he said, "Get rid of it," dehumanizing a baby he forced his daughter to help create?

Poor Elizabeth Fritzl. She had a monster for a father. Now the chickens have come to roost for him. It seems to me that being called a monster is one of the least of his problems. He is so ridiculously self-centered, he is silly. He should be less worried about being told the truth about himself, and more his future in prison, and then in hell.

Perhaps in a newer edition of the Random House College Dictionary, next to the definition of the word "monster," a picture of Joseph Fritzl will be placed next to it.

-30-

Jeremiah Wright and the Prophet

2008-05-02T13:09:00.033-04:00

(Originally posted on March 28, 2008, on myfoxtampabay.com)

Pastor Jeremiah Wright cancelled a visit to a Tampa Bay-area mega-church because of lack of security. Now the people in that church won't hear him preach a sermon full of racism and hate, delivered in the name of Christ. Thank God the Sheriff had the good sense not to waste taxpayers' money to protect him. Barack Obama's 20-year connection with him should give any voter with good sense who loves this country pause before voting for him.

I don't know what book he preaches out of, but from what I have heard of him, his message is the polar opposite of the Bible's message of love. Christ loves all the people of the world. This is why He came - to be the sacrifice for our sins on the cross. This means white people as well as black. The Gospel of John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Whosoever" means everyone, including us white folks, too. The Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 3:27 and 28, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek (or gentile), there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Christ Jesus." If Paul were writing this verse for modern-day America, I'm sure he would add, "There is neither black nor white." In other words, it doesn't matter what race you are: Christ died for all.

Wright's message of hate towards America may by politically correct, but it in no way is it Biblically correct. His first name may be Jeremiah, but he does not manifest the spirit of the Old

Testament prophet. The prophet loved his nation, but he had the strongest message of judgment in the whole Old Testament to deliver. He is sometimes called the Weeping Prophet because God's message through him gave him personally so much pain. In 9:1 he said, O that my head were a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people." He cared about the people of Judah.

More to the point is Wright's hatred of America. The way he talks, it appears he would be happy if America is destroyed. This is not the spirit of the Prophet. He had a very deep love for Judah even though he was called to preach severe judgment against their sin. In chapter 28 of his book, we have a confrontation between him and a false prophet named Hananiah. Jeremiah had predicted that Judah would be conquered by the Babylonians. Hananiah opposed him and said that within two years,. the Lord would break the yoke of Babylon. In verse 8, Jeremiah replied, "Amen. The Lord perform the words that thou hast prophesied." In other words, Jeremiah wished that what Hananiah was saying was true. He did not want the judgment to fall, even though he knew it would. He had no desire to see his countrymen carried into captivity, and Jerusalem destroyed.

Jeremiah Wright seems to be praying for America's destruction with every breath he takes. The Tampa Bay area does not need his hate mongering, especially from a "Bible"(?) church. If I were a member of that church, I would have left at the first sign of this kind of man coming to preach, if I couldn't stop the foolishness. He does not represent the Spirit of Christ, but the exact opposite.

I pity him. He needs the love of Christ as much as anyone. He must be terribly empty inside, in spite of his eloquence. One can only pray that the Lord will get a hold of him and he will repent of his hatred. He could then, and only then, manifest the spirit of Jeremiah, and accomplish good things for the black community, and gain the respect of people of all races. After all, the Lord included him when He laid down His life for "whosoever believeth." As the old hymn says, "Whosoever will may come" to Christ for the love and forgiveness he needs. When Jeremiah Wright comes to Christ believing in Him, then peace, not hatred, will rule his heart.

-30-

My Last Word on Jeremiah Wright

2008-05-02T08:37:00.014-04:00

(Orignally published on May 1, 2008, on myfoxtampabay.com)

I have a suggestion for Barack Obama in particular, and the Democratic party in general, as well as the news media: Ignore Jeremiah Wright.

Just leave him alone. He is an egotistical publicity hound who thrives on creating racist controversy.

Let him spew out his hateful venom as he has the Constitutional right to do so. But use your Constitutional liberty to say absolutely nothing about it.

Treat him as the self-righteous demogogue he is. The best thing Obama Democrats could do for themselves is to not retaliate at all. Surely they can find better things to talk about than a cheap phony who is messaging his ego with his racist message. Hillary would be foolish if she keeps stoking the fires he starts. Sensible people would be turned off her in nothing flat. John McCain would have one less weapon in his arsenal against the already-divided Democrats.

Do it for the good of the country. Do not give him the time of day. He is not worth it. Hate mongers like him are best ignored. He is not worth the tape used to produce the sound bites. His speech is not even worth the air it takes to expand his lungs. So ignore the old windbag. Neither you nor the American people need the distraction.

The sooner he and others like him are ignored and forgotten, the better. Should he ask, "What do you think of me,?" a good reply would be the same Howard Roark gave to Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead: "I don't think of you at all."

-30-

Defending the Indefensible

2008-04-22T09:04:00.016-04:00

Christina Garcia is the mother of Mercedes Nichols, one of the six girls that beat up Victoria Lindsey and put the video on YouTube. The case has gotten national press coverage, and Mercedes and the others involved will be tried as adults. She and the others were known to be trouble makers long before this incident.

Judging from the actions of her mother, Ms. Garcia after the incident, it is no wonder she turned out the way she did. If she can characterize her daughter as a "good girl" and defend the severe beating she and her friends gave Tori because of a little computer "trash talk," that shows she lacks good sense and is probably a weak character.

The disturbing fact that Ms. Garcia defended the actions of her daughter and her friends tells a great deal about her. She is self-centered and cares about no one but herself and her own family. She is also very permissive and let Mercedes do whatever she wanted to regardless of the consequences. She let her get away with things that should have been severely punished. Now, sad to say, her daughter has gone too far, and Mommy can't get her out of this jam. I pity her. It must be a terrible thing to feel you must defend the indefensible.

Parents in Chesterfield, South Carolina did the right thing. Ten pounds of ammonium nitrate was delivered to their home in Chesterfield. The parents of Ryan Schallenberger, 18, called the police on their own son when they discovered his hate-filled diary and the chemicals to be used to make bombs. They did not defend his actions. They did not call Dr. Phil and request bail money. They stopped his plot against the school before he could carry it out. Thanks to alert parents, no one was murdered at the school. A community-scarring tragedy was prevented from occurring.

Its is too bad that the parents of the teens who inspired Ryan through the Columbine murders, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, weren't as alert as Ryan's were. The Columbine tragedy still has lingering ripple effects, such as inspiring people like Ryan to do the same. Their parents, like Christina Garcia, did nothing to prevent their children from harming others. They also defended the indefensible.

In my generation, if I had tried something like what Ryan or Mercedes did, one of two things would have happened: (1) Either the police would have gotten me, or (2) My father would have gotten me, and it would have been a long time before I would have been comfortable sitting. (I would have preferred to have dealt with the police!)

Parents have got to be watchful of their children. People who say their children are "good kids" even after they commit this type of crime are in denial. Society does not need to be told how "good" these criminal teens are. The parents need to see them for the criminals they are and let them take their medicine, so to speak. If parents don't have the common sense to make their children accountable for their actions, then society might have to.

One mother stood by and allowed her daughter to perpetuate a tragedy. A father and mother prevented another. Night and day. Darkness and light. One parent didn't care if her child hurt someone. Two caring parents prevented possible death and injury to many.

Two parents prevented the indefensible from happening, even though it was their son who was about to perpetuate it. One mother allowed her daughter and her friends to gang up on and brutalize another girl. Then she had the unmitigated gall to go on camera and say her daughter is a "good girl." She defended the indefensible.

Ms. Garcia failed her daughter. Now Mercedes is left with the consequences of that failure. The Schallenbergers also made mistakes. This is obvious from the fact their son was willing to plot murder and carnage and come close to carrying it out. But at least now there is hope for Ryan's redemption. Because of his parents' actions he has a chance to some day become a constructive, and not a destructive, citizen.

I have less hope for Mercedes. She may not see her own need for redemption as long as her mother continues to defend her indefensible actions. Ms. Garcia herself also stands in need of redemption. She cannot possibly be at peace with herself or with God. I pray that some day Ms. Garcia, Mercedes, and Ryan will not defend their indefensible actions, but acknowledge they have done wrong. Then there will be a chance for them to obtain peace of mind. All three need the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

-30-

"Bitter" Conservatives

2008-04-18T18:48:00.015-04:00

Barack Obama has put his foot in his mouth and tarnished his silver tongue, showing once again, why the jackass is the Democratic National symbol.

Speaking about people in small towns in Pennsylavnia, he said, 'It is not surprising then they (people in small towns), get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This idiotic statement is his way of dismissing legitimate concerns Conservatives have about what is going on in America. Maybe he is projecting his own bitterness on to the people who disagree with him for political purposes. If there is anger on the part of Conservatives with the Liberals, a lot of it is justified. An examination of his foolishness in this statement will show this.

First is his saying, "They cling to guns." This is absurd on the face of it. I have yet to see a Conservative (or a Liberal for that matter) clinging to a gun. People hold guns, but they don't cling to them.

Seriously, the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to carry guns for protection, target practice, or hunting. It is against gun control. What Conservatives cling to is the Constitutional right of the American citizen to own a gun.

Secondly and thirdly, Obama said they cling to religion and antipathy to people who aren't like them. I and many other Conservatives are Christians who detest the moral path this country has taken over the past 40 or 50 years. Christianity is a good thing, and supplied the moral foundations that made America great. It is these foundations that gave our Founding Fathers the notions of freedom which the Constitution was framed to protect.

There are numerous problems with shifting the foundations, or as the Bible put it in Proverbs 22:28,"removng the ancient landmarks." We have all but quit executing murderers for their crimes, and have turned to executing babies in the womb whose only "crime" was being an inconvenience to the mother. While most of these "mothers" had no business conceiving in the first place, legalized abortion is no answer. It only makes the problem worse. If kids think they can always get an abortion, this is only an encouragement for young people to have sexual relations long before they are ready to accept responsibility for children.

Another problem with the shift in the foundations is that now, anything goes except Christianity. Tolerance is demanded on every hand. The homosexual abomination is being shoved down people's throats. The Bible, like the Constitution, is deliberately being misinterpreted to support this filthy idea in the churches. The strange thing is that Islam is becoming the "in" religion all around the world. If the Sheria Law (the Islamic legal system) ever takes over this country, their persecution of homosexuals will make the Christian rulership look like a party!

The fact is that the Constitution enumerates the right of an American citizen to believe in and practice his or her religion. This happens to include the Christian majority. Strange, I have been led to believe that Sen. Obama is a professing Christian. Go figure.

Fourthly and fifthly, Obama claims Conservatives cling to anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. We are neither anti-immigrant nor anti-trade. This charge is ridiculous. We are not anti-immigrant. America was built by good, decent, hard-working people who came from other countries to get a better life for themselves and their children. My grandmother's father was an immigrant from Great Britain. My mother's side of the family came from Holland. The vast majority of Americans have ancesters from other countries. We are not against immigration per se.

What we are against is people coming into America illegally. Laws were established to protect us from disease, for instance, from immigrating along with the people coming in. Also there is a definate need to keep foreign criminals from coming here to live. One of the major reasons for protecting our borders with Mexico is to keep their gangs and drug ruuners in Mexico where they belong. We have enough problems with our own criminals without importing Mexican hoodlams, too!

We are not anti-trade. Capitalism is the backbone of the American economy as well as one of Conservatism's chief values. We are certainly not against trading with other countries to supply our needs and meet theirs.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have got us into a slew of treaties and pacts which force us to give up far more than we should to others nations. We don't like NAFTA. I seems to us that we are giving the United States away to the Mexicans. It is taking away the jobs of American citizens and turning them over to Mexicans. We are not bitter - only protective of the interests of our own citizens, something Liberals apparently don't understand.

The issue, in the minds of Conservatives, is not one of bitterness. We don't like it when we see our Constitutional right to own guns is threatened. We don't like it when we see America's religious heritage being debased and dismissed as nothing. We don't like it when we see our country being destroyed by its immorality, and told to shut up about it. We demand equal right to speak on the issues, like abortion and homosexuality without being called names. Speaking against sexual immorality is an act of love, not hate speech.

The Constitution does not say what the Liberals on the Supreme Court says it says. It says what the Constitutional Convention in 1787 said it says. It is not a "living document" to be changed and twisted to suit the fantasies of the Liberal Justices, or anyone else's. They might be able to give their rulings the force of law, but that does not make it right. The Founding Fathers are probably rolling over in their graves now at the foolishness of their descendants.

Thank you, Senator Obama, for showing us your true colors before the election. They are clearly not red, white and blue.

-30-

The Necessity of Shame

2008-03-19T09:50:00.013-04:00

(First published on March 16, 2008, on myfoxtampabay.com)

In his reply to my post, "Everybody's Doing It," someone calling himself Mmustangg made a very astute observation: "What needs to be done is to introduce shame back into society. There is no shame anymore. People do things openly now that years ago they would have been laughed at or shunned for. The shame starts at home. We need to teach our kids to stay away from what's shameful and wrong."

Mmustangg is absolutely right. Shame is the way to get people to stop paper predation. For the definition, read my post, "Everybody's Doing It!" I merely said it must be done. He told us the way to get it done.

Judeo-Christian morality has served America well. Because of it we are the greatest nation in the world. But as a nation we have forsaken our roots and removed the ancient landmarks. If we don't repent and return to the Christian morality that made us great, we will soon be just another nation that forsook our God, and we have already begun to pay the price.

We have become a prideful nation, like ancient Israel in the time of the Prophet Jeremiah. The worst of it is, that like them, our pride is not in our great achievements, but in our great sins. We wish to think of ourselves as above the old fogey morality of the Bible, and have embraced the new-fangled, modern immorality. As a culture, we have gone from being a decent and moral people to being totally immersed in sexual immorality. People think this is good, and take pride in it. They ought to be ashamed of it.

In the Bible (King James Version), in Jeremiah 13:23-27 we read, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Therefore I will scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind in the wilderness. This is the lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood. Therefore I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame might appear. I have seen thy adulteries, and thy neighings, the lewdness of thy whoredom, and thine abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem! wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be?"

Illicit sex sells. But in the long run, what has the culture bought, but a shameless society? The new morality has bought us an arrogance which makes us believe that anything goes, including abortion on demand, which says in effect, "Go ahead and have sex: you can always murder the kid later. Just make sure you do it before the baby is born." It has bought us no-fault divorce, for people too lazy to work through problems in their marriages, or be faithful to their partners in hard times. One more thing it has bought us is a great increase in sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, and others no one has ever heard of before. All of this is a great argument for the necessity of shame.

As a nation, we must stop feeding on sex. The meaning of exposure must be changed back so that it once again becomes a shameful thing to be seen photographed naked. People must stop looking at Playboy and all other pornographic magazines. The way to achieve this is to create an atmosphere of shame and exposure. As the Bible, in Ephesians 5:11 and 12 says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them, For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."

In other words, expose the sin for what it is - immoral and wrong! Then, instead of embracing it, expose it to the public shaming it deserves. Punish the predator with prison. Punish the paper predator by not buying his magazines and not watching his television shows. Make it once again so smut is harder to get, and must be hidden because it is viewed as shameful. We must go back to the days when porn had to be hidden in brown paper bags so others could not see it and put the buyer to shame if he is seen with it.

We must publicly punish Lotharios like Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton by putting them to public humiliation in the kind of exposure that no politician would want. Never elect them to office again! Teachers who have sex with underage students should never be allowed in the classroom again. Religious leaders who are sexual predators should never be allowed in the church pulpit again. Parents who molest their children should automatically lose custody, and never hope to get it back. The exposure of these people should be so public and so glaring, that the shame they are exposed to would be a warning to others not to go there. A public whipping along with a long prison sentence would be shaming enough to stop most of these shenanigans.

Much of the blame for this situation lies with the religious entertainment centers called churches. Instead of calling sin for what it is, many preachers today try to mitigate it with modern psychobabble. Instead of preaching redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ for sin, they give out mantras for self-esteem, which is nothing but a shoddy defense for the sin of pride that prevents repentance. Instead of the great old hymns of the faith, many churches incorporate rock music and idiotic "praise songs" whose repetitiousness act like drugs on the brain and leave the worshipper unable to think straight.

The church must not function like an entertainment center. Instead of modernistic nonsense and babble people need to hear the Bible taught. Instead of pride and self-esteem, they need to hear of the penalty for sin and how they must humble themselves and accept Christ's salvation. Instead of rock music, they need to hear and sing old hymns like "Rock of Ages."

The church does not need any more entertainers calling themselves "preachers" standing in the pulpit. She needs men of God who will call sin, "sin" and not back down when persecuted by the babblers. This means being willing to stand up to those like people in the homosexual movement who are trying to foist their false interpretation of Scripture on the church. The very fact the they have made such inroads into the church is a matter of shame. The Bible calls homosexuality "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and in Genesis 19, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the wickedness that was going on in them.

Our society is full of pride and selfishness, the very opposite of the ethics that made America great. As it says in Micah 6:8, "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

To those who choose to disdain Christian morality, this is the only thing I can say to you: some day, you will be judged by God for your sins. Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, and if you come by faith to Him and repent of your sins, and accept the salvation He provided on the cross for you, you will be eternally saved. It is better to do that than to face Him at the Great White Throne and be forever shamed in Hell.

There is no entertainment there.

-30-

Everybody's Doing It!

2008-03-19T08:32:00.006-04:00

(First published on March 15, 2008, on myfoxtampabay.com.)

Politicians.

Parents.

Priests.

Teachers.

These are some of the people who have been caught having inappropriate sexual relations, and in many cases, they have been doing it with children.

To cite the obvious example of a politician, Eliot Spitzer, the now ex-Governor of New York, was caught soliciting the services of a whore in Washington, D. C. He had built a career on fighting corruption, only to himself be prone to moral corruption. I could have put the $80,000 he spent on whores to much saner uses than he did. The sheer hypocrisy of a "fighter of corruption" corrupting himself has destroyed the faith of some voters in the electoral system.

Parents are charged with the responsibility of protecting their children from sexual predation. In today's world, that is not always easy. But when the parents themselves are the sexual predators, the results are tragic. Even if it is not the child, but some adult other than the spouse the parent is having sexual relations with, the adultery will have a profound effect on the family. God put the Seventh Commandment in the list of Ten for very good reasons, one of which was to protect the sanctity of family life. Yet this is continually violated in our society.

Catholic priests scandalized the world with their molestation of women and children. It was the best-kept secret that unmarried "men of God" were having homosexual relations with boys in their perishes, and heterosexual intercourse with women. If this is the result of "celibacy," Rome needs to change its ways. But it is not just Catholic priests who are involved in this scandalous behavior, but rabbis, and preachers in every denomination of the church. These are not isolated incidents. Do the names Jim Bakker and Jessica Hahn ring a bell? The worst thing about this is that most preachers are decent men who are doing their best to serve their churches, and the stinking breath of scandal hurts their ministries, too.

Now children are not even safe in school. Teachers are having sex with their students, some as early as elementary school. Legally this is called statutory rape. The penalty should be the same regardless of the sex of the teacher and student. Any teacher that sexually molests a child should not only never teach in a public school again, but should be severely punished in the penal system, or better yet publicly flogged. That goes for any sexual predator, not just teachers.

Here is the kicker: All of the blame does not rest on the sexual predators themselves. Everybody's doing it. Our society feeds on sex. All you have to do is look at the front page of a supermarket tabloid. And some of the highest-rated television programs are those most loaded with sex an innuendo. Decency as completely gone out the window. And then we wonder why our society has gone to pot. In the name of free speech. we have abdicated our responsibility to protect out children and ourselves from what I call "paper predation." Paper predators are those who put out hard- and soft-core pornography, be it Hustler and Playboy, the trash in a tabloid, a sexually-laden television program, or the filth to be gotten with a computer.

A good start in solving this problem would be for everybody to stop doing it. Stop looking at Internet porn. Stop reading Playboy and Hustler. Stop going to pornographic movies and watching sex-filled garbage on television. Stop reaching for that gossip-filled tabloid. Women, stop buying and wearing "clothes" that leave you looking half-naked!

Decency must be demanded if we want to stop the insanity.

-30-

Democrats in Disguise

2008-02-13T10:51:00.006-05:00

(Originally published on November 14, 2007, on myfoxtampabay.com.)

Not too long ago, the Democratic National Committee decided to "punish" the people of the state of Florida for voting to change the date of the Presidential primaries. I was not happy about the attempted erosion of the rights of Floridians, but I figured maybe this a good thing-the backlash might bring more Floridians to the Republican ranks.

I have changed my mind. Instead of taking advantage of what might have produced a nice windfall for the party, the Republican National Committee has copied the idiocy of their Democratic counterparts. This shows that the RNC is little more than a bunch of Democrats in disguise. I conclude for this and a number of other reasons that the only differences between the two parties are cosmetic. The Democrats are stubborn, Liberal jackasses and the Republicans are "Conservative" elephants, both stuffed with ego, hunger for power and the desire to limit the rights of the average voter and citizen.

How dare the party politicians presume to punish any state for voting to change the date of their Primary! States have the right to hold elections any time they choose. I and most Floridians don't want New Hampshire and Iowa telling us how to vote. I wouldn't give two cents for the stupid tradition that says they are entitled to influence Presidential elections by holding the first primaries. To quote Ebeneezer Scrooge, "Bah, humbug!"

I have been a Republican from the time I registered to vote 35 years ago, but I will probably renounce my allegiance to the party because of this and a number of other issues. I am ashamed of what the party is doing now. I will be looking at third parties that truly uphold Conservative Christian political values. I will not be looking for people willing to commit political suicide by sleeping with the enemy.

The politicians say the change will create scheduling problems for the candidates and their campaigns. "Well," as comedian and sometime Presidential candidate Pat Paulsen used to say, "Picky, picky, picky!" The politicians are supposed to serve the voters and not the other way around. This is something a lot of people in government have apparently forgotten. Maybe they will get a reminder at the polls tht our government is not made for the self-serving to grab money and power.

To the RNC I have a message: You may "punish" the voters now, but on Election Day, you will get the worst spanking a political party ever got unless you cease and desist from this power grab. The people of Florida have every right to change election dates if they choose to do so, and you have no right to force us to do otherwise, not even at the behest of your Democratic bedfellows.

-30-

Biting Off my Nose to Spite my Face?

2008-02-13T08:35:00.015-05:00

(Originally published on February 12, 2008 on myfoxtampabay.com.)

I don't know about the rest of you bloggers, but I have never in the whole time I have been following politics and voting, seen a more inadequate bunch of candidates running for President. It is scary how bad they are.

The Democrats, Clinton amd Obama, are Liberal Socialists who will follow their agenda no matter how opposed it is to the Constitution. I expected their candidates to be exactly that, and am not the least bit surprised by them.

The Republicans are almost as bad. I am not only disappointed in the actions of the party, (see my post Democrats in Disguise), but I have never seen a sorrier crop of men running as Republicans.

Mike Huckabee claims to be a Christian, and was a preacher. Maybe he is. I hope so. I have no wish to disparage his testimony. My problem with him as a Presidential candidate is that when he was Governor of Arkansas he was a tax and spend Liberal no different than Bill Clinton. Also, I think he is a wishy-washy character. He asked former candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, "Don't the Mormons believe that Satan is the brother of Jesus?" This was a perfectly legitimate question about his faith. Then after a furor erupted over the question, he apologised for asking it. So he is not only a Liberal, but a weak character, also not Presidential material.

That leaves us with John McCain, the most likely candidate to get the Republican nomination. To be honest, I wish I could vote for him, but in all good conscience I cannot. Any man who lends his name to an unconstiutional law like the McCain-Feingold voting reform, which takes away my freedom of speech to say what I think on the issues at any time, but especially right before an election, does not deserve to even be a candidate for the office, let alone become President. After all, the President, upon taking the oath of office, swears to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." How can I believe he will do that when he has already put up a law which compromises my First Amendment right to free speech? A true Conservative would not have dared to put a bill like that through a City Comission, let alone Congress! You can't trust him.

I despise being put in a position where I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. I have been told many times that by not voting for the Republican candidate I will be biting off my nose to spite my face. In other words, if I don't vote for whoever the Republican candidate happens to be, I will be responsible for the Democrat being elected. Baloney! The people responsible for electing the Democrat will be those who vote for the Democrat.

Here is something for my fellow American Christians to think about: Some day, we will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to give an account for our lives. We handed the Republican Party victories in 2000 and 2004. Since then, Christians have pretty much been treated with disdain by the party. Why should we help them get their candidates elected, based on their past performance? The lesser of two evils is still an evil choice. When I stand before God, I want to stand having chosen the good and the right, and not having been blackmailed by the world. If Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama is elected, it will be the responsibilty of those who voted for the one or the other. I would rather stand before God after choosing the good, than trying to prevent evil by voting for evil. Two wrongs do not make a right. Fellow Christians, I will accept the temporary consequences of my choice to vote "outside the box" for a good candidate. Will you be willing to stand before God and accept the eternal consequenses before God forever of voting for status quo? Maybe in doing so, you will be biting off your nose to spite your face.

-30-

A Botched Execution?

2008-01-14T09:45:00.003-05:00

Angel Diaz Nieves murdered two people, and was duly executed for his crimes. Some say it was a botched execution. I disagree. While it is true something went wrong, the execution was not botched. The purpose of the lethal injection was carried out, and although it took longer than expected, Diaz finally died.

I hate the fact it took him so long to die. Only a sadist would wish that kind of pain on anyone. My sympathy is with his family, but the fact remains that he killed two people, and execution is the proper and just punishment for murder.

I have far more sympathy for the victims and their families than for Diaz. A big deal is made over the pain he went through from the "botching" of the execution. The pain he caused his victims does not seem to matter to death penalty opponents. Nor does justice. The victims did not deserve to be murdered by Diaz, and their families did not deserve the loss of their loved ones or the heartache that followed.He murdered Joseph Nagy in 1979, and was finally sentenced to death for it in 1986. He lived at least 20 years longer than he should have.

Someone hysterically wrote that Diaz was "crucified." Poppycock! Diaz's pain could not have come even remotely close to the pain of being crucified in either length or intensity. It took him 34 minutes to die. A crucified man hung on a cross for hours, and sometimes days before dying. As for intensity of pain, before the Romans put men on the cross, they stripped them naked and severely whipped them with leather straps that had rocks and pieces of bone on the ends of them. Then they used spikes to nail their hands and feet to the cross.

I don't think I need to say any more about it. The reader does not need the gruesome details of what happened to a man after he was actually hanging on the cross to see my point. Diaz's death was easy compared to that of someone being crucified. The crucified man suffered what today would be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment. Diaz's execution may have been painful, but it was not deliberately cruel. Lethal injection is supposed to be a more humane way of carrying out the death penalty. Just because something went wrong does not mean the method should be scrapped or executions stopped. It simply means there is a problem with it that needs to be taken care of.

It may be politically correct to call for a suspension of the death penalty after something goes wrong with an execution. In no other way is it right. In fact, the appeals process needs to be speeded up so criminals are executed more quickly. This would help relieve prison overcrowding and relieve taxpayers of having to support these criminals for years on end. The irony is, that if Diaz had been executed prior to when lethal injection became the method (as he should have been), we would not have this problem: It would not have taken Ol' Sparky (Florida's electric chair) 34 minutes to do the job!

-30-