The Right Spin

Guess What?

Kevin D. — 2006-09-07T19:09+00:00

No one is here. Yep, I'm pretty sure no one reads this thing any more. To be honest I've been too busy to write. Got let go from Comcast and my current jobs makes posting difficult. I'm typically too tired to write when I get home. Besides, I've been busy trying to get a writing career going.

Something has come up in Arizona that I'm hopeful about.

Update:

You Can't Be A Christian And A Liberal (Or Was It Conservative?)

Kevin D. — 2006-01-30T16:01+00:00

What do Ted Kennedy and I have in common? We're both self-professed Christians.

I think, thankfully, our similarities end there.

As a Christian, and I think any Christian would agree with this, I know my politics stem from my faith. So, in learning more about my faith I learn more about my views on political issues. That is, how I should frame particular political arguments. If you want to convince me that abortion is moral you have to do so legally, through the Constitution, and through the Bible. If you could show me the it was Constitutionally okay I'd still fight it from a Biblical position (a position Constitutionally protected).

Anyway, if the Bible is the unchanging Word of God then its message must be concrete. How, then, can self-professed Christians come to opposing opinions on so many political issues? How can Ted Kennedy and I disagree on the issue of abortion yet both keep our Christian membership card?

The easy answer is our faith in Yeshua. However, our love for Him should be evidenced by our actions. Our actions for Him should be enough alone to convict us for loving Him.

So, do our actions and our words bare this to be true?

Am I a poor Christian or is Ted Kennedy? Are conservative poor Christians or are liberals?

Personally I have no problem calling someone a "bad Christian." There's developed some kind of taboo against such a thing but when one claims to be a member of a particular faith, and uses that membership to establish some kind of moral high ground, they need to be shown reality from time to time. I use my faith as the foundation for my politics. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for someone to attack my position on issues using that as a weapon.

Why others don't see it this way is beyond me. Maybe I am a bad Christian.

The "Tolerance" Of The Left

Kevin D. — 2006-01-24T20:01+00:00

Michelle Malkin links to a wonderful site that provides a photographic record of the public face of the left. It's a history of various rallies leftist groups either attended or planned. It's disturbing.

Seeing images like these brings the idea of a "culture war" to the forefront. The most recent pro-life rally in San Fran crystallizes the entire issue. The account shows pro-lifers staying civil and simply marching forward in relative silence and peace. While you have leftists doing everything in their power to stop the lawful demonstration and attempting to stifle free speech.

I cannot see this discourse becoming more civil. I see the rhetoric becoming more heated and hateful. I place 99% of the blame on the left. This isn't an issue of, "Well, both sides do it." No. Both sides do not do it. The right is wonderfully adept and policing their own and when they can't they shout from the mountain tops messages of condemnation.

And the left you have the head of the DNC getting pictures taken with Code Pink.

Democrats simply see no reason to come to the center because they, in their arrogance, simply see no wrong in their ways. They can do no wrong.

How long, then, until violence occurs? I think it's only a matter of time. Had the police not covered every inch of the protest, essentially playing the role of armed guards of the pro-life group, things would have designated fast. Can you honestly say the same would have happened with a pro-death (there's no such things as pro-choice on this issue) rally? Perhaps a few isolated incidences but nothing on the scale as this.

The "culture war" has only begun. And before it ends, like with any war, there will be death.

PS - If Michelle Malkin reads this please e-mail me. I'd like to conduct a short phone interview with you for a college course.

Abortion And The Bible

Kevin D. — 2006-01-24T13:01+00:00

Many people I've spoken to seem to feel that the Bible is mute on the subject of abortion. Of course they only state this when one declares that the Bible is anti-abortion. I've not yet met anyone who feels the Bible is pro-choice.

Anyway, I thought I'd provide some Biblical verses that argue strongly for the pro-life stance.

Psalm 22:9-10

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Psalm 139:13-16

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Isaiah 44:2

This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 46:3-4

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

Isaiah 49:5

And now the LORD says— he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength-

Job 31:15

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Jeremiah 1:4-5

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Luke 1:41-42, 44

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

What is interesting with this verse is that the Greek word for "baby," (or, more accurately, "fetus") used here to describe John the Baptist in the womb, is later used for Jesus in the manger.

Exodus 21:22-25

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

There's a bit of contention about this passage as many pro-choicers interpret this verse to say that the baby is dead when birthed. Or that the baby is irrelevant to the scene. Unfortunately this interpretation is wrong. First, in the original Hebrew the phrase "gives birth" appears around 86 times in the Old Testament. Each and every time it referred to a live birth. Such as Moses and others. The Hebrew language does have a word to mean "stillbirth" but it is not used here. Secondly, if the baby is irrelevant to the passage then the question begs to be asked, "Why bring it up at all?" Why mention a pregnant woman and a premature birth to begin with? It doesn't makes sense.

While there is no, "Thou shalt not commit abortion," contained within the Bible it is abundantly clear what the Bible's stance on the subject would be. It would take a hurculean effort to bend the passages I've listed to make the Bible seem silent on the issue.

Human Nature - A Question

Kevin D. — 2006-01-13T17:01+00:00

There's a divide within our nation. This isn't old news. However, as I was reading an article something the author stated made me think:

As the left-liberal root-causes rot has it, people are basically good. When and if they go astray, it's because someone caused them to. Crime is said to be precipitated by factors outside the perpetrator.

Can the differences between the left and right be summed up as simply as that? Can we say of the left and the right, "The left believes in mankind's basic goodness and acts accordingly and the right believes in mankind's basic badness and acts accordingly." The more I think about it the more I have to say, 'yes.' Ilana Mercer wrote an excellent article about this idea here.

When we look back at the tapestry of human history do we see the overwhelming progress of good or evil? If mankind is essentially good how do you explain the march of evil that is our past?

That's because, after people perpetrate evil, liberals toss free will to the wind... You see, to perpetrate evil, one must be "mentally ill."

If true how does the left explain the horrible evil of our past? Was everyone "mentally ill?" And why did this "illness" suddenly end in our age?

No human wants to think they're bad. We all want to believe we're doing what's right for ourselves and others. The problem with that thought, however, is the fact that most who commit evil don't believe it to be so. Crazy people don't think they're crazy

Oh, by the way, the first article linked has nothing to do with this topic but it's a good read anyway.

The Violence Within Islam

Kevin D. — 2006-01-13T15:01+00:00

Islam and the Koran are built upon violence. Anyone who knows the history of the faith's founder knows this. Muhammad spoke only of peace when he was not in a position to take what he wanted. When his number swelled he had no problem bringing the sword to those who stood against him. There is simply no comparison between this man and the messiah of another faith, Yeshua.

That there are so many duped into believing Islam is a religion of peace while Christianity is a religion of intolerance astounds me yet is unsurprising. Anyone with the capacity to think and read can only conclude that Muslims who preach peace and tolerance are indeed infidels of the faith. The Koran is the literal word of Allah - unchanging and perfect in it's handing down. Therefore those who do not heed its call for the death of unbelievers (or at least their forced conversion at the sword) are not practicing true Islam. I suppose this could be blamed on the "corrupting" influence of the Judeo-Christian values that have formed the West.

It only goes to show how far the West has fallen when it extols the virtues of a barbaric faith while shunning the virtues of the faith without which they would not exist. Truly up has become down.

Revvin' Up For Iran

Kevin D. — 2006-01-13T13:01+00:00

It would appear that Israel is confident in its ability to deal with Iran in March should it need to. I think that's great.

What I don't think is great is that the U.S. will probably take the lead in any action. All talks about action against Iran usually involves the words (or acronyms), "U.S.," "E.U." and "NATO." As if they're the only groups with opinions on the matter. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling for a "world consensus" on the matter. Far from it. But Israel, the most probable target for Iran's nukes next to the land of apple pie and white picket fences, certainly should be involved and, I daresay, take the lead.

Israel has made it clear she intends on launching an offensive against Iran regardless what the world community has to say about it. Not that to world community disagrees anyway. But with the idea of a U.S. led attack and the media denigrating Bush at every available moment I think perhaps the Administration should let Israel handle this one and simply provide intel and moral support. Cheerleaders if the situation really calls for it.

I think Bush needs to back off blowing stuff up for the time. I mean, I’d love to see the guy blow stuff up but if someone else is willing and able to go to the mat on this one we should let them.

But, perhaps, with the overall feeling that a nuclear Iran is a pretty bad idea it might be a good PR opportunity for the Administration. In that light I could see the U.S. leading this coalition of backstabbing cowards. Present company excluded (I'm lookin' at you England, Australia and Israel). The President could definitely use the poll boost and I'd like to see him get it. Just not at the expense of allowing Israel to show her strength. For when she does terrorists tend to back off. And that has even longer reaching positive consequences.

A Look Into Me...

Kevin D. — 2006-01-10T17:01+00:00

This is something I wrote. I feel a bit weird putting it up but do what you will with it.

(show)

What moments could have been? Some scientists believe that all possible outcomes exist in some form outside our dimension. If this is so one has to wonder if things are better there. Certainly this world isn't the best it could be so it doesn't take much to realize more is possible. However, human nature being what it is, we are quick to forget what good we do have. If things can be better then things can also be worse.

But what if we do no so much want things better as different? We make no judgment upon what we have as to its own goodness but simply wonder what could be.

It is in this spirit I write now. I wonder what 'different' would be with another. A woman I only saw at a distance. She was tall and slim but bookish. Something I find very attractive. I want a woman who thinks and enjoys being engaged. Her black hair was trimmed short and she wore a plain pair of black glasses. She allowed a sliver of her navel to peek out from under her gray shirt as she walked. I watched her move to a secluded table where she began to eat a small meal.

So, it was then I began to wonder. How would she react had I approached her? Not thinking highly of myself I could only imagine it would resemble befuddled amusement. I don't put much stock in my abilities to engage the opposite sex.

Instead I moved past that and wondered what she would be like had things gone well. I posed mostly questions than anything else. I did no covet her in my heart nor wish to actually pursue her. Right now all I was interested in doing was pose questions. Anything a good scientist might do.

What did she sound like? How did her body move in more familiar surroundings? What did she taste like? How would her smooth belly feel under my hand? What was she like in an intimate setting? Did she like to lead or be led? What was her touch like? Was it firm or delicate? Cold or warm? What did she like to hear? What intimate sounds did she make? What would make her make those sounds?

On and on it went until she was done with her meal. She stood and pulled on a thickly stuffed long black winter coat and a red wool cap. All hints of a body any woman would be pleased to own was obfuscated. Only her delicate round face and black glasses could be seen. However, for me, that was enough. She walked within a few feet of me as she discarded the remains of this evening's dinner and headed out the door. At that moment only a single question formed in my mind: Would she tell me her name had I asked for it?

(hide)