The Right Spin

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scott's got a good write-up about the current situation in Israel what with Ariel Sharon's poor health. I personally feel that the situation is grave and that Sharon will not recover. I'm torn about this. He's been strong on defense but I cannot forgive him for displacing the Jews that he did. However, it is up to Yahweh to deal with him on that.

What I'm concerned about now, and Scott noted this, is the time it's going to take for the political situation to stabalize in Israel. Especially given the March point-of-no-return for Iran. I want Israel to blow them into the next Ice Age if they have to. The world cannot have a nuclear Iran and it seems the issue is prickly for the U.S. just now though the President is in talks with NATO about it.

Bottom line: Israel has the right to defend herself and Iran will most certianly use her nuclear power status to threaten her.

I only hope Sharon's eventual passing doesn't bring harm to Israel in the long run.

I read about this awhile ago and as I was not maintaining my blog I kept this nugget to myself. The other Right Spin posted about it (as well as providing a link to the WND article itself) so I thought I should to.

The crux of the matter:

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

"Does not embody the reasonable person." That's it right there. Even reasonable athiests do not hold that religion has no place in governemt. Indeed reasonable athiests and secularists remember that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others were champions of a religion-free government and that these governments have killed more than any religion in the history of the world ever has.

The reasonable person reconizes and appreciates the role religion, Christianity in particular, has played in crafting the West.

Instapundit links to some stats anyone interested in the Iraq war should look at.

I have no intention of seeing "Brokeback Mountain." I like my cowboy films, well, not gay. I like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood and I know at least one of there two will never do a film like "Brokeback Mountain." I'll let you guess which.

Now, if someone wants to do a film about gay anything that's their right. But I'd like them to be honest about it. The supermajorty of those who have a problem with homosexuality, myself included, are not the kind who delights in torturing and murdering them. Indeed I'd say we all find that very idea repugnant. However, by golly, wouldn't you know this film's got a "homo hatin" torturin' murderer! Oh, why can't society leave these two lovebirds alone!?

Also never addressed it the fact that these two characters had loving wives at home. Two families are destroyed and no one bats an eyes.

I have to agree with David Kupelian when he states:

"Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us, overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and thereby making us doubt what we once knew."

Why is this movie propaganda?

Kupelian says the emotional appeal used in the movie causes viewers to sympathize with the "gay" cowboys, and to emotionally reject the "anti-gay" character who tortures and murders a homosexual man.

There is a clear attempt going on to mainstream homosexuality and demonize anyone who opposes that adgenda as a member of the same camp that would murder these very people. Unfortunately fairminded gays are not pointing this out as the lie that it is.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

Michelle Malkin has some strong words for Times reporter James Risen regarding the NSA leak story. I have to agree with her.

Dean has even stronger feelings about what should be done to the leak once they are discovered. I have to agree with him.

The results of an American Bar Association survey shows that more than half of all Americans believe that judicial activism has reached a critical stage.

I am both surprised and unsurprised by this. First, unsurprised because the ACLU and groups like them seek to subvert the people they claim to represent by not seeking new legislation but, instead, seek judges that will reinterpret current legislation in a more favorable way toward their ideology. Judges are not elected. They do not represent the will of the people. And for them to subvert is is a clear betrayal of they people they serve.

Second, I am surprised to see that so many Americans think the same way!

Thomas Jefferson himself spoke out against the same thing. He knew what a threat judicial activism could pose to the legal will of the people. It seems that the same ACLU that misrepresents his "separation of church and state" sentiment have also brought about the fulfillment of his fear. Ironic that.

This just in:

(09-14) 10:59 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

A federal judge has declared it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

Michelle Malkin has more.

I am reminded by something Ronald Reagan once said, “If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

From Worldview Weekend:

On February 15, 1959, at an Attorney General’s Conference, President Harry S. Truman warned, “If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.”

The very form of government our Founders created required that not only the population but, moreover, those in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government acknowledge God and their accountability to Him. This belief was so central to early American leaders that even the individual states adopted constitutions that acknowledge God.

WorldNet Daily has a pretty good write-up here.

I wish I could say more just now but I'm at a loss for words. Will this decision be overturned? I don't know. I doubt it.

We, as a nation, are turning our back on Yahweh. How will we survive when He decides to heed our wishes?

First: Sorry about the light blogging as of late. With the wife being ill, being crazy busy at work (where I usually blog) and me looking for a new job... there simply isn't enough time (or energy) in a day for me to keep up like I usually do. I expect it to be like this for some time yet. Fair notice (if somewhat late).

Anyway, I try to pay attention to what Hal Lindsey and his ilk are up to. I think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to Middle Eastern politics and End Times prophecy and how the two mix. He's posted a new article that breaks my heart. What he describes can be fixed. I just don't think it will be because of partisan politics and political correctness. Students of Biblical prophecy have often wondered why there seems to be no sign of the United States during the End of Days. We are the lone superpower in the world. What could possibly happen that would render our great military and economic might mute?

"The Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, reported in February 2004 that Osama bin Laden bought some of these devices from the Ukraine in 1998. Al-Hayat wrote that 'bin-Laden is storing them for possible use somewhere, some time – most probably against American cities.'"

And:

[W]e must remember – al-Qaida always coordinates multiple attacks in the same operation. Therefore, we should expect that many cities in the United States would be hit with this nightmare scenario in the same hour.

Kartina shows how utterly unprepared Federal and local authorities are to deal with a known and predictable disaster in a single American city. What about a suitcase sized nuclear device detonate in several American cities at the same time? Say, Washington D.C., L.A., Chicago and New York all at the same moment? Think this isn't possible?

By virtually unanimous agreement, a nuclear strike on the United States by Muslim terrorists is inevitable. Endless parades of experts have testified before Congress that it isn't a case of "if," but "when."

Former Russian security adviser Aleksandr Lebed testified before Congress in 1998 that some 80 to 100 suitcase-size nuclear weapons are missing from the Russian arsenal.

Former U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis doesn't buy Kremlin assurances either: "We believe we have a full accounting of all of Russia's strategic weapons, but when it comes to tactical weapons – the suitcase variety – we do not know, and I'm not sure they do, either."

And the yield of these devices?

Each of these nuclear devices has a yield of about 0.6 kilotons. That is about the same as the Hiroshima bomb dropped on Japan in 1945.

It's also well accepted that during the Cold War the Soviet Union hid several of these devices upon U.S. soil to be used by sleeper agents. The Russian government has been slow to reveal the location of these devices (or of their existance) because many within it still believe a nuclear exchange between them and the U.S. is inevitable. With many within the KGB and Russian Special Forces for sale after the collapse of communism and their poor economy today it is neglegent to believe that al-Queda hasn't earnestly sought them out.

So, I ask you, after reflecting upon Katrina, what will be the Federal response after 4 of our more important cities are evaporated? Mr. Lindsey concludes:

But I believe there is another essential point being missed. Since America has forsaken the Christian principles on which our country was founded and on which all our founding documents were based, God's gracious protection that is so evident in American history is being withdrawn. We are also forcing God's people, Israel, into indefensible positions in the land God swore on oath to give them forever.

I believe unless there is a major national repentance, America is in for worse catastrophes than can possibly be imagined. God help us.

Nations that have a heart for God are blessed and protected by them. The Tanakh attests to this simple fact. As Yahweh is pushed out of the courts, government and public He is pushed out of our nation. With Him goes His divine protection. People ask, "How could God allow this (insert you disaster here) to happen?" How many times do we have to tell Yahweh that we don't want Him around before He goes? And when we are left open to the evil of the world who are when then to blame Him?

There is a price to pay when we abandon our founding documents. I'm not talking about those documents enshrined in bullet proof glass in Washington. The documents I speak of are contained between Genesis and Revelation.

Well, it seems like I should say something about this but so much has already been said I will contribute very little. So, I'll be brief:

Looters: Disgusting.
President Bush: Not his fault.
New Orleans officials: Unprepared and disgraceful.
Majority of the citizens: Caught in the middle.

I'm glad to see things finally coming together but it shouldn't have taken this long and the National Guard shouldn't have to be authorized to shoot looters. There's a lot to be learned from this whole situation. I suspect those who need to learn it will be absent from class.

But, at least, God is off the hook.

The United States is being invaded and it threatens to destroy our way of life. This is not a military invasion but American citizens have killed. American citizens are paying for the health care and education of this invading force. Our President has betrayed his Oath of Office by ignoring this invasion. Homeland Security has already proven it's not up to the task from which it derives its name.

Where is this invasion coming from? Mexico. In the first six months of this year an estimated one million illegals have entered this country through our swiss cheese border. Illegals represent 30% of our prison inmates - the majority of them convicted of violent crimes.

There is no immigration problem. It has turned into a full blown invasion. What else would you call one million people crossing into our soverign illegally? A recent poll done in Mexico shows that 40% of the people there would like to live in the United States. 20% would enter it illegally if they had to. Over 20 million Mexicians would enter the United States illegally if they could! And the President is treating this like it's no big deal. New Mexico and Arizona have already declared a state of emergency. Governor Schwarzenegger has been lobbying Washington to get tougher on the border since his first day in office. This situation is unacceptable. The time for action has long since passed and when Hillary Clinton is calling for border security, when she takes a step to the right of a Republican on an issue, you know there's something wrong.

And it shouldn't end with border security. The Administration needs to play hardball with Vicente Fox because he's doing nother to stop this. And why should he? The Mexican economy is shot and it's well known that illegals are sending the little money they make from the U.S. back home. It's a win/win for Vicente Fox. With Mexican citizens leaving Mexico that lightens the burden of the state as well and sending badly needed money into a dying economy. The Administration, in treating this like and invasion, needs to, at the very least, place the National Guard at the border. If Vicente Fox doesn't work to correct this problem on his end the President needs to march the National Guard further south and correct the problem for him.

Enough is enough. Illigals are not looking for the American Dream. Not when, as I said, they account for 30% of our felons, destroy property and cattle and seek not to intergrate themselves into the fabric of America. We're a nation of immigrants but when my family, and probably yours, came here they stopped being Irish, German, Polish, Dutch and whatever else and made themselves American. They didn't expect a handout. They busted their asses and earned what they got. They learned the launguage of the nation (it's English in case you forgot) and expected no special treatment or consideration because they once called a foreign nation home. They took pride in the fact that they were now American. This isn't the case with illegals. Many expect health care, education and housing all at the taxpayer's expense. They force others to learn their language. (Quick story: I have a sister who lives in California and worked at a fast food place staffed mainly by illegals. Even though many of these illegals could speak English, or at least understand it, they would not let on that they did. While she hersefl knew some Spanish she wouldn't let it fly. So, she'd give them instructions in English and when then feigned ignorance she'd tell them, "You know damn well what I'm saying. Do it." And it would get done.) They also have no intention of blending into the American fabric. That they would enter this nation illegally, force American citizens to accomidate them and then send they money they earn here across the border illistrates this better than anything else. Legal Mexican citizens of this nation are probably the most intolerant of this behavior. They worked hard to get where they are and they loved this nation so they did it all legally. They weren't looking for a free ride. This is why tighter immigration laws are quite popular amongst these people. They reconize that being an American citizen, and having access to all the rights and freedoms that entails is a privleage that must be earned.

True Americans know that they have what they do out of hard work and respect for their fellow man. True Americans do not depend upon the government to better their lives, they do that themselves and wouldn't trust anyone else with that responsibility. True Americans wish the blessings that comeout of this work for the rest of the world. I believe that this is why so many Americans treat the illegal immigration issue with kid gloves. They reconize the situation in Mexico and want to help those who come from that to here. However, these well meaning people fail to reconize that America is so great because Americans worked for what they had. We earned the freedoms and economic prosperity that we have. Illegals simply want to take advantage of the blessing paid for by others. They do not want to give back to this great nation. For this they must not be tolerated. We do not need leeches. I value my country too much for that. You want to come here you should repect the people here and expect to work for everything you have.

You can also read two good articles on this subject here and here.

Oh, one more thing, I'm glad to be back!

Yeah, she's completely lost her mind. I'm not going over the terrible media coverage on her (excluding Fox News... as usual) because that would be beating a dead horse. But I will talk briefly about what I think of the women.

I think she's nuts. I think she's spitting on the memory of her son. I think she's using the sacrifice of her son to advance a far-left ideology. I know she can't get her facts straight (Is Bush a cold blooded killer or a man of compassion, which is it?) I do not think she's being used by the far-left. I do think that she's using them. I don't think either side cares who's using whom. I think she's a moonbat.

And that's all I have to say about that.