This is merely a place where I can express myself. I will post news articles, points of faith, stories, fellow blogger posts (with due credit of course), and generally anything I feel is worthwhile.
From Columbine to Aurora to Newtown, Tragedy after heart breaking tragedy has been caused in our nation by the loss of life of those we love. To the families of those lives that were taken, I offer my deepest condolences and will continue to pray for God to find a way to be glorified in these losses. I can only imagine what each family member of a lost loved one is going through at this moment, during this Christmas and Holiday Season. I hope they know the love and Salvation of Jesus Christ. Who paid an even worse price in His death.
But in the midst of these horrible events, people still scream for more gun control. Well I say bunk to all those who say yes to more gun control laws. Gun control laws do NOT control guns. They control people… especially those who are law abiding and responsible citizens.
When is the last time you heard about a shooting at a gun show or exhibit? How did all those people escape with their lives from a place filled with all sorts of guns and ammunition? People who do these things don't get their guns the legal way. so if more laws are created, that means that more laws will be broken with no change in the result. Evil people will still obtain things to do evil. Whether they be guns or bombs. I own a gun and I am legally blind. But the moment my life, family or property is threatened and I have the means to defend them, you better believe I will. Detroit has some of the strictest local gun laws there are and look at how many gun crimes, including murder, still happen.
Connecticut’s gun control laws should have prevented the massacre in Newtown, but they did not:
First, Connecticut law requires a person be over 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza was 20.
Second, Connecticut requires a permit to carry a pistol on one’s person, a permit Lanza did not have.
Third, it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored.
Fourth, with details on the Bushmaster rifle still sketchy, it’s possible Lanza may have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of “assault weapons.”
Of course, these laws were violated because Lanza did not own any of the firearms in question, but rather stole them, and he clearly had no regard for the law in committing his crime.
But just imagine if there were an armed police resource officer or a school staff member there with a gun. Many of those murders could have been prevented by a responsible person WITH a gun.
Many of you have probably never heard of Vic Stacy (Copy and paste link below into your browser). But he is proof that a responsible armed citizen can take action to prevent crime by those evil people who want to harm or kill others.
The following mock debate is based on issues of morality. Notice how each stereotypical candidate answers, and then compare their answers to the real answer of our true political leaders.
And from our elected officials…
Nancy Pelosi
She obviously didn’t check the bible about it and her understanding of the early church fathers is WAY off.
Joe Biden
“Wikipedia” Joe forgot to check his facts as well.
Barack Obama on Late Term Abortion:
How political was that?
John Boehner
Paul Ryan describes a Partial Birth Abortion
And from Ryan’s website:
“I support the rights of the unborn child. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.” – Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney explains why he original political position WAS WRONG about abortion:
Get the connection? Why do we champion the morality of issues like rape, incest, domestic abuse, etc. and yet we refuse to acknowledge that abortion is a moral issue that affects not only the mother but the life of the human being growing inside of her?
Now, check this clip where the pro-life position is proven to be scientifically and philosophically TRUE!
If you vote for someone who is in favor of abortions and participates in pro-abortion legislation, you are just as guilty as those who choose and perform abortions.
Why is abortion the murder of a human being?
The following is from Scott Klusendorf
Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some of you may object that those comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
We can be vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. We can support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that we can and should fully support for women. But some choices are wrong; like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No one should be allowed to choose that.
Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.
Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.
Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today.
SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than adults. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
I challenge you to be intellectually honest:
Q - Do you think that birth makes the unborn human?
A – If so, how does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?
Q - Does brain development or higher consciousness makes us human?
A – If so, would you agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not?
Some of you are going to ignore the scientific and philosophic case presented for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. I remind you that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
So then ask yourself – Is your position on abortion one of logic and science or one of self-interest.
This last video is of Scott Klusendorf speaking at Gordon College in Massachusetts.
BE WARNED, THERE ARE ABOUT 95 SECONDS OF VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES.
Scott Klusendorf - Speech to Gordon College
There are many of you who still have the question of victims of rape and incest. And I empathize with those who have that concern. As a Christian, I believe that the life of the unborn child is just as valid as that of the victim mother, and one cannot be give priority over the other, except where the life of the mother is threatened. We Christians have got to acknowledge that a victim is suffering and we cannot erase that by promoting the life of the unborn. However, what we should do is to show compassion and generosity towards the mother, by ensuring that she understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God’s will is for her to have the baby. We should NOT EVER minimize a victim’s experiences simply because we know that her unborn child has the right to life.
In addition to the evidence presented above, I believe that the primary elemental DNA coding of life happens at conception. Everything that the unborn human will be is determined the moment the sperm meets the egg through that genetic coding. Don’t agree? Then ask why embryonic stem cells are seen as ultimately valuable in medical research.
Can you guess which Presidential Candidate was home-schooled and then received his high school diploma from the largest Private School in the nation? Which one graduated from an Ivy League School and then received a post-graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S.? Which one has a significant financial portfolio with some investments through Goldman-Sachs? Which one’s children attended some of the finest private schools in the nation? Which one receives the majority of his income from residual factors?
If you said Barack Obama, you are correct. Don’t by the hype from hypocrites waging class warfare just to get your vote!
With all of the problems this nation is facing, dogs are at the top of the political foray for the presidency.
So, let’s take a good look at the importance of famous presidential dogs:
Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Terrier, Pete, was so notorious for biting that he was banished from the White House/
FDR’s Scottish Terrier, Fala, was present at many of the most important meeting between international leaders that he probably was able to ignore the extra-maritals committed by #32.
JFK’s Mutt, Pashinka, was the offspring of Soviet Space dog Strelka (obviously a commie plant) survived the Cuban Missile Crisis AND Marilyn Monroe.
LBJ liked to lift his Beagles up by their ears. Surely fun for Him and Her!
Gerald Ford’s Golden Retriever, Liberty, who had a litter of pups, had to train them to be very wary around tumble prone #38.
Reagan’s Cavalier King Charles Spaniel was the first to hold the title of “First Dog.”
Bush, the Elder’s Springer Spaniel, Millie, who liked to snap at the press – I REALLY LIKED THIS DOG.
Slick Willie’s Chocolate Lab, Buddy, who was obviously oblivious enough that he couldn’t keep #42’s trousers zipped.
W’s Scottish Terrier, Barney, who strode proudly along side #43 after 9/11.
And Bo, Barack Obama’s gift to his daughters for their patience and good behavior during his 2008 campaign.
These are only a few but there are goodies and baddies among them all. But now dogs are the focus of the actual campaign. Anyone else old enough to remember who Checkers was?
Hey, we know it’s a dog eat dog world out there so if dogs are now the focus of the campaign… and if it really is dog eat dog… at least Romney can say he didn’t!
I am in no way taking sides until ALL the facts are there. The known facts: Martin is dead. Zimmerman shot him. Zimmer WAS protecting his neighborhood, albeit, he apparently took that role a bit too far in this case. He called 911 to report the situation. He was told that he didn’t need to keep following the person he was calling about. Screaming and yelling was heard and then a gun shot was heard.
Those are the facts. Legally, a court of law couldn’t convict on them alone.
A lot of people forget that the “stand your ground” law applied to Martin as well. If Zimmerman pursued him and was threatening him, Martin had a right to defend himself. If Martin turn on Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman was following him, Zimmerman had the same right to defend himself.
Our nation’s media and even some of the leaders of this country are behaving irresponsibly by convicting either Zimmerman or Martin before all the facts are know. It is truly disgraceful. I was listening to some R&B on the radio and heard the DJ basically take the side that Martin was murdered by Zimmerman and the only way for America to heal, is for Zimmerman to be arrested. Why stir the hornet’s nest of potential unrest this whole situation could cause?
Remember what happened with the Rodney King travesty when the cops were acquitted? I hate to imagine what will happen when Zimmerman is arrested, and proven not guilty…
I am still of the opinion that if Zimmerman willfully pursued Martin and shot him with no or little provocation, FRY ZIMMERMAN. If Martin turned on Zimmerman and attacked him and the only way Zimmerman could protect himself was but the use of a handgun, according to Florida law, Martin got what he deserved. But I refuse to convict or condemn either Martin or Zimmerman because I was not there and I want all the facts before I cast my personal verdict.
The racial aspect of this whole thing is absolutely disgusting. There are those who want to portray Zimmerman as a white racist who went out to rid the world of another black. And the old photos of Martin show a cherub of a young man who never misbehaved in his life.
Martin was suspended from school because of a matter involving marijuana (not that it has anything to do with this conflict with Zimmerman). There are others who have said that Martin could get wild from time to time.
Zimmerman, the white racist, is actually part Hispanic. Furthermore, he had a history of tutoring young people in his time off, including African-American children. It has also been promulgated that there have also been times where Zimmerman acted on behalf of African-American against the police.
Both parties have good and bad aspects about them.
We all need to just relax and let the Florida authorities handle the case. That is what Martin’s family is doing.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the following about the Constitution she swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”
How can American citizens trust a Supreme Court Justice who holds such little value for the Constitution under which she adjudicates?
The position of Supreme Court Justice is NOT a lifetime appointment but rather one without a defined term. Article III states: “The judges… shall hold their offices during good behaviour.”
Maybe it’s time we look at derision toward the US Constitution as NOT “good behaviour.”
"When I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling and at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone," Obama said. "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that, for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," he said.
I still don’t understand the liberal mindset of trying to justify government actions with biblical scriptures that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with said actions. Context, especially biblical context, is something of which progressives have no concept.
President Obama quoted Luke 12:48 to justify his “Robin Hood” attitude toward government entitlements. However, as usual for our “christian” president, he fails to put the verse in context and explain what it truly means.
In order to comprehend v. 12:48, one has to read the entire passage, v. 12:35-48, to make it work:
“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:35-48 ESV)
Now that we have the whole verse, let us look specifically at the context of what Jesus is actually telling His disciples, specifically in v. 41-48. Oh, and it has nothing to do with taxing anyone.
Peter asked Jesus, “are you telling this parable for us or for all?” Jesus does not actually answer Peter’s question, which would seem to indicate that the application is for “everyone” to whom much has been given (see v. 48). The “faithful and wise manager” is the person who faithfully and fairly cares for those for whom he is responsible (NOT FOR THOSE WHOM THE GOVERNMENT DEEMS NEEDY), giving them “their portion… at the proper time.” When the master returns, the faithful manager will be rewarded — a metaphorical picture of the rewards that will be given to faithful believers AT THE RETURN OF CHRIST. The faithful “manager” is then contrasted with the unfaithful “servant” who beats the household “servants” and gets “drunk.” To the surprise of the unfaithful servant, however, the master will return “at an hour he does not know,” resulting in swift and harsh judgment: he will “cut him in pieces (“And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts” - Jeremiah 34:18) and put him with the unfaithful” —a metaphorical reference to the punishment that awaits the unbeliever at the return of Christ. The latter description, linked with what Jesus said in Luke 13:27–28 and especially the parallel described in Matthew 24:51 indicates eternal judgment and separation from God (see Luke 8:13). “[M]uch will be required” refers to People who have been entrusted by God with many abilities and responsibilities will be held to a higher standard on the last day. The degree of punishment is commensurate with the extent to which the unfaithful behavior was willful. Ignorance is no excuse and there will be varying degrees of punishment in hell
In essence, President Obama has foisted a caveat that steals God’s blessings and glory to promote “Caesar’s” wants as the priority.
One more thing that Obama has done is something that every progressive seems to rail against: ignoring separation or church and state.
There is no such law or given rule that promotes a separation of church and state. But those same people who rail against public prayer, public nativity scenes and even then word “Christmas.,” are the ones who would hypocritically tout Obama’s biblical reference to justify social justice.
A word to the wise – Jesus and the bible are not a “give and take what you want” resource. Nor are they exclusive from each other. It’s an all or nothing prospect. In order to accept Jesus, one must accept His Holy Word and to accept the bible, one must recognize that the Word IS a part of Jesus.
Finally, when Barack Hussein Obama isn’t trying to walk on water, he needs to spend more time reading the bible, instead of being selective of its biblical truth!
