This is something that has been on my mind for quite a long time, and I think on most Americans.  Health care, the signal most important issue that is apparently plaguing the Obama administration to this day.  Here it goes, all my thoughts on it:

The first aspect of this debate is the extreme cost, I feel that I should lead with this one first so that I just can get it out-of-the-way instead of doing it later.  In other words, the cost of this, is going to be extreme, the  ‘estimates’ are around one trillion dollars, when the proposed bills are all accounted for.

But, that is just for right now, what about in the future?  Costs are likely to rise, especially for a government program, one which has the mandate to try and bring health care to as many people as possible.

More people are going to be born.

More will likely move to these shores.

And health costs will go up now that everyone can get cured for everything…on someone else’s dime.

The mere fact of the matter is that the costs are so underestimated is due to two things.  One it is slightly intentional, they do not want the people to know how much this is liable to cost them in the long run, especially after all the checks and systems go into effect.  The other is that they do not know, because they cannot know.  Nothing of this scale in this country has ever been tried before…and it still leaves a lot of people without insurance.  No one can know because no one, not politicians, can predict the future.  Who knows what advancements and things might pop up?

Which will probably mean medical advancement is going to come to a standstill in order to prevent costs from rising.

Oh and that is not even adding on competition to this debate, which the government will virtually be a monopoly…and those only drive up prices and the eventual costs of things.

And that is not even taking account of the simple odd fact that under the proposed legislation, we will not be seeing the benefits for this bill for years…but will be paying for it now.

That is insane.  In all aspects of our society when we pay for something, we are expecting to get immediate returns…except for perhaps in investing.

Even when you put money down on a house or a car you still expect to get that car or house to use.  And then only if you fail to keep up with your payments, then  it is taken from you because you failed to live up to your obligation.  But that’s it, we are not even going to be seeing what this is going to do for us,until after the next Presidential election…maybe.

Second, the issue of the death panel has caused the most serious issue that has effected the debate for everyone in this, its one of the most vicious, with the rationing of care, that to give care to all, some might not get the care that they need.

That some citizens might be considered more valuable to society then others in that society, because they have to give that care to those people, in order for that society to survive.  That they can contribute the most to that society.

Now private companies and organizations when they have done this in the past have been called out on it, they have had protests against them, and they have been forced to change, and rightfully so.  But yet, when governments do this, it is for the good of the people, and the true extent of this will be hidden from us, to only the most bold can ever find it.

And rationing has already started happening, with the mammograms, a government organization that I cannot recall the name of has stated that a report that they released around six months ago is now wrong, and that you can get care later in your life, and less often.

But its a short jump from that, to actually mandating it on the society that you live in, to help lower costs that extra bit more.

Because if your health insurance was yours…and not dictated by the government, you could do that as often as you want, and can afford, and not risk doing it on someone else’s dime, or someone telling you it costs too much so you absolutely cannot do it.

Finally, something has been bothering me, and I made this point…but I have heard it nowhere else.

The congressmen who support this, Barrack Obama, and others, they are all out there, saying that this will increase freedom, increase options, and increase your ‘right’ to health care.  That health care is a right to the people and it needs to be provided for by others.   That society, as a whole must pay for that with what you cannot provide for yourself.

But yet, I have heard it said, from a variety of sources, that there are punishments in this health care bill.  That you will either be fined…or that there is a part of this legislation that if you do not pay for this, if you do not buy health care insurance at all, then you will be jailed for it.

Now, how is that a right? The whole point of rights is that you can exercise them, or not, to suit yourself.  No one speaks exactly the same, everyone speaks different.  We have the right to assemble, but we often do not…and only with people of our choosing, that we do not have to assemble.

How about the right to bare arms? Not everyone owns a means to defend themselves, or chose to do so.

The right to not be searched and seized? Some people when they have nothing to hide can allow themselves to be searched.

All of these rights one can exercise themselves to the fullest extent of whatever they want to, or not want to.

This clearly is not in the health care intention, they are not making it a right.

Then what are they making it into? They are making it into a mandate, that you have to buy something for yourself that you may or may not want or need.

And, plus, if that was not enough, only a certain percentage of the population will pay for the health care of others, if you do have the perfect health care, and you do not switch jobs, and you are able under all the provisions to keep your health care, then you will still have to pay, and be taxed higher for it, for your good health care…because you do have health care, in order to pay for someone who does not have exactly what you have.

Now this provides another crisis in ethics: That the job of taxation, and government is to provide goods and services for the benefit of everyone.  The postal service, military, transportation systems, and others, they are all provided because they benefit everyone pretty much equally.  Oh and if you want to use a bus system provided for the state…you have to pay for it.

But not with health care…everyone will be paying for everyone’s health care, if they want it or not.  That they themselves might never see the benefits of what they are doling out cash for.

Which leads to the final issue with this, with this being a potential mandate, and a near monopoly this leads to something else I have been debating out with people.

In a recent debate I was asked: Don’t you think its odd that America is the only western power without…I think it was health care…not sure.

My answer being obvious, I will not go into it.

What this brings up is everyone is different, every country has different ways of doing things, of treating its people, and what the people expect from their government.

If you like he NHS that is fine with me, but that does not change the real and serious concerns I have about the current bill that is being proposed by Congress.  It is not for me, and I do not think it will work for many Americans.

There is no one size fits all system, and this shockingly seems to be attempting to do just that.

The answer to this conundrum to me is more, more competition, more options, truly, not creating a government system that will run everything, but having individualized plans for the individual.

If they like their healthcare that is fine.

If they like healthcare insurance companies, that is fine.  And good and right for them

If they go through their employer that is fine.

If they want to set up a plan between them and their doctor, no paperwork, no middlemen, just a base plan, then that is fine.  Whatever the individual wants, coupled with real TORT reform, and that would be great.  The individual should be the only one that determines what kind of care they should strive for.

Even up to a government option, as long as what that is.  But I still get leery of governments saying they will give you the option to do something or not,because today’s governments seem hell-bent on turning options into mandates.

As long as you have the ability to pay, and the want to pay, you should be able to.  And that again included the government option.  If you want it, then you should be able to get it…and then pay for it yourself.

This is what I believe anyways, I welcome your opinion, you can comment, you can write me, I do not care whether you agree with me or not.  Let us have the debate.  Show me where I am wrong, because I do not especially like thinking that the USA government can be capable of doing death panels, or all this other stuff.  It is our obligation to question what we hear.

The piano rock band OneRepublic’s second album is titled, “Waking Up.”  This is a good album, but I don’t think that there will be a mega hit like “Apologize” on this one.  It is a well written and composed album.  I like how they take the songs “Waking Up” and “Lullaby” and add extended orchestra instrumentals to them.  Those songs would work well in a fill with more somber themes.

For most people I would suggest, “All the Right Moves,” “Secrets,” “Good Life,” and “Marching On.”

Abortion is Wrong

Homosexuality is Wrong

Evolution is Wrong

Buttermilk is Wrong

Putting cold gravy on your leftovers is just Wrong

Area = 16 meters squared is Wrong

When I was younger, I spent a good deal of time deciding what was RIGHT and what was WRONG. These are important decisions for a kid, and I didn’t take it lightly. My Right-Wrong Spectrum has gone through a lot of changes since I owned a Huffy 5 speed and made forts with Bethany. Let’s make some lists:

At age Seven, in the second grade:

• It was WRONG to unzip my fly and show my swimsuit zone to the girl on the playground (Honestly, I was comparing mine to Ian Jefferson’s and somebody behind me yelled my name. I turned around and, bada-bing; I’m a 7-year-old sex offender).
• It was RIGHT to immediately admit when I was caught and apologize to the girl
• It was RIGHT to bike away from the boys who wanted to sneak into the old lady’s house on the hill and look for ghosts
• It was RIGHT for me to not fight back when Joseph slide-tackled me into the mud, for no other reason than he’s a douche.
• It was WRONG for me to color the grass on my picture side to side, instead of up-and-down

So wrong, in fact, that I never drew again, and learned to play drums to keep the art teacher off my back.

At age 13, in the seventh grade:

• It was WRONG for me to be honest with Brooke about why I didn’t want to date her (she was not much of a looker and real annoying)
• It was RIGHT for me to complete my homework and submit it on time, not resorting to cheating.
• It was mostly WRONG for me to watch Scream at a Christmas party with some friends, even though I wasn’t 17. It wasn’t illegal, it just felt mostly WRONG.
• It was mostly RIGHT for me to become friends with Orin, the boy from church who was next geek down on the totem pole. I became his friends, but was urged by my mother to do so. I wouldn’t have otherwise, but I was legitimately his friend, so it was mostly RIGHT.

Oh, you made another Flash animation of yourself playing the French Horn... cool.

At age 20, my junior year in college:

• It is mostly RIGHT for me to give money to missions organizations who advertise on campus. If I can be guilted into the right thing, it’s still mostly RIGHT.
• It is WRONG for me to pick on gay people. I’ve never done it, but seeing other people do it puts knots in my stomach, so it must be WRONG.
• It is mostly WRONG for a missionary to marry a 12-year-old in a village in Africa. It means that the whole village found out about Jesus, but she’s twelve, so it’s iffy.
• It is mostly WRONG for me to drink alcohol. I’m not 21, but it isn’t hurting anybody and if I’m safe, what’s the big deal.

ABOVE: Not hurting anybody... but I did tap my Rockies against the side of the tub on the way in.

At age 25, married with a graduate degree:

• It’s mostly RIGHT for me to speak up when I think that Andrea and I disagree. If I do it in a disrespectful or “cheap shot” manner, then it’s WRONG.
• It’s mostly WRONG of me to stay at work until 5:30 p.m. every day. I get to work at 7:30, so I don’t need to put in such long hours, but I want to do my job well.
• It’s neither right nor wrong to drive to work on my day off. It is a decision that carries consequences and isn’t a moral issue.
• It’s kinda RIGHT for me to listen to my student as she tells me about her drug use, and plans to run away from home. It feels WRONG to then go tell the school counselor, as I am mandated to do.

As you can see, the issues become less and less clear as one gets older. In fact, I will contend mathematically with the following diagrams:

Age Seven Diagram – As you can see, 100% of my decisions were divided up roughly 15% wrong and 85% right. They were one or the other. Eating vegetables fell into the blue zone, flashing classmates in the red zone.

Age Thirteen Diagram – A bit more complex, right and wrong are now extremes of a spectrum, with some decisions more right or more wrong than others. Watching Scream is kinda wrong, but watching ArmaGetItOn online when my parents are asleep is very wrong. Good thing I never did that.

Age Twenty Diagram – Now decisions can be both right and wrong, with components of each. For example, passing a test (right) because I cheated (wrong) can have elements of both. To keep a friendship (Right) I tell a friend that they are annoying (ehh… neither?), but I tell them in a nice way (right) because I care about them (right) in a strategically worded Facebook message (wrong).

Age Twenty-Five Diagram – At this point, a myriad of factors influences every decision. Before a decision can be declared RIGHT or WRONG, it must be weighed by checking it against the Obligations from work, gut feelings, and family opinions, among others. Often, there isn’t time to analyze each input, so the decision is made sometimes without any concern for its right-ness or wrong-ness. Sometimes shit just needs be gettin done, know what ah’m sayin?

So, by my mathematical reckoning, the decisions become more and more complex as life’s influences grow more numerous. Ergo, the more complex one’s life, the harder it is to distinguish right from wrong. I have work and home, and I’m already screwing the theoretical pooch when it comes to some very big decisions. I can’t imagine how much more complicated my Right-Wrong spectrum will get once I have kids, or a house, or a job with more responsibility. I will definitely have more respect for burdened people making bad decisions.

Well... most people.

Luckily for me, I have a wife who is quick to forgive my shortcomings and even quicker to apologize for her own. It would really suck to have a whole country (or even a county) telling me when my Right-Wrong Seesaw tilted the wrong direction because I gave too much weight to “Popular Opinion”.

This isn’t a political article: it’s a morality article. The truth is, friends, that the world doesn’t work in blacks and whites, but in reds and yellows and greens and kindas and maybes and “little bit”s. Those that worry about making a wrong decision are those who abstain from committing. I trust that the benevolent force in the universe (God) has a firm stance on RIGHT and WRONG, and respects us for trying our best to weigh our see-saws. Sometimes it’s the effects of a decision that make it right or wrong.

For more on that, watch Battlestar Galactica. Some say it’s a parallel of the war on terror; I say it’s a slick, well-produced epic spanning 3.5 seasons and offering a glimpse into human nature alongside a stellar soundtrack. Plus there’s spaceships and lasers and shit.

Today’s suggestion is to support what is basically the freedom of the press and/or personal expression via the written word especially.

Anyone who has followed my Blogs would know that there have been cases where a Blogger has been imprisoned for his/her views. This has been so of Christians in Islamic countries for example.

Supporting the right of expression via the written word is something I do via my Blogs. I report news of Christian Bloggers and those who witness for Christ that are persecuted.

See also:

www.internationalpen.org.uk

A response to reading ‘365 Ways to Change the World,’ by Michael Norton

I love it when the things I write produce an emotional response. For a writer, it’s the biggest buzz in the world when someone comes to you and says, “That short story/chapter/poem made me so sad/happy/hungry*.”

I always strive to create something that is going to play on the reader’s conscience, to make them contemplate whether the actions within the story are right or wrong. Or better yet, I love making people side with the bad guy and question what sort of a person that makes them.

Despite all my good intentions though, anger seems to be the easiest emotion to evoke in others.

Don’t get me wrong, I do get a cheap thrill out of that but it’s just so easy on the internet. A little too easy, perhaps. One of my posts, ‘Consider a Modern Wife’, has an entire page dedicated to how it – and I by proxy – is wrong, despite the fact that said post only had 32 readers at its initial upload.  I was also spammed with messages from people I know on facebook following my piece concerning that most disgusting of language errors – ‘might of’. Apparently, I’m ignorant as to the history of my country and as a language student ’should know better’.

I could take the time to explain that I spent four years of my life not only learning Danish, but also reading about the common Germanic stem that it shares with English. Or I could boast about the fact that my current favourite book is Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue and that I spend my free time compiling a list of Doric words that come from Nordic stems. I could write lengthy paragraphs about how invasions from the Vikings and the French have perverted the original form of the language that was used when Beowulf was first scribbled down by monks, or about how the unique ‘ing’ verb form makes English a wonderfully easy language to learn the basics of for foreign speakers**.

But honestly, who gives a toss?

This is the internet: it is estimated that there are over 60 million ‘blogs worldwide and of those, only a handful achieve a readership of over 1000 per day. I write on here because I feel that doing so empties my head of clutter and helps me to be a better writer. I also like to think that my ‘blog is a good showcase for the selection of writing styles I can offer to any potential clients. I don’t for one minute believe that my work could ever be widely read in the way that Diary of a London Call Girl was.

With the exception of family and friends -  who know me well enough to understand that I’m just a crotchety old woman – nobody cares about what I have to say. I’m just another one of the faceless people who sit tapping away at their laptop keyboard instead of getting on with their work. My opinions, therefore, do not matter to anyone other than myself. Just like the opinions of those who think I’m wrong don’t matter to me – the age-old internet stalemate. Because neither party involved in an argument over opinions has to face the other, and because people online are inherantly rude to each other, we end up with arguments like this:

Me: Blah blah blah – hate world – blah blah – romantic notions about how things should be – blah.
Someone else: U hv penis.
Me: Eh? What has that got to do with anything?
Someone else: U jst scared coz u wrong.
Me: Wrong in which way? I like discussions – let’s talk and share our thoughts.
Someone else: U 2 scared to talk bk. ha ha ha ha… penis.
Me: You’re a spoon.

The other problem with the internet is that sites like twitter, facebook, myspace, friendface etc. make us believe that what we say has an impact on those around us. We use the web as a way to express ourselves and without the social boundaries enforced by real life, we’re not afraid to express ourselves in overly critical, arrogant ways. We presume that because we can broadcast information about our goings on and opinions at all hours of the day, that we should. This is not the case. My rule of internet etiquette is as follows: if you wouldn’t say face-to-face what you’ve just typed, hit the backspace key instead of enter***. Afterall, you don’t want to hear about my various bodily functions so what makes you think I want to read about yours?

I think this is what I was trying to say in my entry about lamebook – we’ve all become self-obsessed and presume that the rest of the world cares about what we think and about every intimate detail of our lives. Nobody does, and so after the initial thrill of causing an angry reaction in my online reader for whatever reason, I feel slightly hollow – as if the emotion’s I’ve managed to trigger aren’t real. With so many people out there looking for yet another way to tell the world about themselves, it’s just too easy to have someone disagree.

______

*Hungry is an emotion. I spend 95% of my life ‘hungry’. The other 5% I spend sleeping.

**Interestingly, all objections to my statement that English is an easy language to learn came from native speakers, rather than from those who use it as a second language.

***If you’re drunk, slightly different rules apply,  akin to those necessary where mobile phones are concerned. On becoming inebriated to the point where you think the following messages to your friends are a good idea, all communication devices must be handed to the designated driver or, if at home,  hidden in either the sewing machine case or the vegetable drawer.

Examples of messages to friends that are a terrible idea are:
a. You’re sexy
b. I’m sexy
c. The ex you still have feelings for is sexy and I just saw them naked
d. Did your car have a bonnet when you loaned it to me?

Over these past few years I know what it has been like to be on the top of your faith and I know what it is like to almost lose it. I know the arguments for both accepting and rejecting faith in Christ. I know how true Christianity and false Christianity look like and have experienced both sides of the proverbial coin.

And one major problem has allowed me to examine why I truly believe in Christ: hypocrisy.  This one major problem that has spread throughout the body of Christ is why I have wondered why I believe in Christ in the first place. This one major problem has made me wonder is it worth fellowshipping with those who call themselves Christians. And this one major problem has almost destroyed my faith, my ministry, and my life.

Jerks—I can’t stand them. If anyone is honest with himself or herself they would probably say the same thing. I mean, who says that they love jerks? I mean anyone with half a brain would probably say, “I can’t stand jerks.” I mean that’s just me, but who knows these days. But it seems like the epidemic of “jerk-itis” is on the flippin’ rise. I see girls that are in love with macho jerks; I see people in government that are elitist jerks; I see corporate executives that are greedy and are ravenous jerks; I see jerks, jerks, and more jerks.

But the one place I have seen more jerks in my life than any other place unfortunately is not in the clubs, Washington, D.C. , or on Wall Street—nope, the place I have seen my fair share of jerks is in the church. Now it is one thing for some atheist to write this statement; but this is coming from someone who is a passionate believer in Christ, who loves Christ and His church, and was a former “jerk.”

You see, when I first became a Christian I was brought up more with the mentality of being a legalist jerk than being a compassionate servant. For me it was all about being right and wrong and it was about who could be the most holy and dress in the best suit. It was about politics and about CCM (hating it, then liking it, then having to hear it is the “devil’s music,” then finally liking it). It was about going to that “Christian college,” and abstinence and about dating is bad and courtship is good. In the end it was about me, myself, and I. I didn’t even grasp the picture of what authentic Christianity looked like until recently in life. All I was seeing previously was hypocrisy, fundamentalism, legalism, and everything that the Lord hates but the things that permeate the Church.

Jerks are everywhere man and they come in all shapes and sizes. They are nonbelievers but they are believers as well. I am not saying that the things above like CCM, abstinence, and courtship are bad things. But having the attitude that because I like or practice those things makes me better than you is “jerkish.” What we need to do to eradicate the “jerk-itis” syndrome that is going around the church today is replace everything “we hate” with the royal law as James puts it: to love God and to love others. If we would become a band of believers that were known more for who we love than for what we hate—the world wouldn’t have to see us as bold-face bigots or hatemongers; we could be seen as revolutionaries, as compassionate servants of the kingdom desiring life change in every individual life.

I have been there and done that when it comes to being a “jerk,” and now I abandon it for something authentic—a true servant of Christ. Laying aside any fundamentalism, or legalism, or judgmentalism, or homophobia, or hypocrisy, or anything that would hinder me from opening up the truth of the gospel with others—I serve God with all my heart and love God and love others.

Here’s a “short test” to see if you pass or fail the “jerk test”:

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)

So if you praise God yet curse men, you pass the “jerk test” with flying colors, and if you don’t, well then you fail. If we were honest with ourselves, I would say we all have passed and have been there, done that. Let’s resolve never to commit the act that James has spoken of, but let us always do the following:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.” (James 2:8)

[this is from a series of articles entitled: “Why I Hate…”]

Are we dreaming? Do we know when we fly? When do we go? Do we die? Can we live forever? Are you dreaming?” QUESTION! – System of a Down

Seeking an answer is sometimes a process when we go from obscurity to obscurity.

In a specific issue, I can experience that we are trying to prove that our answer is the right answer. We are in many cases forcing ourselves to respond on someone’s statement. When talking with one person, we feel very comfortable with answering things. We know that if the other person would disagree with us, we will be able to debate it with equal power (e.g. 50/50 %).

How do I feel when I question the other person? Even if the knowledge about the specific topic is the same for everyone or not, it could be okay with questioning. A question from one guy must not always be seen as a sign of absence to the topic to the other guy. We can accept that this person is curious about my knowledge and I feel good that this person is interested in what I am talking about. It is also a sign of presence.

How is it if we have a conversation between three people? For example, we can experience that two persons is included in the conversations and one person is excluded. If now the excluded person should ask a question, we can experience it as something annoying. It depends on how the question is asked!

Let’s say that the excluded guy asks the question in a challenging way. I could either feel offended, or I could feel confused. Does this person know more than I do? Often when we feel uncertainty we use our reptilian brain. That part of the brain is where we go when we want to survive. So uncertainty can be a feeling that tells us that we should defend ourselves! Trying to use a “deeper” part of the brain is often a way of dealing with these kind of situations.

Can I see this kind of thinking in society? (Reptilian brain versus “deeper” brain)

Yes I can? I can see it in how people are dealing with crisis. A crisis is something that we feel that we have to defend us to rather than find out the deeper meaning with it. If I should know that the see level should rise five meters and my country should be under water within five years; what should I do? Often, we should use our reptilian brain here. How are we suppose to solve this? What can I do to change myself and what can we do as a collective to change ourselves? Using our deeper part of the brain here, we can focus on the purpose of the crisis. Can we see a meaning why this crisis is happening? Is it a sign that I need to change?

I would suggest that rather than changing what’s bad, improving the things that feel right for you!

According to the climate crisis which is a very serious issue for humanity, we are often trying the “pull the handbrake solution”.  Suggestions such as geo-engineering are a great example of that! Geo-engineering is basically about to create places where we can store the pollutions, the carbon dioxide. Doing that, we keep the ice from melting or we keep the sea level from rising etc. Einstein said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”. This is exactly what geo-engineering is about. We think that we can find out technologies that stop the climate crisis mainly created by the industrial revolution and the consumption era.

So what is right for you?

The New Barack Channel (NBC) has jumped into the fray between Kennedy and the Catholic Church.  As usual, they are doing so with a leftist bias.

The second paragraph of the article which I have highlighted in bold below sums up the crux of the matter.  When a church or other conservative  organization compromises what it believes in order to support some liberal/progressive policy, no one says anything about separation of church and state (which is a misinterpreted load of liberal crap anyway).  But let the same organization take the same conservative stand they have taken since the beginning of time, and the left comes out screaming.  Hypocrites.

Now you have the Catholic Church, which to my knowledge has been around even longer than the United States, and has always said that abortion is wrong, is saying what it has always said:  “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”  They are telling this Kennedy idiot that Catholics (and Christians) can not support or condone abortion, and if you do support or condone abortion you can’t be a Catholic, or at least not one in good standing.  They are illustrating what God has always tried to teach us, that the world is black and white, not the shades of gray that liberals portray it to be.  There IS right, and there IS wrong.  Right and wrong don’t change with the times.  The religion of moral relativism propagated by liberals has taken over our society like a cancer.

So, why are liberals trying so hard to remove God from the public square?  Two reasons.

1. Acknowledging the existence of God reminds liberals of their own sin, and they do not want to be reminded of that.
2. Liberals/communists know that people who have a strong moral foundation can’t be controlled easily.  Someone without a moral foundation will believe whatever they are told by the powers that be.  This also speaks to the dumbing down of our educational system.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you need to stand up against this coordinated, intentional assault on Christianity and organized religion in America.  Right now it may not appear that liberals are attacking islam, but that is only temporary.  Political correctness is the only thing preventing that at the moment.  If the muslims win before the liberals do, the liberals will wonder where the Christians are to protect them from beheading.  If the liberals get their way before islam takes over, the liberals will persecute the muslims just like they persecute us.  As I was saying, this is more than just an assault on religion.  It is an assault on freedom.  Let’s review the 1st Amendment:

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 the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any educated, reasonably clear thinking individual can see the wisdom behind the wording of the 1st Amendment, and that the liberals have taken great liberty with it to arrive at the current interpretation regarding “separation of church and state.”  It means that the government will not establish a STATE religion that you must be a part of.  It DOES NOT prohibit those in government who are of various religions from displaying or participating in their religion while on the job.

Wake up, people!  An attack on one of our freedoms is an attack on all of them.  Jealously guard your freedom, for tomorrow it may be taken from you.

NBC Takes Up Kennedy vs. Catholic Church ‘Crossing the Line’ Into ‘Political Blackmail’

By: Tim Graham
November 24, 2009 10:55 ET

Monday’s NBC Nightly News took up the story of liberal Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s public feud with the Catholic Church, and NBC’s Ron Allen implied something improper in how “the Catholic Church is flexing its religious and political muscle.”

When Catholic officials endorse liberal initiatives like immigration reform or oppose an execution, the networks don’t worry about the separation of church and state. But with traditional stands against abortion and gay marriage in the crossfire, NBC’s screen graphic asked if the church was “Crossing the Line?” A secular-left lobbyist accused the church of being “not above spiritual and political blackmail.”

(Read rest of article HERE)

Thursday November 26, 2009 By Kevin Morrow

So I hit the freeway early Wednesday Morning headed to Las Vegas. A mini road trip for the thanksgiving holiday. The night before I left I came into the possession of two packages of those tuna and cracker kits. I ate one that same night. I usually eat two of them. Something told me to keep the one for the road trip.

To me it really isn’t a road trip, driving to texas is more of road trip to me, but anyway I was on the road and it was a “trip.” I was in the car with family and we had only a few cd’s. Micheal Jackson’s bad album,Toni Braxton, some type of workout mix, and some others. I really only remember the bad album because that’s what was in the cd player the most.

To me I arrived in Vegas in record time, there was no traffic since we left so early, and we floated all the way there. I exited the freeway on tropicana and ended up waiting forever at the light. I see this homeless gentleman who looks really down and out. People just keep passing him as if he isn’t there. He has a sign in his hand but I couldn’t read what it said.

Without even thinking I look down and see the tuna and cracker package in between myself and the passenger seat. I roll down the window and ask him if he wants something to eat. He looks confused like he doesn’t understand but he walks over to the car and I hand him the package. It’s all I could give him at the moment, but I felt like it was more than he had in a while.

It’s hard for me to imagine that with all the food in Las Vegas at the buffets and such, that this man for whatever reason was not able to eat. It bugged me to think of this, but then I remembered that I did what I could with what I had. I always hear people say “to see a change in the world be the change.” So maybe today I started off in the right direction.

It appears to me that I will be used more in the future as an avenue to help those who need it. I accept that openly.

After that I headed to UNLV where I pretty much fell in love with the Thomas and Mack Center. I can see myself playing in that gym in the near future. For whatever the reason may be. School or whatever, I know the NBA plays there in the summer time. So it’s up to me to believe in myself no matter what the circumstances may appear to be.

I never personally went on a recruiting trip to a college, so as I was at UNLV I decided to take my own tour. They have some really nice facilities. In fact I would most likely spend most of my time in their fitness area. The gyms on the upper level were calling my name.

It was a good day, I met some cool people and returned back home in time to play practice a little basketball at the gym. I just wanted to share that story, not much else to say.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYBODY!!!

I had a thought earlier today.  Being alone again… there’s nobody to tell me, “Mary, that’s a dumb idea.”  Not that John ever quite said it that way or ever treated me like that– I’m a little more blunt.

But at the same time there’s nobody to tell me “Mary, that’s a dumb idea.”

With John it was more the gentle reminders that I needed to get some sleep.  Or “did you feed the horses yet?” (which by the way, I haven’t yet).   Or “we need to remember to…”  Or the “what do you think about…” Or “don’t forget to…”

Confiding in a soul-mate and sharing a partnership together are some of the things I miss the most.  I miss them everyday, but I miss them most when it comes to matters of Nathaniel.  I don’t want to be the person that decides if it is safe for him to get vaccinated for H1N1 of if it is dangerous for him not to get it.  (He has gotten his first shot and is scheduled for dose number two.)   I want to be one of two parents who decides together how to best raise their child.  You know the way it ideally is… in a perfect world.  But, in a perfect world your beloved spouse doesn’t die of cancer at 35…

Everything is now my decision to make- for wrong of for right.  In a way it’s nice to know that there won’t be any conflict in parental matters- it’s my way or the highway.  (Practicing for the teenage years.)  I can do things that I want to do- if I want to go take Nathaniel somewhere, I just do it.  No, “not now… maybe later”… “I’m tired…”  or “I don’t feel like it,”  or “why don’t you just go (aka I’m not interested and don’t want to join you).”  I’m tired of learning things the hard way.  Hoping I’ll be making more right decisions, but I’m fully aware that I’ll make wrong ones too.

All that being said, I think I’m doing mostly okay on my own.  I ask for opinions when I need them and make my own decisions.  I’m pretty good at researching and collecting data.  I’m an adult and quite capable of making my own decisions.  I just wish John was still here to help me make up my mind.

Anthony Giddens, one of the most influential sociologists, if not the most (to annoyance of many sociologists) was famously Blair’s ‘Guru’, who pioneered the ‘Third Way’ philosophy that underpinned ‘New Labour’. Well with the news that Phillip Bond, the pioneer of “Red Toryism”, is launching a left leaning think tank, ResPublica, which will receive the full backing of Cameron, it is interesting to consider whether Bond will be Cameron’s Giddens. Whereas Giddens helped take Labour from the left to the right, Bond attempts to take the right to the left. Granted however, the latter’s task is considerably harder, as the political landscape has changed over the years, with more right leaning views entering the mainstream political debates. However, the left are reasserting themselves, and so it will be interesting to track Bond’s presence in the Tory party’s plans.

Apparently, the New Labour party had tried to poach Bond as a possible option to help New Labour remain the ‘progressive’ party (well in appearance, anyway). Whilst that was terminated, it appears as though Bond is now Cameron’s ‘progressive’ guy. However, it is interesting to question the objectives of Bond and this new left leaning think tank. Do the Tories really think that they can steer a party that has a strong ideological belief in so many things opposed to left leaning thinking, and which frankly has very few who want to leach to the left? Surely, it will be little more than a token of left ‘credentials’? This strikes the question of whether sometimes intellectuals can be sucked into the mainstream and then their theories can be taken to new limits and areas that they never foresaw themselves. Whilst it is an amazing achievement for someone like Giddens to have their theory underpinning a political party, is Labour’s record on civil liberties for example, something you want tied to that theory? I remember seeing Giddens recently on a politics show trying to justify and explain how New Labour need to reconsider their ‘Third Way’ approach, he looked slightly demoralised.

Whilst Bond’s discontent for Thatcher and the free market ideal is typical of left arguments, his strong belief in religion and his anti-abortion views (he only wants abortion in extreme cases) are not typical lefty auguments. Thus, it is important to recognise that this left is not an exemplar of all left thinking, and to remember that this is a reconsideration of the left within a right thinking schema. However, maybe even these modified left thinking views will turn out to be too much for Cameron, as Cameron’s Thatcherism views and the pressure from his backbenchers may force him to turn away from Bond.

However, with the news that Bond has been called Cameron’s “Philosopher-King”, it might be wiser for Bond to say, the name is Bond, Cameron’s Bond (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Right On! Magazine got up close and personal with rap phenom Nicki Minaj in N.Y.C. for there first issue to hit news-stands in 2010. Some behind the scenes footage inside…

This post is based on a true story … really!

There was an elderly, widowed 9th grade algebra teacher in Alabama, who, as a result of the years and the students she had to put up with, became convinced that she was an equilateral triangle.  When she was cornered, she always looked for a new angle, in her own way of circular thinking she could never measure up. She treated everyone equilaterally, until someone called her a square. Although this may have been an acute observation, it was not right. The Pythagorean who made this accusation did not realize that it was actually an obtuse theorem. The teacher was put on a plane, sent away and committed for her polygonous belief. Many thought that being institutionalized would scalene down her parallelanoia, however, it must have been geometrically impossible to solve that equation. To sum up … there is good news and bad news. The good news is that this teacher was cured of believing she was a triangle. The bad news: in a special, isoscelestic, 180° turn, she now thinks she is trapped inside a triangle. Does that mean that she is trapezoid?

Note: Puns have been added to protect the insanely and algebraically innocent.

Artwork by Lauren.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Canon Law Regarding Catholics and Abortion:

“Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

“Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

“Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) “Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

All bishops should follow their own Canon Law concerning their constituency and the abortion atrocity.

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin sets the morally correct standard. He refused Patrick Kennedy the sacrament in Rhode Island.

Kennedy’s endorsement of child killing is abhorrent to God. It is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic ethical understanding of Scripture—the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Kennedy favors killing womb infants. That is called “murder.” Female rights have no right to murder.

Therefore, the devil is in the process when mortals slay mortals who are in female bodies. That is not only how Tobin sees it; that is the way biblical believers understand divine revelation.

TV’s The View Whoopie Goldberg had a field day this morning when it came to her understanding of what the church does with its constituency’s views of right and wrong. With that, she went on her evangelistic diatribe about her understanding of Scripture.

She concludes that the Bible allows a human to do what he or she wants to do as long it is in keeping with that individual’s personal communication with God—no interference from churchly organizations or spiritual leaders.

On one part, she is accurate: a mortal can communicate with God and is served the consequences of that via accountability from that God.

But on the other part, she is so wrong. The God of the Bible does not have various moral codes for various persons depending on what they say they “hear” from God. God’s biblical standard is there as an eternal verity; it is not waffling to left or right, up or down.

Whoopie always has a good old time of it when trying to make deity out to be a Nice Guy on everything from communion altars to sex. In that she makes a lot of viewing friends for they likewise serve a deity who is totally into relativism, discounting absolutes.

However, Tobin is in line with the true understanding of Scripture when he holds the line on not permitting those who claim to be “Christian” yet murder to have Communion. They in no way have the ethical right to partake of the body and blood of Christ. That is atrocious in itself.

Think about it: Did Savior Christ suffer severe mistreatment on the cross in order to share His body and blood with persons who slay children? I don’t think so.

Did Christ stretch His holy presence on Calvary, permit nails to be driven through His hands and feet, then endure the spear slice in His side to allow pious appearing church goers the honor to partake of the sacrament representing that redemptive offering?  I don’t think so.

Did Christ anywhere in His public ministry ever teach that slaughtering womb innocents is okay if it is not in a person’s life plan?  I don’t think so.

Would to God that more clergy kept the same biblical standard that Tobin keeps. All spiritual leaders in the Christian tradition should obey God, His moral base and instruct those under their care to do the same.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members,” Tobin told Kennedy.

Stay the holy course, Tobin. Stay the holy course.

FOOTNOTE:

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.

“In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then ‘God breathes a soul into it.’ They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself’” (Joseph Breig, “Life Forms Matter,” The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

“Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk … and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit” (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

“Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name…and now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant…” (Isaiah 49:1, 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’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

“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 fully 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” (Psalm 139:13-16).

“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

“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, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother’s womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

“But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Also, read Exodus 23:7: “Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” Note I Peter 4:15: “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer…”

If the Republic returned to the biblical definition of personhood, we would defend every womb child.

John Adams said the following:

“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Andrew Jackson said the following:

“The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

Daniel Webster:

“If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country will go on prospering.”

“For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause” (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).