Pepsi Co anti-God

According to WSET-TV in Lynchburg, Va., a Pepsi Company distribution center that has previously given close to 18 tractor trailer loads of its Gatorade product to an emergency relief ministry has now stopped giving them the product because Pepsi Co. has a problem with the organization's name: God's Pit Crew.

God's Pit Crew is a non-profit ministry that trucks supplies and volunteer workers across the nation to help victims of natural disasters (i.e. tornados, hurricanes, etc). Over the last 10 years God's Pit Crew has responded to more than 35 crises in nearly 20 states, clearing debris, fixing homes, and feeding hot meals to upwards of 10,000 people a day.

God's Pit Crew has distributed more than 500,000 pounds of food and supplies to those in need, and nearly 100,000 pounds of new baby supplies to crisis pregnancy centers. It seems however that Gatorade will no longer be included along with the food, water and ice they distribute since officials at the Pepsi distribution center in Wytheville, VA, told WSET-TV that they are cutting off all donations to God's Pit Crew.

What is the reason for doing this?

"Plant policies that govern giving prohibit continued donation to any relief organization with "God" in its name" is what WSET-TV was told by Pepsi officials.

Over the last 5-6 years Pepsi has pumped millions of dollars into pro-homosexual causes, campaigns and marketing. Pepsi commercials have progressively become more and more pro-homosexual in direction with a recent commercial showing a man choosing to "pick up" another man at a bar rather than either of the two women who try to get his attentions.

So at this point it is not only safe to say that Pepsi Co (who also owns among others, Frito-Lay, Tropicana, Quaker Oats & Gatorade) is not only aggressively pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda, but has begun taking steps that openly identify them as plainly anti-God.

Hopefully the people of God will not spend their money on Pepsi Co products - and let's face it, there are numerous alternatives in each category they are in – and then possibly we'll see how much profitability is affected by taking stances against particular demographics.

American Flag ‘Offensive’

Texas Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office

Friday , May 29, 2009

FoxNews

Debbie McLucas comes from a patriotic family – her husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military, and her daughter is currently deployed to Iraq on her second tour of duty as a combat medic.

So when McLucas arrived at work at a Texas hospital last Friday, she was stunned to be told that the Stars and Stripes she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day were offensive, and that the flag had been removed.

"I got into work, I was met by my supervisor and told that there had been multiple complaints, that people found the flag very offensive and it had been taken down," McLucas told FOXNews.com.

"I went to the office to retrieve it and found the flag wrapped around the pole, sitting in the corner on the ground. I was speechless."

McLucas, a supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, had displayed the 3-by-5-foot flag in the office she shares with the hospital's three other supervisors. McLucas said one of her colleagues, a woman who immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago, complained about the flag to upper management, and the hospital decided to take down the flag.

"I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down," McLucas said.

She said the hospital told her that the American flag flying outside the building would have to suffice. "I was told, 'There is a flag hanging out front, everyone can see that one. Is that not enough?'"

No, she said, that wasn't enough.

"It is more than I can even fathom, that you would find the American flag offensive, in America," McLucas said.

A Kindred Healthcare spokeswoman did not return calls for comment. Kindred issued a press release stating, "Kindred Hospital Mansfield has a great deal of appreciation for the service that many of our employees and their families have given to their country. We honor our veterans and active military through a variety of benefits and service programs. This was an isolated incident between two employees that we are working to resolve amicably."

The statement went on to explain: "The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up."

And it will go back up and stay up, McLucas said.

"I do think they're trying to do the right thing. I have no reason to believe the flag won't remain there as long as I'm employed."

I don't care who you are, where you're from, of what reasons you believe you have; if you are offended by the American Flag, you should immediately emigrate to a country whose flag you do respect, whose ideals you do hold dear, the blood of whose patriots you do not dishonor by your pathetic churlishness towards them, their families, and the country they died for – most especially at the one time a year when their sacrifices are held up publicly in remembrance.

The Year I Was Born…

On April 9^th, of the year I was born, then President of the United States of America, John F. Kennedy, signed a bill of Declaration of Citizenship, naming former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill as an honorary U.S. Citizen.

Churchill, who was half American by blood, said in his response "I have received many kindnesses from the United States of America, but the honour which you now accord me is without parallel. I accept it with deep gratitude and affection."

His entire response was in fact a humble outpouring of thankfulness and deep-seated respect by one of the most important men in modern history. The torch of leadership that he carried throughout the Second World War was a light that multi-millions of people across the globe were drawn to, and inspired by.

45 years later, the United States of America has as its elected leader, a man whose very citizenship is still questionable nearly four months into his administration.

Questions that could be easily and forever silenced by providing a few simple documents to the public at large; instantly ending an incredible amount of strife, distrust, and division that is gnawing away at the very unity he professes to want for the country.

What kind of man wouldn't want to do that?

Not the kind of man that Winston Churchill was.

A little ACORN that's grown into a giant strangling vine?

Would Barney Frank investigate ACORN?



Bill O'Reilly & Glenn Beck talk ACORN



Can ACORN survive in an America not in crisis?

Bible Study Banning…

There are folks (and will be more) who claim that this garbage is okay since the couple are likely using all the street parking on their block for these Bible studies and so on. You can be sure that nearly all of them would be utterly incensed if this were being applied to their weekly foot/base/basketball parties, Amway parties, dinner parties, or any other "event" they had chosen to hold on their property. Even without "events" of any sort going on, I can count the number of times my wife and I have been able to park in front of our own house in the last year on one hand…and I still say, this is baloney; and baloney that would not be tolerated by the public at large if it were aimed at any group other than Christians.

San Diego News -10News.com
Bible Study Controversy

Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies

POSTED: 5:31 pm PDT May 25, 2009

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.

Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.

Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.

If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Copyright 2009 by 10News.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Weakland Sticking Around

Weakland cancels move to East Coast

By Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: May. 26, 2009 7:00 p.m.

Retired Milwaukee Catholic Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland has decided not to move to an East Coast abbey this summer, though he and the head of the monastery on Tuesday offered differing explanations of the decision.

Weakland said he rescinded his plans to move to St. Mary's Abbey in Morristown, N.J., on May 18 after Abbot Giles Hayes expressed concerns about his presence in the wake of a New York Times story recounting revelations in his forthcoming memoir.

"It seemed evident to me that they thought my presence there might be a negative element for the school and monastery," said Weakland, who discusses his homosexuality and his handling of clergy sex abuse in the book, "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church," which is due out this month.

St. Mary's is home to Delbarton School, a prestigious boys college preparatory school operated by the Benedictine monks of St. Mary's, about 35 miles from Manhattan.

Giles, who is the former headmaster of the school, said Weakland changed his plans without explanation a week earlier, and that he had no reason to believe controversy surrounding the book played a role.

[Nor do we. The entire thing sounds like nothing more than created press hoo-hah to spur interest and sales of the coming book release by the notoriously dishonest and disreputable Archbishop.]

Weakland said that the day he sent the e-mail offering his withdrawal, the Benedictine community was scheduled to meet to discuss concerns about his move.

"I put in the option that I would withdraw if it was a problem," he said.

Weakland, 82, said he would remain in Milwaukee.

Weakland, who served as Milwaukee archbishop beginning in 1977, retired in 2002 after it was revealed that he had paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of date rape in 1979.

He is a central figure in pending civil fraud lawsuits alleging the Milwaukee Archdiocese moved pedophile priests to other jurisdictions without divulging their histories.

[In which over 200 young boys at a school for the deaf were sexually molested by these 'pedophile priests'.]

Weakland has drawn fire in recent weeks for his revelations in the book, among them an assertion that bishops early on considered sex abuse of minors as a moral evil rather than a crime.

[And oh so amazing and surprising that once he retires, and enough time has legally gone by, he times his book release and self-sexual outing all to coincide at the same time. How about we all take an "offering" to buy this old perverted liar a one-way ticket to someplace else? He's done enough damage in Milwaukee for one lifetime].

Hacky Shackin’

I just finished posting a reply regarding the lousy book "The Shack" on a Facebook site, and thinking about it again now, I believe it is worth posting here to my blog as well. If this book is going to keep popping up every handful of months for a while, maybe someone will stumble across this post first and then not waste their time reading it in the first place.

*****

A very real problem within the Christian faith is the basic tendency among believers to just accept anything that purports to be Christian as actually being Christian.

You see it all over the place. From so-called Christian radio stations that proclaim themselves to be "safe" for the whole family when they play an awful lot of music that isn't only vapid, but downright lousy theologically, to books that teach beliefs that absolutely are not Christian, such as Your Best Life Now, and The Shack.

If a book hits the "Christian Best-Seller" lists, you can bet that someone will give away two dozen copies at Christmas, usually without having read it themselves first; like people did with The Purpose-Driven Life a few years ago. Sadder still is that many professing Christians today have spent so little time learning what the faith truly teaches that even when they do read (or listen to) something themselves, they don't recognize what is correct or not - they just accept that because it is labeled 'Christian' it must be so. And accepting it, they generally assimilate it and disseminate it.

I've had several believers tell me the exact same thing Daniel mentioned above about how because of The Shack they suddenly understand The Trinity; the discussions get hard quick when I point out that what the book "teaches" is in no way representative of what Christianity teaches the Trinity to be.

I get blank stares when I tell them that The Shack teaches modal monarchism: that Father, Son, Holy Spirit are just "modes" or aspects of the same God that the individual perceives for themselves. Basically, that God puts on different masks to appear as we want/need Him to at the time. The Jesus mask comes out when we want a buddy, the Father mask comes out when we need spanked, and so on.

That is absolutely NOT what the Christian faith teaches or believes; it is in fact the exact opposite of what the Trinity (triune nature of our God) is defined as - Three separate and distinct persons who are one being: God. Not one guy swapping out job hats like that guy on Green Acres always did.

So what happens when a believer, or someone close to becoming one gets an idea like what is in that book in their heads as a way to understand or recognize something regarding the Godhead? They end up believing in and worshipping a false image of God, and that is idolatry.

Besides that, putting forth any image of God the Father is a sin in itself, as He is the Invisible God, and we are to make no graven images of Him. Why? One answer is that no matter how talented we are, no matter how hard we try, and no matter how much we do it as an act of love, the best representation of God the Father we will ever attain is nothing at all compared to Him, and all we've done is detract from His glory in making it: given others a smaller 'view' of God.

I read tons of stuff, and I read countless books because others suggest them to me, especially Christians. Some are excellent, some are pretty good or at least offer some solid insight of a sort, some are uplifting and encouraging, but most, and sadly I do mean most books on the shelf of your local Christian Book Store are weak at best, and many (like The Shack) are downright dangerous to the believer. Christians should no more be reading it than they should be reading garbage like The Secret.

I couldn’t not ask…(Amended)

After re-reading the post this morning on Driscoll's site, I added this:

"I should have waited until this morning, and re-read this post before posting it. If I had, I would not have said "what the F*&! are you doing"; because even though I edited the word as far as how I wrote it (F*&!), the implication of what I was saying not only remains the same - but in a case like this, it draws even more attention to it.

I apologize to Pastor Mark, and all who read this for not having taken a breath first, and instead said "what is it you are doing" or something else equally appropriate.

Loren Sanders
Milwaukee, WI"

I couldn’t not ask…

Pretty much anyone who knows me well enough to read this blog with any frequency is aware of the regard I've held for Pastor Mark Driscoll's preaching and teaching the last few years, and for the effect his church has been having in Seattle.

Driscoll has been something of a polarizing agent/subject in American Christianity for some time now, and controversy is part-n-parcel where his ministry is concerned. I have been able to clear any hurdles (real and imagined) regarding him with no real problems…until now.

I just found out yesterday that he is scheduled to speak next month at the Crystal Cathedral, and the idea that he would join arms with Robert Schuller has me very flustered. However, not knowing the details of it all, and knowing his past, I cannot just condemn this appearance – nor can I condone it.

For an average Joe like me to "reach" Driscoll is akin to me easily telephoning Tony Blair to invite him over for tea. The most likely chance seems to be via his Facebook page which shows him interacting on some level with the "fans" who post there. So, on his Facebook "Discussions" page I posted this a few minutes ago…

*****

This is aimed at Pastor Mark, but I am interested in what anyone else thinks as well on the subject.

I got started on your preaching because of Dr. John Piper, and after my initial "That's different!" factor wore off, I proceeded to listen to dozens and dozens of hours of your preaching. I listened through everything that was offered on the site, and downloaded the podcasts each week.

You challenged me, thrilled me, made me say "Amen!" like a grunt yells "Booyah!", and week after week, you encouraged me and helped me keep my tank full. I also read a lot of voices and opinions on you, your preaching, and Mars Hill Church from people I respect like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc, and from people I have no respect at all for like Brian Maclaren and his sidekick Rob Bell.

There have been little bits and pieces here and there I've disagreed with you on, but nothing so major that I stopped listening, stopped reading, or stopped suggesting you to others (something I do not do with anyone but a small handful of preachers/teachers); and I would really love the opportunity to sit down with you over some seriously black coffee one day and discuss those little nagging things a bit as well as just 'shooting the poop'.

The last few months I haven't had the time to listen each week, and have gotten behind on your preaching, but I just yesterday saw that you are set to speak at the Crystal Cathedral next month, and I am concerned as much as I am confused by this. I'm having real trouble understanding how you could go after Joel Osteen as openly and honestly as you have in the near past (and rightly so!) and now be willing to speak at Robert Schuller's mega-glass monstrosity as a guest. How is the line in the sand between Osteen and Schuller's teachings  different for you?

A few years ago I did some real research on Schuller, Osteen, Hinn, Duplantis, Crouch, and a pile of others due to the influence being had on a family member of mine, and came to some very clear-cut conclusions when held to the light of the Bible. That research is socked away somewhere in my attic right now, and is lengthy enough to not be something easily posted and digested here now.

However, the quotes below are from research by others who found much of the same and much similar data in their own research, and are easily verifiable with nothing more than 10 minutes and access to Google. If one were to read the entire work of Schuller that is quoted (and I wouldn't suggest it to any but the most centered and settled believer), they will find that these quotes are not a matter of contextual editing in any way, nor are they rare aberrations in his work, both in books and at the pulpit. Please read theme over, and then I will ask my overall question(s) about your upcoming appearance at the Crystal Cathedral.

'Self-Esteem–The New Reformation' by: Robert Schuller

"What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of His children of their right to divine dignity. … I can offer still another answer: 'Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem'" (p. 14).

"Classical theology defines sin as 'rebellion against God.' The answer is not incorrect as much as it is shallow and insulting to the human being. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity even if he or she is a 'rebellious sinner" (p. 65).

"The core of original sin, then is LOT — Lack of Trust. Or, it could be considered an innate inability to adequately value ourselves. Label it a 'negative self-image,' but do not say that the central core of the human soul is wickedness. … positive Christianity does not hold to human depravity, but to human inability" (p. 67).

"Any analysis of 'sin' or 'evil' or 'demonic influence' or 'negative thinking' or 'systemic evil' or 'antisocial behavior' that fails to see the lack of self-dignity as the core of the problem will prove to be too shallow" (p. 68).

"… the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem. … Sin is  psychological self-abuse. … the most serious sin is one that causes me to say, 'I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.' For once a person believes he is an 'unworthy sinner,' it is doubtful if he can really honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Jesus Christ" (pp. 98-99)

"And what is 'hell'? It is the loss of pride that naturally follows separation from God – the ultimate and unfailing source of our soul's sense of self-respect. 'My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?' was Christ's encounter with hell. In that 'hellish' death our Lord experienced the ultimate horror-humiliation, shame, and loss of pride as a human being. A person is in hell when he has lost his self-esteem. Can you imagine any condition more tragic than to live life and eternity in shame?" (pp. 14-15, 93).

"To be born again means that we must be changed from a negative to a positive self-image --from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 68)].

Also: In an article in Christianity Today, October 5, 1984, Schuller said, "I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition." 

So my question Pastor Mark is: Do YOU actually believe this heretical humanistic horsecrap??? Considering all I have read and listened to from you, if you do believe it, I can honestly say I will not be able to fathom how you do so. If you do not believe the false gospel of garbage that Schuller has sold for decades to itching ears around the world - what the F*&! are you doing speaking at his shining arena of self-idolatry?

Is it your intention to go there, walk to the pulpit, and in front of the thousands there (and the multi-thousands watching on TV) deliver the true cleansing fire of the actual real Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone in that place where it is not only never heard, but often is outright denied? I've listened to you deliver the truth of Christ's gospel from the pulpit of Mars Hill a couple of hundred times now - and I would LOVE to hear you do it there! If your intent is to man up like no one else before you, and go there and bring the noise of Heaven down around Schuller's ears, just say so and I'll have as many people as I can tuning in to watch and cheer.

If it is anything less than that, anything at all less than that, please explain it to me, and to the many thousands of others who've held you up as their shepherd these last few years. It will break an awful lot of hearts, mine included, but if it isn't the truth of God, we deserve and need to know it now. As you yourself know, the great and glorious Father of all creation that I serve allows me no truck with anti-Christs, great or small.

My hope, my prayer, is that your answer will be one that aligns only with the Word of God (as I've so far known it to be in your ministry), and not the Power Of Positive Thinking or any other narcissistic swill.

Loren Sanders
Milwaukee, WI

“Tolerance of diversity”?

People who promote homosexual marriage keep saying over and over again that it has nothing to do with restricting other people's rights in any way (i.e. free speech, etc), and that it is only to allow homosexuals to be legally married in the same way as heterosexuals now are.

That's a lie, always has been, always will be. The intent has always been to force the entire sum of society to openly, wholly, and gleefully accept all things homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, (add any other perversity you can think of) 100%...or be forced to shut up at the very least, sued, fined, and jailed if at all possible. Many in recent years have even begun openly advocating for the killing of any who do not embrace their ideology…this from a crowd that screams 'tolerance' at every opportunity.

Why am I talking about this right now? Because we now have an example that is so completely obviously proof-positive of the true nature of this agenda, that to deny it is akin to denying the existence of advertising that offers erection pills for old geezers.

What is that proof? Read on…

The state of New Hampshire recently approved a bill allowing the practice of same-sex marriage to be legalized within the state. The bill was passed along party lines by a vote of 14-10. Done deal? Almost.

New Hampshire Governor George Lynch, who is himself opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage, stated that unless the bill contained an amendment for the protection of religious liberty, he would veto it. What would the amendment mean?

It would mean that if same-sex became law in New Hampshire, that the law could not be used to force clergy and other people or any religious organization to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies that are in conflict with their beliefs and teachings. Seems pretty reasonable, right?

Since all the pro-homosexual lobbies continually claim they only want to be able to do their own thing, not to stop others from doing theirs, this would actually seem to be a no-brainer, a real "Well…DUH!" if you will. Right?

An amendment to that effect was added to the bill…where it met immediate opposition from an openly homosexual member of the House, who lobbied against it solely due to the amendment for religious protection. The marriage bill that was previously passed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives, failed to pass by a vote of 188-186. Am I serious? YUPPER!

It was as good as done. It was as good as law, placed in their hands with a pretty ribbon tied around it. And they threw it away! Why? Because it limited who homosexuals could marry? No. Because it placed restrictions on how they could marry, or when, or at what age, etc? No. Because it did anything at all to stand in the way of two males, or two females from becoming legally joined as a married couple in every way known and honored by the state of New Hampshire? No!

They loudly claim day in and day out that marriage rights is all they really want, that it is their hearts deepest desire, a burning yearning deep down inside as Diana Ross would say that must be attained. And they have it in their hands, literally gifted to them by a Governor who is opposed to the idea and could have vetoed the bill anyway…and they threw it away!

For one reason only did they throw it all away: Because as it was amended, they could not legally force other people to marry them in their churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. Because it did not allow them to legally harass and destroy people and faith organizations who believe differently than they do.

"Tolerance of diversity". Yeah? Bullshiite!

Ode To Pelosi

Fancy Nancy (by: Mike Huckabee)

Here's a story about a lady named Nancy
A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy
Very ambitious, she got herself elected Speaker
But as for keeping secrets, she proved quite a "leaker."

She flies on government planes coast to coast
And doesn't mind that our economy is toast
She makes the Air Force squire her in their military jets
There's room for her family, her staff, and even her pets.

Until now, she annoyed us, but her gaffes were mostly funny;
Even though it was painful to watch her waste our tax money.
But now her wacky comments are no laughing matter;
She's either unwilling to tell the truth, or she's mad as a hatter!

She sat in briefings and knew about enhanced interrogation;
But claims she wasn't there, and can't give an explanation.
She disparages the CIA and says they are a bunch of liars;
Even the press aren't buying it and they're stoking their fires.

I think Speaker Pelosi has done too much speaking;
And instead of her trashing our intelligence officials, it's her nose that needs tweaking.

If forced to believe whether the CIA and her colleagues in Congress are lying;
Or it's Speaker Pelosi whose credibility and career is dying.
I believe in the integrity of the men and women who sacrifice to keep us safe;
Not the woman who has been caught flat-footed, lying to our face.

I say it here and I say it rather clear-
It's time for Nancy Pelosi to resign and get out of here.

I Seriously Dowd It

According to the AP, NYT columnist Maureen Dowd has admitted that she used a paragraph essentially word for word from a well-known liberal blogger without giving him any credit for it.

In her column, Dowd wrote: "More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall wrote the exact same sentence/paragraph on his blog a week ago, except that he used the words "we were" in the place where Dowd's column used "the Bush crowd was".

In an e-mail to The Huffington Post today, Dowd called it an 'error' and stated that she had never read the original post, and only heard the line from a friend who made no mention of reading it on Marshall's blog.

If we take her at her word, that means she only intended to steal the lengthy line from a friend rather than a sort of peer. Personally, I don't take her at her word, and I don't consider what she did an "error"; an error would have been to misspell Marshall's name or misname who he wrote for when crediting him for the quote. An error would even be not having credited him in the article that saw print, but having drafts/notes that show she intended to do so. What she did is called plagiarism, and anyone who has read any serious amount of Dowd's writing should have no trouble in believing she lacks of integrity and ethics.

The Year I was Born…

On January 14^th of the year I was born, George C. Wallace was sworn in as governor of Alabama. In his inaugural address he said " In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.!"

Lead by such great men as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others, thousands and thousands of people fought for equal rights until President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2^nd, 1964. When signed, the bill also gave those same rights to all women.

Sadly, 45 years later, so many of the very people the Civil Rights Act was created for still choose to themselves to engage in and promote segregation. Such as the homosexual middle school that opened in Milwaukee, WI earlier this year. It's intention is to keep homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders (and the "confused") away from their heterosexual peers under the guise of safety from bullying.

Also on the side of segregation would be the folks taking part in the "Empowerment Experiment" in which black people vow to only "buy black". The notion that the solutions to the problems within the black community will be solved by once again being disengaged from the rest of the country are idiotic, and in my mind, an insult to the thousands who suffered and often died to rid us of such things as "black stores" and "white bathrooms".

Washington Finally Reading Orwell

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who was being interviewed by Janet Porter (heads: Faith2Action), said "when we (Congress) get these radical positions … the public needs to know." in referring to the current bill moving through the U.S. House as a "Hate Crimes" bill that would in actuality provide legal protection for sexual deviancy.

According to King, the bill as written would protect by law all 547 'philias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association; as in, pedophilia, necrophilia, and the rest, "no matter how revolting it might be." He said that he suggested an amendment that would clarify that such things as pedophilia were not protected "sexual" orientations under the law.

That idea and similar other ones were quickly dismissed by Democrats promoting the bill; Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., stated that anyone with any "disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'isms' … need not live in fear."

No wonder that so many are calling it 'The Pedophile Protection act'. If this is made law, and some sicko tries to fondle my little girl at the park, and I bust him in the nose and hold him for the cops, what happens? He gets charged with a misdemeanor, I get charged with a federal felony crime.

King read part of George Orwell's "1984" into the congressional record:

"This is what was written in 1949: 'We don't care about any overt action, it's the thought we care about because if we control the thought, we control the action,"' he said.

"That's where we are today," he warned.

Actress Simple Shepherd

While mouthing off about Proposition 8 recently, 59-year old Cybil Shepherd told FoxNews' "Tart" section:

"I'm a Christian Pagan Buddhist Goddess worshiper, but I'm also a feminist. I think the ultimate glass ceiling is God, in another words, if we think God is a man, then we make man a God, and I studied and learned that there is a whole other history of the worshiping of the great mother," she explained. "I really think that probably God is a woman, that helped me to break through that celestial glass ceiling."

My dog Ellie is a mix of American Coon Hound and German Shepherd, and at 4 years old (which is still only 28 in dog years), she's still at least 10 times brighter than the almost 60 year old has-been actress quoted above. Perhaps she should change her name to Simple Shepherd?

"Look Billy! Necrophilia!!"

Gunther von Hagens "Body Worlds" exhibits have been titillating many people around the globe for a few years now, while they've disgusted and sickened the rest of us.

I've spoken as openly and honestly as I can about how downright ghoulish the entire concept is, and the flat out fact of the matter is that these "exhibits" debase and devalue life at all levels, and they like so many other pieces of society today, only serve to inoculate us further from feelings of compassion and conscience towards one another.

The great lie of it's creator is that his "work" is for educational purposes and no different than any other college level anatomy class - which is utter bunk. Education is not "plastinating" a dead body into a second-hand Hellraiser character and then posing it playing polo, or guitar or Nintendo. Many who write about von Hagens refer to him as an "unorthodox anatomist"; He's actually a twisted taxidermist, and one whose necrophilic urges should see him jailed not lauded.

And as if those previous perversions weren't bad enough (along with all the copycat companies who now follow in his footsteps), his newest exhibit "The Cycle Of Life" which opened in Berlin this week, features a dead and partially peeled couple who are "joined" in the act of copulation!

He has always claimed he uses only donated bodies from people who themselves signed up for his "process" while they were alive, and that every one of them agreed to have their bodies used in this way after death. Really? Since the exhibition includes over 200 human bodies at various stages of life, beginning with embryos and fetuses two weeks after conception all the way through "old age", perhaps he can explain how those children (and all the ones under the legal age of adulthood in fact) could possibly give consent, let along sign themselves away to his freakish funhouse shows?

Sadder still, is that this ghouls "works" have been seen by more than 27 million people world wide so far.

"Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness till thou find none." Psalm- 10:15

Obortion News...

According to the budget plan released Thursday, President Obama intends to completely eliminate all $38 million dollars of spending that is currently given as state grants for abstinence-only education programs.

He is requesting instead that an additional $50 million dollars be added to support existing teen pregnancy programs by Planned Parenthood and others, and to develop more programs like those.

If you don't think that this will have a directly negative impact on the rate of abortions committed in the USA, you really are not paying close attention to reality.

The Year I Was Born…

On January 7^th of the year I was born, first class postage was raised from 4 cents to 5 cents. The current price of standard first class stamp today is 42 cents, and the Post Office just announced that it will be increasing to 44 cents on Monday, May 11^th, 2009. What was actually surprising about the notice of increased rates was that for the first time the USPS openly admitted that rates will continue to increase annually.

G.I. Joe with Bible Burning Action

According to Reuters News Service on Tuesdsay, "Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed".

According to spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis at the air base in Bagram, the Bibles "were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed."

Now the excuse given of course is that trying to convert Muslims to any other faith is against the law in Afghanistan. True enough.

However, consider that the Bibles (sent by a church in the United States to a soldier stationed there) were taken to a "Bible class" being held on the base. The Bible class would be filmed. The Bibles were translated into two local languages: Pashto and Dari.

If someone (a local or not) taking a Bible class on an American military base wants a Bible to read printed in a language they know, and a soldier gets them sent from home to give them (a definite act of showing international good will on a small scale), how is that proselytizing?

And by what has been said and done regarding the incident, my scenario seems not only plausible, but highly likely - or at the very least, pretty close to the mark.

That Major Willis had to publicly "confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip" were in fact "never distributed" in and of itself says what likley really took place: our military, stationed in a foreign country for the sole purpose of bringing/maintaining peace/safety/freedom to the inhabitants/citizens of that country is once again forced by our own leaders to muffle/hide/apologize for what they believe in/stand for to the very people we are saving/freeing/etc from dictators.

This is ultimately no different than when our soldiers were forced to wear black armbands that covered the American flag patches on their sleeves in order to not offend the people who wanted our help in the first place.

Why are so many of our soldiers in recent years falling apart at the seams? Having mental breakdowns, committing morally reprehensible and/or illegal acts, killing themselves? I think it's time that our government recognized that at least part of the problem stems from our leaders being more concerned with international political opinion than they are with the hearts and minds of our G.I.'s.

You take a 20 year old youngster, train them to be a highly efficient soldier, cultivate within them the spirit of a warrior that is willing and ready to fight and die for what they believe in day after day in the arena of war...and then tell them to apologize for what they are, to deny who they are, to be ashamed of being what they were made to be.

How do you do that and not expect their hearts, their minds, and their very souls to get hopelessly screwed up in the process?

And here now, our "leaders" are so worried about offending the OPEC nations that we now have not only our soldiers, but military chaplains no less - the spiritual guides for our troops - burning bibles!! What is wrong with this picture?

Here's another picture. One from 75 years ago. One of other soldiers (and then citizens) burning Bibles at the command of their "leaders". Recognize it?

The Year I was Born…

On January 4th, as the space race continued to heat up, the Soviet Luna 4 managed to attain Earth orbit, but failed to reach the moon as intended; but 1963 did see the United States successful launch of Syncom 2 in July, which was the first geosynchronous communications satellite which allowed ordinary citizens to begin using satellite-mediated communications transmissions for television broadcasts. Whether or not that was a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

Unless you are a federal employee…

It now looks as if you are considered a terrorist threat by DHS…unless you are a federal employee. Below are a handful of other people and groups that DHS targeted as possible terrorists in a memo that came out 2 weeks before the one that claimed that pro-lifers, Perot voters, and military veterans were the groups that bore watching. The actual memo can be downloaded here, and the full WND article (who of course bear watching themselves! <g>) can be accessed here.

In this memo, dang near everybody who is not a federal agent or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was pointed out as being suspect. Of course since they pulled it back almost immediately, and then 2 weeks later issued the full report that compares me (being pro-life) to Timothy McVeigh, it would seem that they believe everyone who isn't them is a threat…but they needed to narrow it down against the most dangerous groups first like home school moms and people who may own pick-up trucks.

The people most likely to be set on destroying America (in no particular order) per the Department of Homeland Security:

The tax protest movement – "members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

People who are pro-life – "those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

People opposed to issuing Driver's licenses or national ID cards to illegal immigrants – "groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals."

Also on the list are: Black separatists, animal rights activists, environmentalists, Jewish extremists, and of course, skinheads who worship Thor & Odin!

This entire thing is so outrageous as to be unbelievable (except that it can all be verified!). I also find it interesting that they specifically target a number of groups…

• Phineas Priesthood
  
• Christian Identity (who rape and defame the Christian faith by claiming their sick views line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ)
  
• Jewish extremists
  
• Violent religious sects (specifically referencing Xenophobes)
  

  
  

Nowhere in the entire memo (or in the later report) do they ever mention radical Islamists, or any form of Jihadist at all as being a possible terrorist threat to America. They included hate groups like Anglo-Israel who (falsely!) claim to be "Christian", and Jews who are willing to kill for religious or ethnic reasons, but nowhere do they once mention any of the religious whack-jobs from a Muslim background.

Seriously, we are always being told that the majority of Muslims in the world are lovely peaceful folks and it is only a small number of kooks like Al-Qaida who "hi-jack the Muslim faith" for violent and dangerous uses right? So why then are those groups nowhere to be seen in these reports and memos from DHS?

Because they state at the beginning of the report that it involves non-Islamic extremists only? Because apparently there is no one at DHS who is the slightest bit worried about these psycho wing-nuts ability to operate domestically? Has the entire agency reverted completely to the idiotic pre 9/11 mindset of "Can't happen here"?

I should be more concerned with my workplace, local concert venue, or kids school being blown up by Constitutionalists, Peta, Tea Partiers, the Indigo Girls (they wear Doc Martens you know!), and even Neo-Luddites (fer cripes freakin' sake!), than I should with it being attacked by some group of Osama followers who believe that all Americans are the children of Satan and must be killed?

There has been an outcry by a number of groups (not yet loudly enough) for Janet Napolitano to be fired from her position as head of the Department of Homeland Security. After the initial flap of this pile of garbage came out I agreed with that, but the higher the stench rises as the number of ingredients in this pot of excrement continues to be revealed, the more I'm beginning to think the whole stupid agency should be completely closed down; there obviously isn't anyone in it with a brain in their head.

TWITtering is right!

On Wednesday the 22^nd, 2009, in its "Pop Tarts" section, Fox News.com writer Hollie McKay spent nearly the entire column going on about all the Hollywood long since has-beens (e.g. Alicia Silverstone, George Takei) and never even have-beens (Sophia Bush, Drew Droege (Seriously, how big a nobody do you have to be to not rate a wiki page? Even Cap'n Crunch has one!) who are spouting off against traditional views on marriage in hopes that it will generate some work for them via the publicity they get for doing it.

During the course of the article, McKay wrote:

"Even Miley Cyrus had something to say to Perez Hilton on the issue.

"[I] am a christian and i love you - gay or not. BECAUSE you are no different that anyone else! we are all gods children! i am not saying this so would be nice on your site (though that would be nice jk;) but because the LORD has spoken "love cuz god loves" hey!!! what about me??? would i make a good miss usa?? ;)""

Even if we were to correct all of the spelling and punctuation errors, we would still find that Miley Cyrus in fact did not actually have anything to say. Maybe if she spent half as much time reading a Bible as she does 'twittering', she would find that her "knowledge" of what the Lord has said is as skewed and poorly formed as her grammar – though I doubt it.

McKay also wrote:

"Heidi Montag, another committed Christian, also twittered her thoughts.

"[L]esbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage. God says not to judge and I would never try to judge ANYONE! Nor should our "free" country," "The Hills" starlet wrote."

Let's see, the 23 year-old Montag is most known for being filmed living with different men while not being married to them for 'reality' TV shows on MTV, and hanging out at Girls Gone Wild parties. That surely makes her qualified to weigh in on what is right or wrong about the laws and traditions governing marriage for several hundreds of years.

While I've often heard folks put other terms before Christian when self-identifying (e.g. African-American Christian, Conservative Christian, etc), I can honestly say this is the first time I've seen someone place something as asinine as hair color in front of their other identifiers. And while I do appreciate that in her 'twittering', Montag (unlike Cyrus) took the time to properly capitalize the words "Christian" and "God", the lifestyle she is leading combined with the weakness of her supporting arguments are ample reason to quickly dismiss her naïve and ignorant thoughts.

What gets me though, is that here we have a young woman who is leading a lifestyle that while typical of a great many people in the country today (sans the TV cameras in your bathroom!), is not one that anyone with ANY depth of knowledge of what being a Christian means would ever refer to as being committed. But McKay had no qualms in labeling Montag as a "committed Christian" based solely on her calling herself a "blonde Christian" while posting on Twitter? PUH-leeze!!!

Obortion News

While on the campaign trail in the summer of 2007, (then Senator) Obama stated during an address to Planned Parenthood "The first thing I will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The statement was met with rousing approval as the measure in question would codify Roe v.Wade into a federal law that remove all restrictions on abortion contained in state statutes, including those laws regarding parental notification, and the horror that is late-term abortion.

In his third prime-time news conference, which marked his 100^th day serving as President of the United States, he stated that he is more interested in finding ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and especially unwanted teen pregnancies. "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority." he said. Obama also added, "both sides must recognize abortion is both a moral and an ethical issue," and "proponents of abortion rights are mistaken when they say abortion is merely "about women's freedom" without recognizing any other consideration."

While his remarks to the pro-abortion crowd were true and I appreciated them, and while I am grateful that in the last 100 days he has not signed that morally bankrupt piece of legislation, there is still no cause for real celebration by those of us who are Pro-Life. Nothing has changed in this battle for the lives of the unborn, we've merely been graced with a few months breathing room on this one aspect of the issue; there are so many other ways that the Pro-Abortion crowd are marching forward that we would be fools to lower our guards in any way over this one statement by the President.

Case in point is the confirmation of Kathy Sebelius as the 21^st Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama Administration. Her record of support for, and financial support from, notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller while serving as the Governor of Kansas should've on its own precluded her ever being nominated to such a position in the first place.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants" - Deuteronomy 30:19 (NASB)