Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |

 

This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?




The 9-percent Senate: A Body of Asses

Democrat Senate Passed 94% of Bills without Debate or Roll Call Vote
--by Josiah Ryan, July 28, 2008


Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) dismissed Democratic claims of obstructionism and expressed outrage last week over a government report that shows the majority of bills that have passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress have done so without any debate or even a vote.

“The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability,” Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.

“This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I’m disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery,” he added.

Coburn was referring to a non-partisan study released on June 10 by the government’s Congressional Research Service (CRS), which indicates that 855 of the 911 bills passed by the Senate of the 110th Congress have been streamlined by Democratic Party leadership with a procedural tactic known as Unanimous Consent (UC), which requires no debate or even a vote.

With the Senate’s traditional August recess about to start, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly accused Republicans, however, and especially Coburn and DeMint, of blocking UC on legislation that he says is critical to the well-being of many Americans.



There's your Democratic controlled Senate for ya. The Democratic controlled Senate so superior to the previous Senate it's intellectually incapable of debating the issues.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:20 PM, , links to this post





Russians, Vodka, Pigs, Rockets























Click here for the short but humorous photo-essay.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 9:59 PM, , links to this post





Obama Wrote a Letter


From MonicaMemo.com:

Change He Can Steamroll

--Monica Crowley


Last week, the Obama campaign sent out a letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that made two points, one implicit and the other explicit.

The implicit point is that Obama himself has no problem raising money for his own campaign, and he's got the presidency in the bag.

The explicit point is that since Obama's already won this thing, he's asking donors to focus on supporting Democratic candidates for Congress. Said the letter, "We must have a deadlock-proof Democratic majority."


Who said this man wasn't dangerous?



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 9:34 PM, , links to this post





Pithy Reviews:


The Dark Knight

A two and a half hour apologetic treatise in defense of George W. Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror. Great film. No... it was much much more than simply "great." It deserves every dollar it earns. And yes, Ledger's performance was, in my estimation, Oscar worthy.

If it's still in the theater the end of August, I'll see it again. And it's definitely on my list of DVD's to acquire.



The X-Files- "I Want to Believe"

If nothing else, it is a satisfying look into the future lives of Dana Scully and Fox Mulder. Tremendously satisfying. Aside from the voyeuristic delight of watching Scully and Mulder engaged in an intimate supportive relationship, there's the story itself... remember the episode where the guy grew his head back after submerging himself in a tub full of iodine? Mary Shelley and her hideous progeny would have been shocked by this film.

This movie will only be appreciated by X-Philes. If you're one of those who wants to believe, you may come away disappointed.

I would have seen this again had I the time and money. I will buy the DVD.


Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:51 PM, , links to this post





The Audacity of Transition

Barack Obama spent a dizzying day delivering a speech to tens of thousands of Germans. As he stood under the tower of Winged Victory in Berlin, he spoke of bringing the globe together as a "citizen of the world." One world rhetoric, and all that.

For the audience at home, he tossed in a helpful reminder that he also hearts America: "I love America," he said, face all studied earnestness. (Interestingly, neither John F. Kennedy nor Ronald Reagan had to be prompted to speak of their love of their country while there.)

Meanwhile, reports surfaced that while he is seducing Europe, his team is preparing for the transition to the White House. This is hardly a shocker since his entire repertoire has been based upon acting as if he's already president.

In their "trip and transition" euphoria, however, Team Obama seems to be making what could be a fatal error...


--Monica Crowley, MonicaMemo.com


Wow! Talk about Audacity!



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:45 PM, , links to this post





Twenty Years Unmoving, Twenty Minutes Saying Nothing

Three Quotes From...


Sweet Nothings
A close reading of The Speech.
--Andrew Ferguson, The Weekly Standard

When his handlers decided to schedule a speech in Berlin, they teed up comparisons with the portentous speeches that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had delivered there.

Instead, in the heart of Europe, before 200,000 breathless admirers*, Obama pulled himself up to his full height, lifted his chin, unlimbered those eloquent hands, and said nothing at all.


"The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

[That] sentence is the heart of the speech and an instance of Obama's big weakness--his preference for the rhetorical flourish over a realistic account of things as they are. Most politicians share the weakness, and the preference has proved wildly attractive to Obama's supporters. But think it through: "New walls to divide us" is just a metaphor, a trope. A trope can't be the "greatest danger of all." A terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in London--that's a danger. A revolution in Islamabad--that's a danger. A figure of speech is just a figure of speech.


Obama couldn't come to Berlin and deliver a speech full of portent, as Reagan and Kennedy did before him, and as his publicists suggested he might. For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It's not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed.



Personal Note: And this is what has bothered me for so long about Barack Obama... he never really says anything. He speaks well, and strings together a lot of artfully crafted sentences that seem to say something; he gives the appearance of having said something "portentous," but in the end what has he really said? Nothing. And millions are swayed by the empty grandiosity of his finely crafted rhetoric.

The fact that so many are swooning for this political caricature really points to a deficiency in this present world's ability to separate cold hard logic and analysis from sweeping passionate rhetoric. It's as though the world has forgotten how to think. Ferguson describes it this way:

Anyone who wants to understand Barack Obama would do well to stay away from the radio and the TV. Obama is a theatrical presence. That's what it means to be "charismatic": To an unnerving degree his appeal relies on sight and sound rather than sense. Better, in my opinion, to stick to the printed word. On paper (or the computer screen) his words can be thought about and chewed over. You can understand him at your own pace, undistracted by that rich baritone, the regal bearing, the excellent drape of his Burberry suits.


What we see on television is a puppet show. What we hear on the radio is a carefully crafted sales pitch. But the printed word cannot be anything other than what it is.


----
* A number now believed to be hugely over-blown.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:23 PM, , links to this post





Betsy Does a Great Workup on the Messiah's "Berliner"

[Gypping a portion of her post. Follow the link to read it all....]


Attempting a War Speech Without a War

As far as Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, I think Charles Krauthammer, as usual, summed it up the best on Brit Hume's show.

I think there was a problem of scale in this speech. After all, the disparity between the grandness of the venue, the vastness of the crowd, and the smallness of this speech was quite striking.

This has been a week for reviewing what made this venue so historic - the speeches by JFK in 1963 and Reagan's speech in 1987. What made those speeches so great was how they fit into the context of their times. When JFK declared that he was a Berliner, he was proclaiming American support for West Berlin which, without American support in 1948 and later, would have been swallowed into the rest of East Germany. He was responding to the Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall to keep their citizens imprisoned in Eastern Europe. When you read either JFK's famed Inaugural Address or his Berlin speech, his strength of purpose is not something you hear today from Democrats. Compare that Inaugural Address with Obama's speech. Could Obama say this?

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Or what JFK said in 1963 in Berlin.

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

When Reagan spoke in 1987 he was defying the seeming consensus that we should simply learn to live with the Soviet Union. What we forget is that Reagan was not popular when he traveled to Europe in the 1980s. The Wall Street Journal reminds us today that Reagan faced hundreds of thousands of protesters in 1987.

It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship.

So, despite our being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama didn't frame his speech yesterday in that context, although he did tell the Germans that we should fight together against a variety of ills in the world. His theme was not about one specific enemy as we faced in the Cold War, but how we need to unite as one against a whole host of enemies and global problems: terrorism, militants in Afghanistan, the spread of nuclear weapons, working with Russia, improving trade, tensions with Iran, problems with Iran, conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians, helping Iraq, and global warming. The very breadth of his list that it is "our moment" to confront is so broad that it loses meaning. All he has are aspirations rather than any substance behind what he is "hoping" to accomplish.



Everything I heard was.... uhhh, umm, um, and uhh.... the man is worthless without a teleprompter. The man cannot think-- let alone talk --on his feet. It was all platitude, all self-loathing [the "America is bad" kind] donkey-swill. The most disgusting display was his refusal to go and visit the troops after he was told he couldn't bring a camera crew.

This trip is supposed to make him look "presidential"? He played at being president the whole time, but why hasn't his percentages zoomed skyward? Perhaps because he's campaigning in front of people who can't vote for him.

From the tail end of Betsy's post, a quote from David Frum:

In all these phrases — and many more — there is always something missing: human beings. It was not a “shadow” that spread across Eastern Europe in 1945. It was an army. Nor is it “materials” and “secrets” that build bombs — it is bomb-makers. It was not “networks” that struck in Madrid and London and the rest. It was terrorists acting in the name of Islam.

....Obama’s vague language is the product of an unrealistic mind. He denies the reality of conflict — and flinches from the obligations of self-defense. Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices.


Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:58 PM, , links to this post





I Teeter Between Sputtering Indignation and Guffaws

Heard portions of this read on talk radio today... Here's just a few paragraphs


He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

--Gerard Baker, July 25, 2008


And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.


...read the rest at The Times Online.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 4:11 PM, , links to this post





She Said, She Said, I Concur... On Both Counts

She Said:

I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did, because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child.

--Michelle Obama, Denver July 16, 2008


Funny. I don’t see Michelle worried about the children who’ll die if her husband passes the FOCA through upon his election.

What’s another 1.3 million aborted children a year when Michelle O’s children could benefit so much from their father’s election?


--Englishqueen01, 1st commenter at MichelleMalkin.com documenting this same story


Yes, Michelle, the world will be a scary place if your man is not elected. Point of fact, it's already scary with some one million-plus babies being aborted every year already. The life of some child WILL be devastated if your man is not elected. The life of some child will be devastated REGARDLESS of who gets elected. Children will still go hungry whoever wins the White House. Children will still lose mothers and fathers. Children will still be beaten, abused, raped, kidnapped, murdered...... Children will still cry.

But...

More children will be devastated should YOUR man get elected and sign FOCA. More, Michelle, not less. Besides, just because your man gets elected doesn't mean the human heart will somehow be cleansed of all the evil that ultimately devastates not just the lives of children, but the lives of men and women as well. Your man is not God. He is not a messiah. His heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked..." just like everyone else's.

Both of you need shorter horses.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:55 PM, , links to this post





"It Matters Not"


I have stood on the sands of Normandy where American giants gained a foothold to reclaim a continent. We left free, stable and prosperous democracies for tens of millions and only our graves behind. We will do the same in Iraq. Hate us for what you want. It matters not.

--Patrick B, Florida, USA
[in comments at "Eventually, we will all hate Obama too"







Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:43 PM, , links to this post





Rush: Drive-by's and Obama Usurp the Presidency


There has to be a backlash, folks, on this media coverage of The Messiah. There just has to be a backlash against the Drive-By Media. I was telling Snerdley in our kitchen back there, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lenin, Stalin never got this kind of coverage from their media. And they owned it! And they dictated to it! I mean, this is amazing. McCain gets off the plane in New Hampshire yesterday with one reporter and one cameraman. The Drive-Bys talk about themselves all the time, and now they're defending this, and they're analyzing this. David Rodham Gergen at CNN said Obama made a big, big mistake. There's only one president at a time, and he's out there negotiating with Maliki and all these other foreign leaders as though he's the president. Now, it's a mistake if Obama pays for it. I don't know how he's going to pay for it, but I'll tell you, we got countless examples of it. The Messiah did a presser today in Amman, Jordan, and the media is all upset because they chose an outdoor site for the presser, and the media had to sit there and sweat waiting for Obama and conducting the press conference.

[...] [Read the full text of Rush's monologue by clicking on this posts title]



I watched the press conference and I heard the answers. I heard the answers. I didn't hear too many questions. I mean, the questions were asked, but I don't know what the questions were. A couple of reporters got to a microphone, you could hear their questions, but I got Obama's answers, I don't know what he was answering. But I'll tell you, one thing I noticed, he was stuttering like Ed Koch. I told Cookie, put together a montage of this, uh, uh, uh. It was bad, folks. He was stumbling all over.

There's a line of reasoning, a New Media template that has surfaced, ladies and gentlemen, to support the trip by The Messiah, Obama, to the Middle East, and it is this. Americans don't care whether the surge worked; they're not interested in the surge. David Shuster at DNC television made it plain on Scarborough's show, Americans don't care about that, the surge. That can't possibly help McCain, the surge. All the American people want is for the war to be over. They just want out. They want out; they don't care about the surge. This is very clever on the part of the Drive-Bys because Obama's all over the place on the surge. Even after it's worked, he was asked by Terry Moran of ABC News. (We've got this audio sound bite coming up here. I'm just setting the table.) He was asked if knowing what he knows now, would he go back and support it.

He said, "No, I wouldn't have supported the surge," and he essentially says that he wouldn't have supported it 'cause he needed a political disagreement with George Bush to get the Democrat nomination. I'll tell you, the arrogance of this guy is breathtaking, the arrogance of the media. I tell you, there's going to be a backlash on the part of the American people aimed at the Drive-By Media, when all this is said and done. People, even the Drive-Bys themselves, are talking about it. Now, here's a little entry from Politico.com. "It may not sway many voters," they say, "but on Friday, as Obama embarked on an extended trip abroad intended in large part to relieve concerns about his commander-in-chief bona fides, the terms of debate in Iraq began a dramatic shift that appears to favor his candidacy. President Bush, who had been opposed to any timetable for removing American forces from Iraq reached an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki to set a general time horizon for a withdrawal."
Now, what's happening here is that all of this stuff just coincidentally happens at the same time that The Messiah is on the ground in the Middle East, and Drive-Bys are actually portraying this as Petraeus agrees with Obama, Maliki agrees with Obama, all of these people involved agree with him. That is how this is being portrayed. It is transparent; it is obvious. Anyone who pays scant attention can see what is going on here. There is no longer a media in this country. There is simply an established propaganda arm for the Democrat Party and any and all who relate to it in any way, elected and unelected. So Obama goes to Afghanistan and says he would send more troops there. This is after the president and the secretary of defense and our NATO patterns have already said they were going to deploy more troops there, weeks and even months before Obama says it.

But the media report this as if it is some kind of great new thinking originating with Obama, that nobody else has had the idea, and that now everybody's agreeing with Obama after he has said it. And they're doing this not under the cover of darkness. They're doing this with all of this watching. They figure they can get away with this because they haven't reported what's been going on in Afghanistan; they haven't reported the success in Iraq, and so when Obama comes along and says something about it... There's a story here in the stack about the media is excusing their slavish reporting on Obama by saying, "Hey, we're doing good work here. We're covering a bunch of stories while reporting on Obama. We're covering the surge. We're covering Iraq. We're covering Afghanistan. We're covering the Middle East." Of course the rejoinder to that is, "Well, you could have been doing that all along, long before Obama ever got there."

But since Obama's going there, now a lot of these reporters are reporting on this for the first time, and they're actually saying that what Obama's policies are, what his statements while on the trip and before now are being adopted by everybody, fulfilling my prediction that this trip is specifically designed to raise to these lofty heights of statesmanship Barack Obama, when he clearly has no idea what he's talking about -- as you shall hear soon when we get to the audio sound bites. Now, in Iraq, the goal has been to draw down our troop levels, and that's been announced repeatedly over the last several weeks. The White House, the president, they've all talked about this. Now because of some general agreement to do that over time, Obama is said to have promoted this and the policy is his and that everybody in the region is agreeing with him.

Furthermore, the surge doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter because the American people don't care about the surge; they just want the war to be won and to be ended. Well, the surge is the reason the war is going to be won! We could lose it still by pulling out too soon. Mookie's boys and the Iranians are sitting around salivating, waiting for their chance to get back in there, 'cause they don't believe the Iraqis are fully capable. Obama also -- you know what? You know why the surge worked, folks? You know what Obama said why the surge worked? It had nothing to do with our military, very little to do with the military. The Iraqis finally got their political act together. That's why the surge worked. The facts regarding Iraq are these: Obama opposed the surge, and he did so repeatedly. He was dead wrong. The surge has worked, which he had to admit.

But he's only done that begrudgingly because Obama cannot and will not accept the political consequences of his own idiotic comments, and he's not going to be held to them because the Drive-Bys are giving him credit for starting the whole withdrawal process. Now, the fact that our government and the Iraqi government make arrangements for the Iraqi government to take over most military responsibilities, giving us the ability to reduce our presence there, is not some shocking new revolutionary undertaking because the former "community activist" came up with the idea. This is laughable. It is insultingly laughable that all this is happening 'cause Obama had the idea, but they're honestly telling us this, they are portraying it precisely this way. Do you realize how absurd and irresponsible all of this is?

One other thing, too.
Since when does a candidate for president traveling to these countries as a sitting senator presume to make US policy in any event? He's a candidate. We already have a president, and Obama is pimping Bush's ride. Bush has done all the heavy lifting here. It was Bush and only Bush, in terms of US politics. I'm not trying to leave out the military, please don't misunderstand. Bush has had the entire Democrat Party, including Obama, lined up against him trying to destroy him, trying to destroy victory, trying to ensure defeat. It's insulting to listen to this pap, this flummery that Obama is some brilliant statesman who is responsible for all these new policies, which have been the general idea since the get-go in terms of how to get out of there: Stay until the Iraqis could protect themselves and then scram. Obama came up with this?

I mean, even David Gergen on CNN had to say this is not good. This is not good. He's not the president. There's only one president at a time, and candidates don't run around making policy on the part of the United States. Now, in addition to this being more evidence of Obama's uncontrollable arrogance, it is unacceptable behavior. It is just unacceptable behavior. We have one foreign policy in this country, but the Democrats have been trying to sabotage it, with Pelosi going over to Syria, a number of other Democrats going over, trying to undermine the policy. If Obama wants to change US foreign policy, fine, but he has to be elected first. If he is sitting with these world leaders, working out details with them, it is a disgrace.

To come out of these meetings and announce that he is committed to sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan or that he and the Iraqis agree to some timetable, it is dangerous. It is pathetic. He has no constitutional authority to negotiate anything or to represent this country in these discussions. He simply doesn't have the authority, moral or otherwise. Yet he is being granted that authority by the Drive-By Media. The Drive-By Media are making this sound like, "Finally, we have a leader who knows how to handle these situations." It is pathetic, it is disgraceful to watch this unfold before our very eyes, and it is laughable. It is egregious to sit here and watch the Drive-Bys defend themselves on this. There is going to be a backlash, and there's going to be a backlash against Obama on this, too. The Drive-Bys will notice it way too late.




Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:21 PM, , links to this post





The Man Who Would Be President

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

--B. Hussein Obama, West Lafeyette, IN Wednesday July 16, 2008



Which "bomb?" There were hundreds if not thousands of bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor. Or was he confusing Hiroshima with Pearl? Just like he's already been to 57 states with one more to go, not counting Alaska and Hawaii? Like his 8-10 year presidency?

Words cannot adequately express how much I loathe this man's inexperience, befuddlement, out-right lies, arrogance, snobbery, racism, condescension, and gall. God help us all if this Media puppet actually wins the White House.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 7:30 PM, , links to this post





Media Idolatry, Dem "Dog and Pony Show," & Government's Inability to Urinate

It's getting harder and harder to believe Media ISN'T just another 527 in the tank and up the butts of Liberal Democrats. Congress' approval rating sits at 9% but all Media can do is give free time to Democrats who tout Bush's-- whose approval rating is 3 times Congresses at 28% --"failed" policies. Reid and Pelosi have done nothing they promised to do.

Nothing.

Pelosi promised a better energy policy and has yet to deliver. What she and Reid HAVE delivered is continued refusals to drill for our own reserves. She and other prominent democrats claim drilling on our own soil will not produce a single gallon of gasoline tomorrow, next month... maybe not even ten years from now. They want to push green technology. That's all fine and dandy, but there's no guarantee what they desire will provide any relief tomorrow, next month, let alone ten or even twenty years from now. Just to be clear, the day wind, clean electric, or solar power gets an Airbus filled to traveling capacity into the air, is the day I'm mouldering in a grave 50+ years from now... if then.

Al Gore's proposal is admirable: to replace ALL the energy currently produced by coal, oil, gas, etc. with wind, clean electric, and solar by 2018. Cost? 2-3 Trillion dollars. Admirable, yes. But not particularly practical. Who'll pay for it? We will. How? More taxes on top of what Obama already wants to levy on us? Admirable, but not gonna happen... the 2018 part.

Bail out Social Security first. Democrats want to privatize something? Allow Americans the option of privately owning their own Social Security deferred retirement accounts. Cost? 2-3 trillion. But that'll never happen. Why? Because it's a relinquishment of power, and Democrats aren't about giving power back to the people. The perception of power, yes. But only so long as government gets to hold the leash.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:37 PM, , links to this post





No Need to Nationalize Education...

...The Liberal Arts, and Genuine Accountability Can Cure a Multitude of Educational Ills.

Last time I checked a world class education consisted of reading the classics of world literature and philosophy, learning to write cohesive sentences that form a paragraph and ultimately result in an essay, an understanding of math and physical sciences principles and a grasp of history. It is what is derisively called liberal arts today, but back in the day mastering these topics made one "educated."

Nowhere in my curriculum for a world class education is there time to learn how to put a condom on a cucumber or how I should feel as opposed to how I should think.

--Scott,
Commenter at "Obama and the Independent School District"--AmericanThinker.com

Why is everyone clamoring to nationalize everything from health care to the oil industry to education? All this has been tried before by a multitude of peoples and governments, and it has failed every time. Barack Obama's statement,

"...[F]rom the moment they're born to the day they graduate college."

conjures up frightening images of educational malfeasance and incompetence. America can't afford Barack H. Obama.. both literally AND figuratively.

To quote the Russian prophet Nikita Khruchev:

A shot will never have to fired on the U.S., because they will destroy themselves from within.




Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:18 AM, , links to this post





The Obama Campaign: Desperate & Hemorrhaging?


Big O Losing Big Mo
--by Lisa Fabrizio, July 16, 2008

Poor Barack Obama. In the space of a few short weeks, he has gone from liberal savior with a 15 point lead over John McCain, to a mere mortal in a dead heat in the polls. He has alienated some of his base by flip-flopping on issues like the FISA vote, partial-birth abortion and most importantly, stating that he will continue to "refine" his Iraq War policy.

In addition to his change of position on issues, he's been slapped down by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on his plans to conduct a photo-op at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, had his call for bilingualism rejected by 83% of voters polled and been vocally castrated by his predecessor as the so-called voice of American blacks.

Even worse for him, just last week a CNN poll showed that support for Obama among Democrats has dropped five points in the last month. And the number of Clinton backers who say they will not vote for Obama has risen to nearly one third over the same period; so much for the healing of old wounds and repairing party unity.....

So much for "Change We Can Believe In." The man wrestles truth like its Play-Doh-- it's whatever he wants and shapes it to be. Typical Liberal Democrat. What has he "Changed?" His position on just about everything. On top of this there's talk of desertion among his super delegates.

If the Obamessiah is the penultimate cat's meow, why isn't he blowing McCain out of the political water? Obama has no experience to really speak of that should qualify him for the title and position of President of the United States.

...When you lack a good record-- well, when you lack a record, period, 143 days [in the U.S. Senate], you're a community organizer in Chicago working for a corrupt voter registration unit called ACORN, when you have a record that insignificant and then you have to embark on a campaign to conceal the real you, such as your buds Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, this is what you do: you try to divert attention with emotional appeals and rants.

--Rush Limbaugh

Yeah he talks a good talk, but even that is becoming old hat.

And it's not just the right wing clearly seeing the chinks in the Messiah's armor... From a man who just wants his party back.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 1:12 AM, , links to this post





What's Clear, Unclear, & What's Contemptible


Winning freedom for Kantar was one of the reasons Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah cited at the time for going to war with Israel in 2006.

[...]

On Tuesday [July 15, 2008], Hezbollah's commander in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, called the swap an "official admission of defeat" for Israel.



It's clear how little Islam values life. If the comment by Hassan Nasrallah is to be believed, a war was started to free one man. Irrespective of any other reason in starting the 2006 month-long war, that the freedom of ONE man was among them clearly shows they are willing to throw away hundreds of lives on their own side to acquire the freedom of one man.

It's clear that Islam knows how to push Israel's button. What isn't clear, however, is whether or not Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were alive immediately after their capture; it is possible that they died shortly after their capture from wounds received during. But it's also very clear that Israel values the lives of their prisoners far more than does Islam-- exchanging live men for coffins. What's not clear is whether or not Gilad Schalit is alive.

What's contemptible is Islam's lousy track record in maintaining the health of its prisoners. Equally contemptible is Israel's leadership during and after the 2006 war. One should never start a fight he doesn't have the stomach to finish. The truth of this is similarly borne out in the Democrat party's political stance-- its own Waterloo --from which they seek to undermine our own fight against Islam.

The best thing that could happen to Israel would be to lose Ehud Olmert as Prime Minister. The best thing that could happen to the Democrat party... well... let's not go there.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:43 AM, , links to this post





Seeds of Propensity, Dogs of War


EVERYONE is born in sin. Sin being evil, everyone is inherently evil... that is to say, everyone has that "Seed of Propensity" planted in the soil of his heart. But to clarify "evil" : Killing unborn children is evil. Murdering 6 million Jews is evil, but so is lying. So is petty theft. So is selfishness. ALL sin is evil in God's eyes, which is why God felt it necessary to take on mortal flesh and perform what no human could...

Tendencies for good do lie in every human heart, but so too are tendencies for evil.

An old Indian warrior once related to a prairie preacher that inside him lived two dogs constantly at war with each other; one was light, the other dark. Curious, the preacher asked which one was winning. The old man replied, "The one I feed the most."

The same is true of us. We may be good at heart, by man's standard... we may feed, in the sight of men, the dog which represents our tendencies for good. But the other dog is still there, unvanquished.

Until Christ returns and redeems our bodies we will live in a perpetual state of war with the other dog.











[Originally published as a comment at Shared Thoughts...]



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 1:05 AM, , links to this post





Provisional Circumstances, Heresy, & the Genuine Seeker

[What follows is an adaption and expansion of a comment here]


In previous posts it has been established that the "norm" for Godly marriage, that is to say, God's original intent--providing a mate for Adam --was one woman for one man, for the express purpose of procreation. And though it is not expressly stated, for pleasure as well.

As an aside, and not part of this discussion: I arrive at that last statement quite simply: If God had not intended sex to be pleasurable, He would not have made it pleasurable. After all, it's one thing to be told not to cross a specific line-- a line that is wholly external in terms of one's own physical senses --but it is quite another to make sinful the sensations of skin and nerve endings; the mechanics of flesh and sensation cannot be extricated from our flesh, nor the emotions we attach to various sensations. We are what God made us: sensory beings. The problem lies in using our inextricable sensations as excuse for behavior outside ourselves, beyond the line of permissibility; i.e., fornication, homosexuality, bestiality. No longer is the act confined to one's own flesh, but now the sin involves crossing a line. A line God has said is only acceptable within the confines of marriage. And only between one man and one woman.

Marriage then, being the rule, God drew more lines: Homosexuality and Bestiality were clearly and expressly declared forbidden.

Yet many so-called Christians today-- even calling themselves Evangelical --are turning away from the original intent [or design] for marriage, and are deliberately blurring and even erasing the lines God drew. They make allowances for behavior the LORD God expressly declares an abomination. They condone and celebrate the abomination, and play at Exegetical Twister to rationalize their heretical views.

Would that this problem resided in but a few wayward congregations, but it is a growing trend, and a trend represented in almost every Christian denomination. The biggest problem seems to lie within the Emergent Church, and among the larger more liberal congregations; those that do not preach the blood of Christ, or the penalty of sin, among other failings.

Recent conversations have illuminated a number of errors in interpretation:

First, the idea that because a 'Sin' is not specifically mentioned in language a 21st century reader can understand, allowances can and should be made to reflect the changing of the times. Social mores change with each new generation, so too must the Bible, lest it slip into irrelevance.

The problem with this argument is that the language is Quite plain. In sixteen different translations the truth is indelibly etched; no longer the tradition of men, as some argue, but engraved in the very stone of scripture. Using Leviticus 18:22 as an example:



CEV: (Contemporary English Version, 1995, American Bible Society) "It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man."

Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination."

DRB: (Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination."

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

GNB: (Good News Bible): "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."

HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable."

KJV: (King James Version, 1611) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The Message: "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent."

NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

NASV: (New American Standard Version, 1960) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."

NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

NKJV: (New King James Version) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

NLV: (New Life Version, 1969) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is a sinful thing."

Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]."


These verse don't neglect to address committed relationships because they deny the act to any pair of men. The English is clear; by saying "a man" the verse is saying, in effect, "ANY" man... at any time, in any instance, it is always wrong. Each of these translations leave no room for doubt. Homosexuality is an abomination, a sinful thing, abhorrent, disgusting, a detestable act, sin, and God hates it. There is no room here for provisional circumstance and/or condition. That two men or two women marry, standing before a "pastor" and a congregation of witnesses, doesn't change the fact that God finds the practice of homosexuality detestable, abhorrent, disgusting, a SIN... and He hates it. Just as He hates other things...

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

--Proverbs 6:16-19


By no means a comprehensive list, but boil these seven down, and one can simply say that God hates Sin. Anything that misses God's ideal, anything that falls short of that ideal, is Sin. And God hates it, and if it is not dealt with it will keep you out of Heaven.


Another error in interpretation-- Recognizing that marriage is the only institution wherein sexual activity is allowable, marriage can therefore provide a reprieve from the penalty of their sin a loving, monogamous, homosexual couple would otherwise incur. The problem however is that this argument asks homosexuality to take second place to fornication. While both are synonymous in one respect they are also quite different. In addition, this argument seeks to augment the express ideal and will of God with imperfect human artifices of provisional circumstances and/or conditions. The idea that allowing a gay couple to marry somehow mitigates or condones the sin of homosexuality simply because the institution of marriage is a holy contract before God is a failure of logic in the worst way.

Sex outside the confines of marriage is Fornication, and this is a sin that will keep millions out of Heaven. Homosexuality falls into the sin category by virtue of the fact that God's ideal, and ONLY expressed configuration for, marriage is that of one man, and one woman [Genesis 2:24-25, Matthew 19:4-5].

Genesis 2:24-25 says,

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


'The man and his wife...' one man for one woman.

Jesus confirmed this ideal in Matthew 19:4-5,

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?


Since Jesus IS God, and He through the power of His Holy Spirit breathed the scriptures into righteous men of God; that the scriptures therefore are His words, and confirming them, said not one stroke of the pen, however small, shall depart from the Law till ALL things are fulfilled, marriage is thus a divine appointment. But homosexuality is an perversion of God's divine appointment: one man for one woman.

It is illogical therefore to think that God would condone the sin of homosexuality simply because two men observe a ceremony, which ultimately means nothing because the divine appointment of marriage is for one man and one woman. Adding insult to injury for the proponent of gay marriage, they compound the sin of those trapped in their perverse sexual unions by allowing them to add the sin of Fornication to their Homosexuality.

God will never contradict Himself. The Holy Spirit of God will never contradict himself, or scripture. Jesus will not contradict Himself, His Father, or His Holy Spirit, especially since He affirmed the scriptures to His disciples, the priests, the scribes, the pharisees, and anyone else close enough to hear Him as He spoke. And we who read the scriptures and understand. Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage does not mitigate that sin. If anything, it compounds it by throwing fornication into the mix.


So where does this leave the Churches and Congregations that turn their backs on God's standard and make concession with sin? Well, they have believed a lie, and they allow heretics into their midst to teach them and perpetuate the lies of the enemy. Make no mistake, this is a spiritual battle...

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...

--1 Timothy 4:1


This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

--2 Timothy 3:1-7


The modern church has turned away from the truth and believes now in fables. They are listening to spirits, but sadly, not the Spirit of God. Those whose consciences are not already seared-- deadened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit --can more easily be brought back from the brink; they need not be led away captive by doctrines of devils, seducing spirits, and diverse lusts.

What then does it say about a church who condones homosexuality, gives it positions of trust and authority within its body, and performs ceremonies to affirm it-- ceremonies that reject God's holy ideal? They have departed from the faith. They worship the creation rather than the Creator. They have pleasure in both the sin they condone and those who perform it. In the very strictest of senses, they are heretics.

That "some" would argue as much as "some" have in defense of this abomination, who hearing the truth of God in relation to this sin and rejecting it, it becomes clear that they cannot endure sound doctrine. Their consciences ARE seared, and so, they are unable to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. They cannot hear the Truth for the truth it is.

Finally, to correct a common fallacy about the Church: there are so many different brands of Christianity, but they're all false. All but one, that is. There is only one true denomination, and while it is expressed many ways in the New Testament, 1 John 5:12 simply says,

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.


There is no other measure by which men are judged to be children of God. Do they have the Son? Do they have Jesus? Jesus Himself said,

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

--John 14:6


There can be, therefore, no contradicting spirits leading the True Church. Honest Christians can disagree about many things that do not touch the simple Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, but the same Spirit is in us all, and the same Spirit convicts of sin in all. There will be no dichotomy of faiths within the True Church.

Our obligation therefore, since faith without works is dead [James 2:26], is to "earnestly contend for the faith that was once [and for all] delivered unto the saints [Jude 1:3]," We are to...

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:2-4


If we fail in this, and the Lord tarries another generation, we will lose the next generation to Spiritism, and New Age lies. We must fight the future the enemy wants to give us. We must stand in the gap... We Must! Or we lose it all. And in the midst of our fight we must proclaim the truth of God and the Gospel. Furthermore, if we allow these false congregations to continue to condone and celebrate the abomination of homosexuality, many of those caught in that abomination-- and even one is too many! --will stumble across the threshold of eternity without the blood of Christ coving their sin.

Their blood will be required at OUR hand.

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

--Ezekiel 3:18



Final Thought:

There is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus. No other religion or faith will gain its adherents entrance into God's glory. One common New Age lie is that any man who earnest seeks God, even within the confines of his own pagan religion, will find forgiveness for their sin, and gain entrance to Heaven. But as I said, this is a lie. And a lie that many so-called "Christians" propagate.

No man, in any religious faith, who earnestly seeks the true God of the Universe, will ever die in his sin without God sending someone, somehow, some way, to give that man the truth. A missionary. A television broadcast, a radio broadcast, a book, a gospel tract, something. Just as the Lord sent Philip to talk to the Ethiopian eunuch, so too will God send someone to the man who genuinely seeks Him. Because there is no other name given under heaven by which men must be saved. No other name but Jesus. Not Buddha, not Mohammad, not Vishnu... no other name but Jesus.

If... thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

--Deuteronomy 4:29
He is your God whether you know Him as such or not.


I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

--Proverbs 8:17


And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

--Jeremiah 29:13


Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

--Matthew 7:7


God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being...

--Acts 17:24-28



Seek Him with all your heart and you will find Him.


Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 4:08 PM, , links to this post





Freedom In Context

[All Images: Click to Enlarge]

Some see July 4th as a celebration of Liberty, cognizant of the cost of Freedom. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence paid in full for their signatures; driven from their lands, homes, robbed of their holdings, hunted down, killed. All because they dared to dream of Freedom. But this is not new. People all over this globe have suffered the same and more because they dared to dream of Freedom.

Others in America see in Independence Day the "Freedom" to explore decadence... also bought and paid for by those who dared to dream.

It's funny how the "Freest" nation on the planet can be so ambivalent about Freedom... and ungrateful and condescending. How did this happen? Because this nation allowed them to take for granted the freedoms they enjoy in being blasphemous, whores, sodomites, and socially crass.


But in contrast, there is another democracy among the nation's that does not allow its children to take their freedom for granted. Israel allows its citizens to have no such luxury. Everyone understands that their freedom and very lives are at stake every minute of every day. Americans should be so fortunate...
























































From the photographer Rachel Papo's website:

At an age when social, sexual, and educational explorations are at their highest point, the life of an eighteen-year-old Israeli girl is interrupted. She is plucked from her home surroundings and placed in a rigorous institution where her individuality is temporarily forced aside in the name of nationalism. During the next two years, immersed in a regimented and masculine environment, she will be transformed from a girl to a woman, within the framework of an army that is engaged in daily war and conflict....


The new recruit is issued a bible and holds it during her swearing in. She reads and prays after meals. She carries her weapon with her everywhere: to the shower, to the kiosk, to her room, on the train home. How surreal when you consider that here in America four Supreme Court Justices voted against the Second Amendment!

The United States Military cannot fight a war both here and abroad. They insure we have the freedom to be whores, blasphemers, sodomites, and what-have-you. And it is your right, if you so please, to be all these and more. But our brave men and women have also insured our freedom to take back our country from Forgetfulness, Indifference, Apathy, Depravity, Social Indoctrination......... What do you not like about where America heading, where she already is? And what will you do about it? Sit back and bemoan the state of our country? Cry? Complain? What?

What are you willing to sacrifice to save America from her enemies, both within and without?

Is it just a colorful rag? Or does it mean anything to you?




Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 12:22 PM, , links to this post