--Dick Morris


Moving to the center is not a two-dimensional process. It has a third dimension-- the difference between strength and weakness. In the course of coming in from the cold of his extreme far-left positions, the president looks like a wimp, abandoning his long-held views in the face of electoral defeats, adverse court rulings, recalcitrant Democrats and strong, united Republican opposition.

And wimps don't win.

When Bill Clinton moved to the center, he arrived in triumph. After vanquishing the Republican Congress during the government shutdown of 1995-96, he agreed to a balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. But it was his deal, along his lines, on his principles. When he signed a welfare reform bill, he did so after beating back and vetoing two Republican bills that coupled reform with harsh cuts to Medicaid. After he got a bill on his own terms, he signed it.

Barack Obama's "compromise" with the Republicans over the Bush tax cuts is no more of a compromise than was the deal Emperor Hirohito cut with Gen. Douglas MacArthur on the deck of the battleship Missouri after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a surrender, not a compromise. It was submission, not triangulation.

Obama is checkmated as long as Republicans hold firm, challenge him on solid grounds anchored in public opinion and remain united. He can either lose the election of 2012 because he is an obstinate ideologue who won't compromise and won't abandon his socialist principles or he can lose it because he does surrender and is too weak to be president.

He does not have a third option -- winning the budget fights and winning reelection-- as long as the Republicans properly mount their challenge, because public opinion, the essential element for victory, is not with him.

• Americans want spending cuts, not tax increases

• Americans believe that cutting spending is more important even than cutting the deficit (see Rasmussen)

• Americans oppose ObamaCare

• Americans are against letting the Environmental Protection Agency impose carbon dioxide restrictions without consulting Congress.

• Americans are against unilateral National Labor Relations Board action to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.

• Americans oppose earmarks

• Americans do not want the Federal Communications Commission to limit or censor talk radio.

These are the grounds for our battles in 2011-2012. It is on this turf that the Republican House majority must fight. The fearful "moderate" Democratic senators will cave in. And then Obama will be forced to surrender because the Force-- public opinion --is not with him. You can govern by ignoring what Americans think if you have a majority. But not if you don't.

And with each surrender-- over his desire to raise the debt limit without mandated spending cuts, over his support for bailing out states in trouble, and over his demand to raise taxes in the 2012 budget --Obama will get weaker and weaker.

His inability to fight and win the war on terror and his choice to become mired in Afghanistan with no real plan for winning will contribute to the image of weakness.

In 2012, he will face America denuded of all the programs he passed in 2009-2010, with an economy only slightly improved but with at least 7-8 percent unemployment, and with a manifest inability to measure up to the job of president.

Most presidents face a challenge of weakness. With Eisenhower, it was his refusal to stand up to Joe McCarthy. With Kennedy, it was his inability to pass legislation. With Nixon, it was his inability to get ahead of the Watergate scandal. With Ford, it was his helplessness in the face of inflation. With Carter, it was the hostage crisis. With Reagan, it was his failure to control the Iran-Contra affair. With Bush-41, it was his passivity on the economy. With Clinton, it was the flip-flopping early in his presidency. With Obama, it will be his retreat in the face of the Republican counterattack of 2011.

----------

Curiously, in that last paragraph Mr. Morris left out George W in his list of presidential blunders/signs of weakness. No doubt liberals could dredge up any number of subjective 'weaknesses,' but the only one that would really fit here is George Junior's steadfast refusal to defend himself against the press who, beat him incessantly over the head with, primarily, lunatic objections to the man they zealously despised-- which had nothing to do with the man's policies, but rather the 36 days following the 2000 elections which ultimately decided the presidential race against their guy, vice-president Gore.

Bush allowed the liberal press and democrats to carry the ball-- he was not in control of the message. On many occasions Bush allowed the press to accuse him personally, and his administration, of out right lies and fantasies, without any rebuttal from the White House. That, undoubtedly, was a major contributing factor to his dismal poll numbers toward the end. But however dismal his poll numbers congress' numbers were abysmal.

----------

As to the man of the hour, president Barack Obama, moving to the center has never been his strong suit, and I have to agree with Morris: Obama's moving to the center is done not out of strength, but weakness. The liberal press and democrats will undoubtedly say otherwise-- they have no real choice if they have any hope of retaining the White House in 2012 --but the electorate that trounced his party last month won't be buying it. Furthermore, any democrat Senators with a modicum of desire to be reelected next round will, in all likelihood, abandon their democratic positions to vote with Republicans against anything that smacks of drawing too much Tea Party ire... they'll be job scared.

So Reid may have retained his majority leader status, but his party will not control the senate, in any larger sense. Republicans will be the de facto leaders in the senate.

There are 21 democrats up for reelection in the senate in 2012 :

• Dianne Feinstein, California
• Tom Carper, Delaware
• Bill Nelson, Florida
• Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
• Ben Cardin, Maryland
• Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
• Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
• Claire McCaskill, Missouri
• Jon Tester, Montana
• Ben Nelson, Nebraska
• Bob Menendez, New Jersey
• Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
• Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
• Kent Conrad, North Dakota
• Sherrod Brown, Ohio
• Bob Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania
• Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
• Jim Webb, Virginia
• Maria Cantwell, Washington
• Joe Manchin, West Virginia
• Herb Kohl, Wisconsin...

All Democrats, plus Independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

There are, obviously, some pretty safe seats on this list. The question is: how many democrats will lose in 2012 because of Obama's weakness? Republicans will only have to pick up, what? 4 seats? Anyone?

Not a question, but a statement...



What is wrong with disease (not 'health') care in the U.S. is our rejection of commonsense basics. We glibly recite the mantra 'You Are What You Eat,' but we reject everything it implies... or at least the most important parts. It's not enough to eat 'health' foods. What we should be eating are 'healthy' foods. And the only truly healthy food is one that comes in its original raw state.

I own this DVD and it is an eye-opener, to say the least. I've been moving toward a raw diet for a year now, and believe me, it hasn't been easy. But I'm almost to the 50% raw point (currently 40-45%). The goal is not to make sure each week or month's intake is 51% raw foods; the goal is to make sure each MEAL consists of at least 51% raw. And trust me, that is a very tall order for someone who was raised on cooked food, and lived by cooked food for near 50 years. But this is the answer to disease and illness. It's not a pill, or an injection, or a shot of radiation. It's fresh, organic, nutrient rich, foods. Your body has the amazing capacity to heal itself, even of cancer, if you give it all the nutrients it needs.

I highly recommend this video. And, if you act before the end of this month (Dec 2010) they have a half price deal going on... you can get this video for 10 - 12 bucks. That's not a bad deal at all.

With Washington:

I'm not at all expecting Republicans to turn 100% back to the American people, but they better make more than a half-hearted move in that direction. Democratic arrogance of monumental proportions was what swept them out of power in such a dramatic historical fashion. But Republicans, if they have any hope of being allowed to stick around beyond the end of their terms, had better make more than lip-service toward the wishes of the majority of voters. Obama's policies-- specifically Obamacare --are far too radical to be allowed to live much beyond his one and only term.

I spoke with a man today at my favorite Indian restaurant. He described his "ascension" to the American way of life as a frog in a well. He said one rarely recognizes the climes one inhabits when it is all one has ever known. It is only when one climbs out of the well of his life and sees beyond the rim of sky, that he learns to appreciate what he has attained, and from what he has come. America was an eye-opener for him. He knew things here were different, but it took coming here and spending time to really grasp the differences between living in India and living in America. I understood all too well what he meant; I've spent time in foreign countries, albeit many years ago. But I've recently come to learn there is another kind of well... the kind we can fall into.

I've never been rich, but neither have I been so poor that I feared for where I might sleep at night, or if I could keep my dog with me. I know I have a home in Panama City-- my family would take me in --but I never considered how important it was to save for a rainy day. I, like too many others, have spent the money as it came in on the 'necessities' of living in America. I never thought I could ever be homeless, but now I find myself tipping on that very edge. I am that frog... on the edge of an abyss, with the forces of economics (among other things I'll not speak of) pushing me closer to the edge and into darkness. I need money. Lots of it. Or the cart throws a wheel; the horse, its shoe, and the frog leaps free-fall into obscurity.

I still have my job, though it has never really paid enough. I still have my car, though it is twenty years old and in constant need of repair. I still have a roof over my head, though new circumstances threaten to strip even that away. I've been in the well before, though I never saw it as such and, I'm sad to say, never thought to catalog its lessons, let alone remember them. But this is new. I spent the last two decades climbing out, in pursuit of riches-- those things I thought declared loud enough that I lived above the earth (though beneath the sky) --and even they seem to have eluded me.

One man climbs out, another falls in. I could blame partisan politics for the current state of the economy (and do) but that does nothing for my present predicament-- I could blame myself and be closer to the mark, but who truly thinks such things could come to harry them back into obscurity? The economy is not getting any better, unemployment is still too high, and inflation is still right around the corner. And I may also be there soon, just around the corner... me, my dog, a guitar, and every scrap of dignity I have left in a small canvas bag.

That may seem an image worth hanging like a Rockwell, but it's frightening as hell to be the one on the other side of the lens. I don't know what's going to happen in the months ahead. But this I do know... my job will still pay me less than I need. My car will still need repairs. I will still need a place to live. My dog will still need all the love and care he currently gets from me. And if that's all I'm ever able to manage, I guess it will have to be enough. Because, to my eternal shame, I have never been good at trusting Him.

What’s So Special About The Hallelujah Diet?

Excerpt...

The world’s approach to physical problems is a symptomatic approach! Rather than seeking out the cause of a physical problem, and eliminating the cause so that the symptom can go away, the world continues to treat the symptom.

The medical community has a different drug for every symptom. The problem with this approach is that the drug merely covers or masks the symptom, while never dealing with the cause. The patient never gets well. Oh, they can drug the symptom into submission and thus reduce the symptoms manifestation, but once the drug is stopped, the symptom returns.

At Hallelujah Acres we teach that the symptom is not the problem! Rather, the symptom is merely the outward manifestation of a broken down immune system or organ not functioning properly.

Rather than trying to rid the body of the symptom through the use of a drug, at Hallelujah Acres we say that if you want to get well, "stop putting into the body that which is causing the symptom."

The Pope and the Rabbi

Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert to Catholicism or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal: he'd have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy; if the Pope won, they'd have to convert or leave.

The Jewish people met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent them in the debate. However, as the rabbi spoke no Italian, and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they agreed that it would be a 'silent' debate.

On the chosen day the Pope and rabbi sat opposite each other. The Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. The rabbi looked back and raised one finger. Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head. The rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. The rabbi pulled out an apple. With that, the Pope stood up and declared himself beaten and said that the rabbi was too clever. The Jews could stay in Italy.

Later the cardinals met with the Pope and asked him what had happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up a single finger to remind me there is still only one God common to both our beliefs. Then, I waved my finger around my head to show him that God was all around us. The rabbi responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins, and the rabbi pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin. He bested me at every move and I could not continue."

Meanwhile, the Jewish community gathered to ask the rabbi how he'd won. "I haven't a clue," said the rabbi. "First, he told me that we had three days to get out of Italy, so I gave him the finger. Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I told him that we were staying right here."

"And then what?" asked a woman. "Who knows?" said the rabbi. "He took out his lunch so I took out mine."

Here I am in the office, finishing work on a Saturday that was due on Friday. Trying to stay focused on the job at hand while skimming the net, looking for my wanton inspiration. No matter how hard I race Creativity always seems to be mere inches beyond my grasp. And yet, by the end I'll have her pinned down just where I want her.

I hate the chase. Why can't she just succumb meekly to my whims? Why can't she just resignedly undress and allow me to dip my brushes how and where I may? Why can't she just divulge her many colors without my having to wrestle them from her?

But a weak and docile muse? Where would be the fun in that?

I'm listening to RadioIO Eclectic... It ALWAYS allows for great creativity. I can accomplish anything when the right music is playing. She knows this, my muse.

Playing right at this moment?

Girl I love You" by Massive Attack

... dark and hypnotic. Thank goodness it's not always like this at RadioIO... and followed soon after by "1979" by Smashing Pumpkins. Did you know I graduated high school in 1979. It was a very good year for me.

Scientists make cancer cells vanish
--Helen Puttick, Health Correspondent, The Herald Scotland
April 21, 2010


Scottish scientists have made cancer tumours vanish within 10 days by sending DNA to seek and destroy the cells.

The system, developed at Strathclyde and Glasgow universities, is being hailed as a breakthrough because it appears to eradicate tumours without causing harmful side-effects. A leading medical journal has described the results so far as remarkable, while Cancer Research UK said they were encouraging.

Dr Christine Dufes, a lecturer at the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences and leader of the research, said: "The tumours were completely gone within 10 days. It is fantastic. When you talk about 10 days that is the time frame for curing a cold. Imagine if within 10 days you could completely make a tumour disappear."

Researchers around the world are trying to find ways to use genes as a cancer treatment, but one problem is ensuring they attack the tumour without destroying healthy tissue.

In laboratory experiments the Strathclyde research team used a plasma protein called transferrin, which carries iron through the blood, to deliver the therapeutic DNA to the right spot. Once in situ the DNA produced a protein that attacked the tumour cells.

The findings have been published in the Journal of Controlled Release, with an accompanying comment from editor Professor Kinam Park, of Purdue University, Indiana, saying other attempts to target genes at cancer cells have "seldom shown complete disappearance of tumours."

The research was initially supported with a grant from charity Tenovus Scotland, which supports the work of young scientists to help their ideas get off the ground.

This at least is a step in the right direction. Gene therapy is far more promising than anything embryonic stem cell research has to offer. But something even more promising than gene therapy (with a caveat or two) is the silly notion that diet can cure all that ails us... well, most of what ails us. Which brings me to the caveat.

Your body can heal itself of just about any malady, condition, or disease... provided you're feeding your body all the things it needs to do the job. Do you have brain or pancreatic cancer? Your body can heal itself without chemo or radiation or any number of drugs whose list of side-effects are worse than the disease itself. But imagine if your cancer could be cured in as little as ten days.

Utilizing natural means, ten days could... could... be enough to turn the tide, but the sooner you attack the cancer via natural means the greater chance of succeeding. Given six months to live I'd personally take the natural approach. Six weeks? I'm not so sure. Ten days? If it's the tumor that's killing you, and the tumor can be entirely eradicated in ten days? Five days might be enough to 'turn the tide' using Gene Therapy. And since it's your own DNA doing the work, that makes it as natural as you can get short of six months of juicing and oxygen therapies.

This is good news. Good news that is, until pharmaceutical companies manage to patent the process and make the cure beyond the financial reach of what Americans will be able to access through Obamacare.

After the fall, Adam began to explain to God how he was ashamed and afraid because he was naked.
I love the way God responded:
"Who told you that you were naked?"
Genesis 3:11

Obviously Adam had been influenced, informed and instructed by a voice other than the voice of God. God was perturbed about it!
"You think you need to hide in shame and be afraid?
Who told you that?"

I wonder how many times God has the same objection when He hears the lies we believe:
Who told you that?

Who told you weren’t capable?
Who told you one little compromise wouldn’t hurt?
Who told you you’d never accomplish anything significant?
Who told you it was too late to start over?
Who told you that you couldn’t be forgiven?
Who told you that you had to settle for that?
Who told you you’d never gain victory over that sin pattern?

So many voices compete to create a cacophony of confusion concerning the things we believe about ourselves.
God’s voice resonates with clarity, wisdom, and vision.

Who misled you?
Who talked you out of your dream?
Who convinced you that you didn’t measure up?

Who told you that?

-----
I don't really know anything about this guy; I just liked what I read. You can check out his site here... SteveFurtick.com

...One Dalai Lama at a time.

Obama has the Dalai Lama escourted out of the back door of the White House amid trash... Larger Image Here

Way to go BO!

Let me get this straight, Barack H. Obama has to fix all the damage George W. Bush did to our national image? And yet Barack, a purportedly pious Christian, cannot show simple courtesy to a more supremely pious man (despite his faith) in the Dalai Lama? Is it because the Dalai Lama isn't muslim? Cause BO bends over backward to appease those of his own Muslim faith (sorry... Stephanopoulos DID corrected him on that).

Here is a man exiled and persecuted... homeless, you might say... a man without a country. And yet the Christian Barack Obama can't show enough charity to let the Dalai Lama leave by the front door.... like he's some kind of an embarrassment... an untouchable.

This is what comes from being a Liberal, for one, and owing far too much money to China for another-- and not all of that is on GW, not even half of it.

I am yet again embarrassed by my president.

Gays showering with straights? Absolutely.

If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

Talk about creating a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality!

As former General Colin Powell observed in 1993 (before bowing to pressures of political correctness), "...it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure."

He compellingly argued against the completely bogus comparison between race and sexual preference: "Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

Not being the biggest fan of Colin Powell, I can't help but agree with him on this. Gays openly practicing their 'sexuality' in the disciplined ranks of our military? It's a recipe for disaster. There is nothing normal about homosexuality. It is a practice physically evident to be against nature; against design and purpose.

I'm not going to argue the point either. Everyone who reads this blog knows my thoughts on homosexuality, so what's the point? What I will say-- or rather, lament --is that this is just another ideological waste of time coming from the Obama administration. I'd say he should concentrate on fixing the economy, but who is he kidding? He's never managed ANY business or payroll prior to screwing up the American economy.

Why is it every sliver of 'Hope' and 'Change' he's offered thus far appeal only to the far left, the unions, moral reprobates and sexual deviants?

E watched Paranormal Activity tonight. Paid 4.99 to Comcast OnDemand to watch, and simultaneously burn to DVD. This was one SCARY movie! I was totally freaked! I had to go online to assure myself that this movie was a fake.

Having done that [as well as taking a dose of GABA and 5HTP] I'll now be able to get some sleep.

Really! For a fake documentary I was on the verge of sleeplessness-- and I need all the sleep I can get going into this very long and tiresome week ahead.

About halfway through this movie I looked at my roommate and said, 'What that chick needs is Jesus! No way a demon's going to get the best of her with the Holy Spirit taking up residence!'

What made this movie so scary for me? I had the luxury of knowing nothing about the film prior to viewing. Even now knowing it's a fake, it's so well done it's still creeping me out.

Quoting Dick Morris' latest column...

As he tells us he wants to reduce the dangerous budget deficit, President Obama brings to mind the hapless engineers at Toyota who find that their vehicles accelerate whether or not the driver wants them to. It appears that no matter how hard Obama jams on the brakes with his newfound commitment to deficit reduction (after almost doubling the deficit in one year), the level of red ink just seems inexorably to rise. The House voted yesterday to raise the federal debt limit another $1.9 trillion.

Obviously, more fundamental change in the budget's engineering is needed. But, unfortunately, it is easier to recall a car than a president.

Obama's announced intention to freeze 13 percent of the budget for three years is a relatively minor cut. It will trim the deficit by only 3 percent over the decade.

But if the president really wanted to get serious about reducing the deficit, he's got two easy steps to take:

1) Stop the remaining $500 billion of last year's $800 billion stimulus package.

2) Refund to the Treasury the $500 billion in TARP funds repaid by the banks.

Instead, he's merrily spending the remaining stimulus cash -- even though the first round failed to curb the recession, doing little more than protecting the jobs and pay of state and local government employees. The remaining money would do more of the same -- while also funding pork-barrel projects all over America.

But only $300 billion of the stimulus has been spent. Why not call back the remaining $500 billion? Because Obama is still committed to the expansion of government spending. His promise of a (minor) freeze next year brings to mind an overweight friend's talk of the diet he'll go on -- even as he starts another banana split.

Then there's the TARP funds. Most of the money laid out under President George W. Bush is being repaid by the banks that borrowed it -- but Obama is intent on intercepting the cash before it lands in the Treasury and sending it out the door again.

He wants these funds for his second stimulus, relabeled as a "jobs bill." Some $30 billion is to go to small businesses for job creation, $30 billion for consumer credit and yet another $100 billion for more state and local aid -- that is, more protection for government workers.

And none of that cash will ever come back -- even though it's TARP money that was initially appropriated for short-term lending, spending that the government would quickly recoup.

At some point the left is going to have to come to grips with the amateur at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The template used by media and pundits alike to downgrade any accomplishments by Bush must also be applied to Obama. Fudging the unemployment figures doesn't achieve anything but a false hope of an economic spring thaw. Obama's groundhog has seen its own shadow, yet in typical fashion the media has campaigned their continual support of their amateur-- they've covered up the "shadowy" truth.

Obama's idea of economic recovery is more government intervention in the form of new and inventive taxes. The stimulus hasn't worked; it hasn't even been fully spent. Remember, much of the stimulus is slated for next year to pad his own chances of reelection in 2012.

It appears on the surface that what he proposes is both simple and logical, to say nothing of moral. But when you dig deeper. His State of the Union was liberally peppered with inaccuracies and outright lies. He spends much of his time castigating and/or attacking Republicans, Democrats, the American people, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News... is there anyone this man doesn't hate? It is becoming more and more clear that he is out of his depth. The Peter Principle personified.

It was commented at American Descent that Bush failed at every business venture he set his hand to, that this somehow mitigates the problems Obama is facing. Well this is absurd. Especially in light of the fact that our current President never ran even ONE business venture.

Success is born of failure. Few people, if ever, achieve success the first time around. Barack is an obvious exception with one caveat: he's succeeded in reaching the top without having to demonstrate his ability to succeed in the position. He knows how to communicate, presuming a teleprompter is handy. He's quick with wit and innuendo, he has a charming smile, but he's obsessed with himself and his own thin accomplishments.

What he has managed to do is ensure more misery for Americans. Which reminds me of the following tale from the Bible. Obama is following in the footsteps of some very old shoes. Replace "Rehoboam" with "Obama" and you have a series of events separated by thousands of years appearing to mirror each other.

And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever. But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: and he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

--1 Kings 12:3-11

For Bush most certainly added to our burdens in the form of TARP-- championed and supported, by the way, by many on the Left including Obama and the media. But now Obama would squander the returns from TARP to foolishly spend on supporting and growing government.

The government didn't elect Obama to manage it (especially seeing as how he's never managed anything!), he was elected to lead the country in his constitutionally mandated duties... no more. Saying, "Bush did it too" is not excuse enough to allow the same ol' same old to continue. That Bush did wrong is not carte blanche for Barack to do the same. At some point we have to decide, as the American people, whether we want to spend our and our children's economic fortunes in the barren halls of penury.

At some point we have to say enough is enough, and force our elected "leaders" to represent the people who sent them to Washington. Which, by the way, is a seat of government, not a throne room for liars, thieves, and fief-lords. We are Americans; we are not subjects to any king or lord. They work for us, and need to be made to recognize OUR supremacy.

Speaking of Obama's "divided brain" State of the Union speech, and the unwarranted trust we place upon Washington, George Will says,

Lamenting Washington's "deficit of trust," Obama gave an example of the reason for it when he brassily declared: "We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years."

This flagrant falsehood enlarges Washington's deficit of truth: He proposes freezing some discretionary spending, about one-eighth of government spending.

Obama's leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily Washington is toxic — yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over healthcare, energy, K-12 education, etc.

Talk about double speak! The bible says, a double-minded man is unstable in ALL his ways. Thank-you Barack for beautifully illustrating this.

One quote I find immensely intriguing.

"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
— C.S. Lewis

There is so much riding on this statement-- implications, challenges, instructions. What does this statement say to you, and how does it change the way you think about yourself, if at all?

As much as I detest abortion. As much as I believe anyone who supports it (including our president) is a defacto murderer, I do not support Dr. George Tiller's killer. Scott Roeder, the man who walked into a church and shot Tiller point blank in the head, has just been found guilty of first degree murder.

His reasons notwithstanding, Roeder is a murderer and deserves whatever punishment is handed down. Even the death penalty. Tiller was on his was to a face to face judgment with God Himself, and he would not have found any mercy; he would have received the just punishment for his own crimes against humanity, which are secondary to his crimes against heaven. Dr. George Tiller would still have spent eternity in hell. What Roeder did was hasten the inevitable, and rob Tiller of any hope of possible redemption. Anyone can change, even a monster like Tiller.

The fact that Tiller was in church when he died means nothing in terms of the state of his soul. What it does speak to is the complete abrogation of Christian faith and standards by the church which accepted him as a "good and decent man. A Christian."

You can't convince me that a man, with the Holy Spirit residing in him, can for decades commit the most heinous acts of mutilation and destruction against the unborn. When the Holy Spirit comes in we are changed; we become new creatures. There was nothing new about Tiller. You can't convince me that Tiller's profession pleased God... that he did God's will. Only a complete fool would argue that he did.

Likewise, Scott Roeder may believe he has done God's will, but he has listened to a spirit other than the Spirit of God in the commission of his crime. And should he pay the ultimate price for his crime, he may Join Tiller in hell. Or he may himself escape the fires of hell; he may actually be covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. I can't say. His life and profession have not been as open as Tiller's. And I'm not worthy enough to stand in judgment. Justice has been served in Roeder trial, but will it be served? He has earned death.

But for Tiller? Was he covered by the blood? Maybe... but I see no evidence of it. It is simply beyond my ken to see how such could even be possible. But then, I am only human.

His name is Bill. He has wild hair, wears a T-shirt with holes in it, jeans, and no shoes. This was literally his wardrobe for his entire four years of college.

He is brilliant. He is kind of profound and very, very bright. He became a Christian while attending college.

Across the street from the campus is a well-dressed, very conservative church. They want to develop a ministry to the students but are not sure how to go about it.

One day Bill decides to go there. He walks in with no shoes, jeans, his T-shirt, and his wild hair. The service has already started, so Bill starts down the aisle looking for a seat.

The church is completely packed and he can't find a seat. By now, people are really looking a bit uncomfortable, but no one says anything.

Bill gets closer and closer to the pulpit. When he realizes there are no seats, he just squats down right on the carpet.

By now the people are really uptight, and the tension in the air is thick.

About this time, the minister realizes that from way at the back of the church, a deacon is slowly making his way toward Bill.

Now the deacon is in his eighties, has silver-gray hair, and is wearing a three-piece suit. He is a godly man — very elegant, very dignified, very courtly. He walks with a cane. As he starts walking toward this boy, everyone is saying to themselves that you can't blame him for what he's going to do.

How can you expect a man of his age and of his background to understand some college kid on the floor?

It takes a long time for the man to reach the boy.

The church is utterly silent except for the clicking of the man's cane. All eyes are focused on him. You can't even hear anyone breathing. The minister can't even preach the sermon until the deacon does what he has to do.

When the deacon finally reaches Bill, the church watches as this elderly man drops his cane on the floor. With great difficulty, he lowers himself and sits down next to Bill and worships with him so he won't be alone.

Everyone chokes up with emotion.

When the minister gains control, he says, "What I'm about to preach, you will never remember. What you have just seen, you will never forget."


"Be careful how you live. You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."