Gausman to debut vs. fellow former first-rounder
When Kevin Gausman received the news on Tuesday, he had a tough time wrapping his head around the idea. The 22-year-old Orioles prospect was informed he would be making his first Major League start on Thursday against the Blue Jays in Toronto, and it took until Wednesday for the news to really sink in.
O's hope Gausman is missing rotation link
The Orioles are hoping to find the same magic they found last season. Here's your chance, Kevin Gausman. After just 13 Minor League starts, he'll get the ball Thursday in Toronto. With the organization's other prized prospect, Dylan Bundy, injured, he's the club's best prospect.
Gausman poised to fulfill promise with debut
The Orioles on Thursday will officially promote Kevin Gausman and add him to the active roster for his Major League debut that night in Toronto, a bold move for an organization that shocked the baseball world when it called up 20-year-old infielder Manny Machado in the middle of a pennant race last August.
Orioles bash three homers to take finale from Yankees
On the heels of snapping a season-high six-game losing streak, Baltimore kept rolling in the right direction on Wednesday night, using a gutsy effort from starter Jason Hammel and a trio of homers to secure a 6-3 series-winning victory over New York.
The Maryland State Department of Education may have to pay back up to $540,000 in federal money intended to help the state's poorest schools after a scathing audit found that Baltimore City was one of two school districts that misspent the funds, using the money for dinner cruises, makeovers and meals.
Comments about Baltimore Reporter:
Perhaps the best part of blogging or the internet in general is the occasional discovery of something unexpected.Over on
Baltimore Reporter and Conservative Thoughts is a great and thought provoking article by Robert Farrow.I hope you will follow
this link and read this great post.
I love your blog
Once again - as happens so often - I have been positioned here on the living room couch, immersed in your blog. You are
better than Fox News.
Awards and Rankings:
Voted one of the best local blogs:
Baltimore Examiner: 2006
Voted Top 10 most influential blog in Maryland in 2007.
Blog Net News
Musician Kid Rock says he is embarrassed to be a Republican. Maybe most Republicans are embarrassed that Kid Rock is a Republican.
It is heralded in celebration that requiring Virginia abortion clinics to abide by hospital hygiene standards will protect the lives of WOMENNNNN. The morality rates for infants entering such facilities will no doubt remain abysmal.
I think I may need some of the drugs candidates for the town council are on. From the enthusiasm expressed in each of their profiles in the local newspaper, it doesn’t even sound like the same city. Most gush how they deliberately picked this municipality. If I had not literally been conceived in this town and lived here my entire life, there is no way in Ghenna I’d pick it to live in.
That is certainly a money-making scam where “digitally remastered” episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation are being shown in movie theaters. Some are duped into thinking these are entirely new productions. My brother turned to me and asked if I was going to go see it. I told him no, even though it was “The Best Of Both Worlds”, usually considered the best of the series. I saw it nearly 25 years ago (and so many times since then I can probably quote of reasonable approximation of the dialogue when watching it). I remember back when, from a worldview standpoint if the conflict depicted actually took place in real life, most would route for the victory of the Enterprise before these Transhumanists rose to prominence literally aspiring to become members of the Borg collective.
Why tip toe around verbally acknowledging that the limbs of innocents were blown off and mutilated in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack? Is that done to protect the victims or to prevent the facade of multiculturalism from collapsing?
Obama says those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing will feel the full weight of the United States. I guess those fighter jets being given to the Egyptians are quite heavy.
In the future, liberals will no doubt equate those complaining about Tax Day with the human scumbags that attacked Boston.
So I guess the Boston Marathon bombing is the result of what happens when pacifist quiltmaking grandmothers form an alliance with cloistered Bingo playing nuns.
Following Pearl Harbor, wonder if journalists sat around trying to hypothesize scenarios for the attackers being anything other than the Japanese?
The cover of the April 22, 2013 issue of New York Magazine asserts that “Andrew Cuomo may be the shrewdest American politician since LBJ.” Should that be taken as a warning to presidential candidates that they shouldn’t consider the New York governor as a running mate if they hope to make it through their term of office alive?
It is claimed that a greater number of vets are coming back mentally scarred from the Wars on Terror than from previous conflicts such as World War II. Or is it rather society didn’t care as much about psychology and emotions back then with the shattered deemed at fault if they could not move beyond such trauma?
Barney Frank insists that we should thank liberals for the government spending that allowed for a prompt response to the Boston Marathon Bombing. So does that balance out with the lax immigration standards that have allowed violent undesirables to flood across the borders or the establishment of an educational system reluctant to label as wrong a considerable number of behavioral deviancies?
Following the Boston Marathon Bombing, liberals were quick to take to the airwaves counseling as to the necessity of a strong government in times of such public emergency. However, most of the programs, policies, and agencies these statists are eager to finance have little to do with preventing or responding to a terrorist attack.
How do we know the existence of other bombs wasn’t denied simply to prevent widespread panic? How long until government operatives start threatening those insisting they saw additional devices the way those were threatened insisting there was a third Oklahoma City Bomber?
ABC News has labeled the search for the Boston Marathon Bomber as a “21st century investigation”. They’ve got that right. Do you think in decades past that the intellectual elites would have postulated elaborate scenarios to finger anyone but the likely foreign perpetrators or devise justification as to why we should thank these destructive subversives for attempting to destroy the American way of life?
So what if the ban on public movement is never lifted in Boston? And what legal protections are in place to prevent an at will employer from using your failure to show up to work during such a crisis as an excuse to terminate your position?
As police go from house to house searching for the Boston Marathon Bombing suspect, will they also be gathering intelligence regarding infractions and violations on the part of the homeowners. It’s a valid question. For if you call the police regarding a complaint with a neighbor or to report suspicious activity, you also get your name filtered through the system for potential warrants and the like. So you better really stop to consider whether complying with “See Something, Say Something” is worth the effort.
Bet acolytes of the New World Order are watching with rapt attention this ban on public movement in Boston, studying it intensely just how long they can spook the masses into compliance of staying indoors.
A candidate running for the DC city council claims pot should be decriminalized since possess it can prevent offenders from ever finding a decent job. There are plenty that have never used marijuana that can’t find decent jobs these days either.
In the coming years, will the victims of the Boston terrorist attack have their access to medical treatment curtailed by Obama like every other American?
If New York City raises the legal smoking age to 21, why should those younger than that in that jurisdiction be required to comply with jury duty?
Under Obamacare, the scumbag terrorist will probably get better medical treatment than the victims.
It is claimed that the Boston Marathon bombers were not particularly devout as Muslims. Does that mean their victims are somehow less dead or that, instead of an entire leg being blown off, they only end up losing a toe or two?
Doctors are warning against the so-called “Cinnamon Challenge”. This dare occurs when a child or a teen attempts to swallow a spoonful of sugar without water in under a minute. This foolhardy act can result in a medical emergency such as choking, vomiting, or even collapsing a lung. How long until consumers, as in the case of common decongestants, are required to show a photo ID in order to purchase this product and have their named added to yet an additional government database?
The 2001 edition of an academic literary journal has finally been published in 2013. And I get mocked for how far behind I get in posting some of my columns. The subject of the long-awaited edition is “Food Theory”. That certainly sounds like some pretentious leftwing swill.
Journalist Bob Woodward insists that the Boston Marathon bombing wasn’t that big of an event. Yet when the Obama administration insinuated Woodward would regret criticizing the President, one would have thought journalists were going to be loaded up on boxcars and sent to reeducation camps.
Just think how many other residents of foreign origins on welfare and leeching off of the American system would be willing to blow you to smithereens and are probably actively conspiring to do so.
A discussion on 4/24/13 edition of WMAL’s morning show considered whether or not it is proper for parents to pay children for good grades. Fundamentally, shouldn’t this be for each family to work out for themselves without the opinion of outsiders carrying much weight one way or the other? What’s so wrong for education to be incentivized quantifiably? Those opposed to this economic exchange with the context of one of life’s closest relationships are often at their heart the most avowed adversaries of capitalism and the free market. Often, those opposed to parents providing some kind of tangible motivation encouraging academic achievement insist knowledge ought to be its own reward. But even if knowledge does nothing more than position you to see what frauds most people are and to be able to sneer down your nose at the duped condescendingly, what’s the point of acquiring knowledge if not for some kind of advantage?
Instructive. In the name of “market fairness”, traditional retailers want sales taxes applied to online transactions rather than having taxes on the offline transactions reduced.
A fuss is being made that Tamerlan Tsarnaev listened to Alex Jones. Would as much fuss be raised if terrorists had regularly listened to CNN or especially MSNBC? More importantly, should concerns be raised to what extent Al Jazeera has infiltrated the Democratic Party through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV?
In an article titled “What If We Never Run Out Of Oil” published in the May 2013 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, science writer Charles C. Mann longs for a world where America is dependent upon authoritarian Third World regimes for its energy needs and where all but the elite (like himself, I suppose) endure lives of deprivation.
A Chicago Area elementary school teacher was suspended for showing his students an assortment of home and garden tools such as a wrench, pliers, and a screwdriver. The educator of endangering his students and charged with possessing, carrying, storing, or using a weapon. But one has to wonder if the teacher is being punished for encouraging young minds towards useful occupations and careers that will liberate these pupils from lives of government dependence.
Unless the organization is in league with the effort on the part of Vatican elites to undermine America, wouldn’t the Knights of Columbus’ resources be better spent sending books written in English to libraries rather than in Spanish?
Apparently terrorist is one of those jobs Americans won’t take that we need to let immigrants into the country for.
Congress is considering a flu tax to be assessed on vaccinations for the infamous respiratory infection. Is this about raising revenue or about down the road castigating and possibly even punishing as tax cheats those refusing to submit to the inoculation?
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson claims that conservatives don’t love freedom. Though said primarily in regards to the uprising in Egypt, conservatives aren’t the ones seeking to control what Americans can eat or what kinds of light bulbs we can use. Robinson concludes, “These conservatives are arguing that the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves.” Where have they proven that they can without the situation degenerating into violence? Don’t come crying to conservatives when these revolutionary regimes start to murder gays and deny women basic opportunities.
Obama has warned his daughters that, if they get a tattoo, he and Michelle will get the same tattoo wherever the daughters do and publicize the event on Youtube. The President is to be commended for such an effort at parenting that would prompt his children to carefully contemplate such a life altering decision. But why is it that their bodies aren’t their’s to do with as they please when it comes to tattoos but apparently are when it comes to abortion?
If gay men are aroused by naked men and a gay athlete is allowed to shower with other male players, why can’t heterosexual athletes shower with the female cheerleaders?
Technically, isn’t it in our national interest to just let both scumbag sides go at each other in Syria?
What proof is there that NBA player Jason Collins is really gay? How do we not know that this isn’t a publicity stunt so that an aging has-been of declining aptitude can make a transition to the lucrative speaking circuit rather than to late-night gas station attendant?
Obama says no one should go bankrupt if they get sick. However, with insurance premiums predicted to rise between 50 to 100%, he apparently has few qualms about bankrupting the healthy.
Redheads aren’t especially valued by society. In Britian, it was nearly categorized as one of the conditions over which one could justifiably terminate a pregnancy. So if an NBA player admitted to an overwhelming attraction to redheads, would the media and even the governmental establishment come out applauding the individual for publicly admitting to this quirky affinity?
A marketing email distributed by WorldNetDaily was titled with the following subject line: “Don’t be the only house without a flag this Memorial Day.” So should mass conformity and the herd mentality be the primary motivations Americans hoist these ensigns on patriotic occasions? I enjoy the season between Memorial Day and Independence Day as the time of year that I wear my flag tie collection. However, those choosing not to display the colors, so long as they are not conspicuously going out of their way to draw attention to how anti-American they are, should not be default have the eye of suspicion and interrogation turned upon them.
In response to an inquiry, Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney remarked that the events surrounding Benghazi were a long time ago. Yet we are constantly reminded of the deprivations of slavery and Jim Crow like they were last week.
An associate learned that someone on public assistance got an $1800 per month apartment for $180. The mother of this state dependent then informed my associate that welfare isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, lamenting that somehow her progeny actually deserved more than the rent and other assorted assistance she was receiving for no other reason than failing to curb the reproductive impulse. Neither is having nearly one third of your own salary confiscated to in part finance lives of such indolence all that it’s cracked up to be either.
It is understandable that Rick Warren is devastated over the suicide of his son.
However, in searching for someone to blame for the tragedy, will any of the incrimination be placed on the shoulders of himself and his wife?
Perhaps they should have spent more time with their emotionally disturbed son rather than on Africans and AIDS patients.
But then again, taking care of one’s own family doesn’t usually win one many accolades and applause in the corridors of celebrity of religion. Warren has made an issue that the gun his son used to take his own life was illegally acquired through the Internet.
So are we to assume that everyone is at fault other than the one that actually pulled the trigger?
Had Warren’s son decided to end his life as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning, would the auto manufacturer be at fault?
If a diabetic decides to off themselves as a result of over-consuming sugar, should Willy Wonka be the one brought in for questioning?
Especially in Asia, a number of people have died from severe video game addiction where they play themselves into a terminal exhaustion.
In his state of the union, President Obama promised to reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies. While doing so sounds like a free market proposal, what is to prevent such a move from causing drugs to skyrocket even higher?
In regards to climate change, President Obama said, “We choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy…and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence? Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science.” Weren’t some of history’s greatest abridgments of human liberty committed by those wielding government power determining what did and did not constitute legitimate science?
In regards to climate change, President Obama threatened, “Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress pm this issue while driving strong economic growth….But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions…to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
In other words, if duly elected representatives of the American people do not present him with what he deems to be acceptable environmental legislation, the President is going to implement what amounts to an environmental dictatorship. That’s what you call such wide sweeping action that is not authorized by congressional approval.
Just how far is the President threatening to take this if there is to be no check placed upon his power? For example, what if he decides that the measure necessary to reduce pollution and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy consists of forbidding you to own or operate a motor vehicle that is powered by an internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels?
Even more frightening is the phrase in that statement, “prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change.” Since America’s system of Checks and Balances (and thus the very principles of the Constitution) mean next to nothing to the President in this regard, what if he decides that means forcibly relocating populations living in environmentally strategic or critical areas to designated relocation camps where those overseeing such FEMA detention centers attempt to curtail the contact of the inmates with the outside world. Don’t accuse me of having lost it. This actually happened when a relocation center administrator attempted to prevent residents from talking to journalists following Hurricane Katrina.
According to President Obama, China is really “going all in on clean energy” and thus, “so we must.” Or, is the People’s Republic merely positioning itself in such a way as to dupe us into following suit, instead pursuing an energy policy that meets its needs irrespective of applause and accolades on the world stage?
In pursuit of his call for an environmentalist dictatorship in the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for the establishment of an Energy Security Trust. The purpose of this is to “drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
The observant will note that there is nothing in that statement about improving the mileage of electric vehicles so that you will be able to go beyond a radius of about 50 miles if you want to return home on a single charge in a single day. Neither is much said about the average person being able to afford one of these electrified vehicles.
Social planners of the Obama-supporting variety in fact view the automobile as one of the greatest threats undermining their utopian collectivist vision. For instead of going where you want, these elites prefer you confine yourself to your COMMUNITY where the only commodities available to you will be those deemed “local” to a particular area and your access to them will not be at your convenience but rather according to a centralized time table as epitomized by the public transportation system that will increasingly displace reliance upon the private automobile.
According to Obama, you as an individual are unfit to run your own life and instead you must rely on the government to oversee the priorities of your personal economy. Obama declared, “I’m also issuing a new goal for America. Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.”
Once again, the discerning must go back and examine what the President said rather than what we would like to hear.
For starters, just because “he” set a goal, why ought we to care and even more importantly comply. Just because his voice shouts, “ACHTUNG!” does that mean me are required to click our heels and march in unison?
Some will reply, “But what’s so wrong with cutting back so we can save on our energy bills.” Nothing, but that is not what the President said.
Nowhere did the President say that the goals of these efforts are to reduce costs for the average consumer. During his initial campaigns for national elected office, Barack Obama openly and admittedly warned that, under his energy plans, rates would necessarily skyrocket.
And even when Americans prudently decide to conserve energy for whatever their individual motivation, do not assume that the money that they did save will remain in their wallets for very long. For as soon as they surrender to the admonitions on the part of their rulers, these leaders are warning as to the next crisis originating as a result of the masses doing as they are instructed like lemmings over the side of a cliff.
For example, when fuel costs began to rise along with a confluence of other technological developments, a number of motorists switched to more fuel efficient vehicles. However, policy technocrats were not content with this level of conditioning because decreased amounts of fuel consumed resulted in fewer gallons of gas purchased and thus resulting in fewer gas tax dollars collected.
To punish motorists for moving towards more fuel efficient vehicles, statists now intend to impose on top of the tax for each gallon of gas purchased an additional tax upon each mile driven. Such a proposal is actually a greater intrusion into your privacy.
Under a gas tax regimen, motorists are penalized for each gallon of gas that they decide to purchase. However, beyond that, the assessment and the collection of the tax does not care how and when you decide to make use of the gasoline as a motor vehicle propellant.
A mileage tax involves a greater degree of government intrusion. For to asses the tax, it is proposed that a computerized sensor would be attached to your motor vehicle cataloging how many miles that you have driven the vehicle. Given the sophistication of such tracking technology, there is no reason its parameters could not be modified to financially penalize motorists driving into particular areas or at peak hours in a manner similar to the way subway passengers are charged higher rates for utilizing public transportation during rush hour even though that is what they are admonished to do by assorted forms of government propaganda.
It is said that totalitarian regimes are characterized by a cradle to grave mentality where it is argued that government interference at every stage of existence is necessary to forestall the encroaching societal collapse that the government has itself played a considerable role in stoking and fomenting.
In regards to his lavish entitlement programs for the otherwise able-bodied, Obama continued in his oration, “These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing — all these things will help entrepreneurs and small business expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill these jobs.”
However, by that, he does not mean the establishment of an education system that focuses on academic basics such as reading comprehension, scientific skills, and a grounding in America’s constitutional history while cutting down on frivolity such as psychological conditioning and pandering to multiculturalism. Obama clarified, “And that has to start at the earliest possible age. Study after study shows that sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.”
The President went on to lament how only around a third of four year olds are enrolled in a “high quality” preschool. To correct this situation, Obama proposed making high quality preschool available to every single child in America.
But what if every parent does not want that for their children, instead preferring that the earliest years of their children’s live (and perhaps even beyond that for the families that decide to pursue alternative forms of education) to be shaped by the philosophers and values of the parents rather than by educratic community organizers? What guarantees are there that making preschool available for every child will not translate from Obamaese as compulsory for every child?
Just how early does the government claim to your child begin? For the sake of the COMMUNITY, should a social worker be on hand to whisk children away to be raised in a government facility as soon as infants pop out of the birth canal?
Thanks in part to this President and his spokestramp Sandra Fluke, America is on its way to having not so much a chicken in every pot but rather a government-provided birth control pill in every medicine cabinet. How much longer until the culture is indistinguishable from that described in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” where children are no longer born into the families of loving married couples but rather in factory vats predetermined before birth as to what function they will fulfill in the broader society and where idiotized masses have their critical faculties further anaesthetized by unending rounds of increasingly hedonistic pleasure?
President Obama continued on in the 2013 State of the Union Address, “Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on the path to a good job.” He observed that, when a German student graduates, students there already possess the equivalent of an associate’s degree. The President stated specifically, “They’ve been trained for the jobs that are there.”
Perhaps Mr. Obama should address if, when they go to school, perhaps the Germans are being schooled in actual academic subjects and not in psychobabble programming the student to despise individual achievement, the free market system, and the fact that their country even exists as is taught in many of America’s government schools. Secondly, why bother studying for these “jobs that are there” when there aren’t really any jobs there thanks in part to stiffening regulations being imposed by this very President. Why bother committing the complexities of science to mind when the highest you are likely ever going to achieve is to repeat the mantras of “Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart” or “Would you like fries with that?” And this if you rank among the lucky few to even have a job.
However, if you are a run of the mill American, it is likely that the President is not as concerned about your advancement and prosperity as he is about the illegals invading America’s shores. On this issue, the President declared, “Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of…immigrants. And right now, leaders from business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities — they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”
From the sound of it, actual Americans are not capable of accomplishing anything if granted the opportunity. If that is the case, and as Obama remarked years ago in a graduation oration that life is not about material success, wouldn’t we be doing immigrants a favor for their own long term good if we deny them admission to the United States. After all, according to the President’s own logic, won’t each generation of these people that reproduce be diluting their “blood and soil” (to use the terminology of one particular brand of socialism) the longer they are in America?
And just because leaders from business, labor, law enforcement and faith communities want increased numbers of immigrants, has anyone stopped to ask what the run of the mill American wants. After all, it will be average Americans who will be forced to shell out additional welfare payments to the new arrivals and whose neighborhoods will decrease in terms of both property values and aesthetic appeal as migrants pile multiple families into single family homes while refusing to abide by traditional standards of cleanliness and upkeep in terms of maintaining their dwellings. However, each of the above special interests often harbor reasons for supporting increased levels of immigration that have nothing whatsoever to do with an altruistic concern for the betterment of the immigrant.
Business has an interest in increased numbers of immigrants in order to depress wages. Furthermore, in some of the proposed reforms, temporary workers will willingly put up with out of fear of being deported, any number of deprivations and abuses the average American up until recently would not have put up with.
Labor is interested in increased immigration hoping that these swarms of transients, barely literate in their native tongue with English comprehension almost nonexistent, will be so overwhelmed by their new surroundings that they will in a docile fashion fill the ranks of union membership while relenting to the decisions made by these thuggish fatcats. In turn, as the union coffers swell, these radical organizations will be able to increase their influence over elections, outrightly buy candidates, and even threaten social upheaval when governments and industry fail to meet an ever increasing list of demands.
It would be interesting to determine in regards to law enforcement if it is the rank and file beat cop or rather those craving higher-level administrative and appointed positions that favor increased levels of immigration and entitlements lavished upon illegals already here. For those seeking advancement will parrot whatever they are told to by their masters in the bureaucracy, elected office, civil rights establishment, and the nefarious shadowy forces manipulating these players in the policy process.
Likewise, it is more than likely high ranking members of the clergy rather than run of the mill mundane pew fillers that want America overrun with foreigners. Though few are willing to admit it, leftists in both the Catholic Church and certain wings of Protestantism (especially the mainline and Emergent Church movement) would like to see nothing better than the diminution of the United States as a global power and the dilution of Americans as a distinct world people.
Some of the most disturbing implications of President Obama’s 2013 State Of The Union Address could be found towards the conclusion of his speech in terms of those he planted in the gallery to be applauded as ideal citizens.
Obama began, “We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn’t thinking about how her home was fairing. Her mind was on the twenty precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.”
While her efforts are to be commended, the really interesting aspect of this statement is how it is couched in terms as an attack on private property. But while you aren’t to give second thought as to the material components of existence, it seems as if the thoughts of the President and his consort dwell upon the creature comforts to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
On February 12, 2013, the President was lecturing is as to how we are suppose to be so COMMUNITY oriented that, during times of crises, we aren’t even suppose to entertain the concern as to whether or not we will even have a place of our own once the flood water subside. However, this public official, who is pretty much assured that he will never have to sleep with one eye open in a FEMA compound or shelter such as the Louisiana Superdome, just two days later was taking his wife out to a $900 Valentine dinner.
What American these days can afford a $900 Valentine dinner? This is thanks in part to the economy that has continued to decline in large measure as a result of this President’s very policies.
But apparently that week it was not enough to blow in one night of eating out on the town more than many of us bring home per pay check each week after taxes. His Highness then went to Florida where he enjoyed a $1000 golf lesson with Tiger Woods and his beloved battle ax frittered around the Midwest in large part telling the rest of us what we may and may not eat.
It is not enough that you should be willing to surrender your property without hesitation at the President’s command. Apparently you are expected to lay down your life as well.
The President further admonished, “We should follow the example of police officer Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back…even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds.”
But how does the high and mighty Barack expect us to accomplish this? Gun control proposals such as those favored by the President would contract who may be allowed to possess a firearm and into which venues one may be authorized to take such an implement of personal protection.
In the address, the President shared that this valiant police officer fought back despite twelve bullet wounds. But without his weapon and if he had emulated the tactics we are encouraged to employ when confronting homicidal assailants, do you honestly believe that this police officer would have sustained only twelve bullet wounds? In all likelihood, he would have instead been dead.
It seems that throughout the 2013 State of The Union, the President presented the American people a litany of individuals aspiring to the kinds of values that he upholds. The thing of it is, apparently one of the values is not a critical mind or providing the audience with all of the available facts.
For example, of Desiline Victor, the American people were told the following: “When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as the time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her — because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read ‘I voted’.”
Firstly, the President failed to point out that Desline Victor barely speaks a lick of English, having come to America late in life not so much to contribute economically to the nation but rather in all likelihood to suck off the welfare system. Thus, how do we not know that this six hour delay was not in part her own fault probably demanding to be catered to in her own native jibberish?
Secondly, if Desiline Victor likes to draw attention to herself by demanding that the voting experience be conducted in a language other than English, why didn’t she stir up a fuss that she was 102 years old? Maybe if she had, a number ahead of her would have graciously allowed her to vote before they did.
This senior citizen (if we must increase the age at which one qualifies for Social Security perhaps we ought to lower the cutoff age after which one no longer qualifies to become a citizen) is being recognized in the annals of Presidential rhetoric as a way to shame vast numbers of American people into complying with any number of bureaucratic policy directives. However, the only people that should be feeling any guilt are those that actually know this woman.
At 102 years of age, if it was known that Desiline Victor possessed enough of what passes as mind in Democratic circles wanted to vote, why didn’t someone in her family assist her in obtaining an absentee ballot? After all, I am sure those around here have little problem in beseeching the government for assistance more financial or tangible in nature anyway.
Most of the time, many people are in awe upon hearing of someone that approaches and/or surpasses the centenarian threshold since the vast majority fail to hold on that long. However, perhaps she should not be viewed as so pitiable and thus suitable to be used as a tool by which to shame the rest of us into compliance with whatever tactics the political leadership is attempting to manipulate us.
The President conveys the impression that Desiline Victor had to wait uncomfortably for six hours away from the warmth and comforts of her own home or bed. However, it must be remembered that she was not brought in from an apartment complex or retirement community just down the street from the White House.
For its political purposes, the Obama Administration had this 102 year old woman shipped in from Florida. Such a journey — irrespective of mode of transportation — would be taxing on someone half her age or even someone half the age of someone half her age. So if Desiline Victor is able to travel from Florida to DC to be paraded about like some freak show curiosity, then perhaps she is deserving of no more pity than anybody else whose opportunity to vote was delayed by such a temporal interval.
The President uplifting Desiline Victor raises another interesting observation regarding some of the parameters believed to be lurking beneath the surface of the Obamacare program. Suppose for a moment that Desiline Victor was as frail as government propagandists have led the American people into believing. Had Desiline Victor fallen ill as a result of having either waited an exorbitant amount of time to vote or from traveling the hundreds of miles from Florida to the nation’s capital, would the medical bureaucracy put in place by the President and his legislative allies deem her life worth of sustaining or restoring?
If not, what the President is calling for in this example is nothing short of a willingness to die for the political objectives on the part of civilians in circumstances that in no legitimate way can be considered a national emergency. Mind you, this is an individual whose idea of personal sacrifice at this point in his life consists of helicoptering to Camp David for the weekend rather than $1000 golf lessons with Tiger Woods or having to eat a pizza other than one deliberately flown in from Chicago.
The purpose of a President’s annual address before Congress is to update the federal legislative body and, by extension of broadcast media technology, those tuning in. From the assumptions from which many of Obama’s policies are formulated, the United States is edging ever closer to the ledge of that cliff from which the nation will never recover should it go over and ultimately slide off.
By Brujo Blanco
When I was attending a university I had an instructor who was originally from East Germany. He was discussing his former life as it related to communism. He recalled that when he was going to school in East Germany he learned to speak Russian and was offered an opportunity to attend a university in Russia and like a good commie that is what he did. There was a break in school and he went to work at a commune. While there he was working in the fields and the tractor broke down. He looked at the problem and told his boss that he could fix the problems with just a few tools. The boss said that they had to call in a mechanic to do the work. Instead of getting it fixed in less than an hour they waited for four days. In the meantime some of the crops did not get harvested in time. Then there came a time when he needed a pair of shoes. He had the money so he went on a road trip to the shoe store. When he got there they did not have shoes but they would take your order and put you on a waiting list. This was just too much for him. He actually defected to the west over this and other problems. He told us that the commie system was so screwed up. There was health care that was free when and if it was available. There were stores with empty shelves. Also, the concept of communal living does not compute. When he lived and worked at the communal farms he noted that the children were in day care and were substantially being raised by the state. No one owned anything without the approval of the state. In fact at that time the Soviets were rationing bread and of course shoes.
Now in our country some pinko came out with this concept that our children are not ours. Children belong to the community. I suspect that that means the state is in charge of family matters. Communism brings with it the concept that everything is owned by the people (“the people” is pinko talk for government) and not the individuals. I suppose we can all recall that Obama commented that if we have a business that we did not build that business but someone else did. This is collectivism in that there is no individuality.
Such systems have never been successful. There are those on the left that agree with that but claim that there has been no success because the right people were not in charge. Of course they will claim that their fearless leader (Obama) is the right one and it will work.
We are in trouble. I would like to see a successful lawful removal of all such leaders. The commie elites that are running the government will end up running every aspect of our lives if we are not careful.
Read Paul Jacobs. He has the right idea.
April 12, 2013
It Takes a Collectivist
First they told us that we didn’t build our businesses. Now we learn that our kids aren’t ours.
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have,” TV talking head Melissa Harris-Perry argues in the latest MSNBC “Lean Forward” propaganda spot, “because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s then we start to make better investments.”
Yeah, better investments. Like Solyndra. Or . . . the K-12 public education system for which, since 1970, the federal government has increased per-pupil spending by roughly 190 percent, only to flatline test scores in math, science and reading.
“When the flood of vitriolic responses to the ad began, my first reaction was relief,” Perry writes on her blog. “I had spent the entire day grading papers and was relieved that since these children were not my responsibility, I could simply mail the students’ papers to their moms and dads to grade!”
Doesn’t Tulane University pay her for grading those papers?
Claiming to “double down” in her defensive blog post, she actually admits that, “Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values.”
What does Melissa Harris-Perry not get? That children belong, not to the state or the collective, and not really to their parents, but to themselves.
Is that much individual freedom leaning too far forward?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
I was reading about the military and religion and it is like having a nightmare while you are fully awake. Evangelicals and Catholics are actually being labeled extremist. This type of official name calling is likely to end up being justification regarding the establishment of restrictions. I grew up with Evangelicals, Jews, and Catholics. In fact I married a Buddhist that converted to
I have never heard an Evangelical threaten anyone with death but I have received a death threat eye ball to eye ball with a Muslim.
In my readings regarding the military chaplains it is clearly apparent that the only religion that has restrictions is the Christians. There have been situations in which the Christian Chaplains were instructed not to mention Jesus Christ in the chapel for fear of offending persons of other religious persuasions. This really makes no sense at all. There are Jewish and Muslim chaplains that received no such instructions. Also, regarding Christianity the whole idea regarding being a Christian is a belief in a man known as Jesus Christ. Can we Christians be offended by the practices of Islam or Judaism. It seems that only the Christians offend. Regarding prosthelzing it should be noted that that activity is part of being a Christian. Christians actually invite people to join them.
When an individual enters the military the individual does not lose any rights. Some people claim that when one enters the military one has to assume that rights will lost. Nothing can be further from the truth. One assumes responsibilities and obligations that civilians do not have but rights are not surrendered.
One of the things that I am concerned with is are the chaplains going to be required to conduct same sex “marriage” ceremonies even if it is a violation of the chaplain’s religious beliefs. There are many Christian Chaplains that have made up their minds that they are going to refuse to do it. One might say that they are soldiers and they have to obey their superiors. A soldier is obligated to refuse to obey an illegal order. No commander can order a religious belief to be ignored. In fact the entire Constitution is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Everything the left comes up with of this nature is a test. They are testing to see how far they can go. There is a point at which people must stand on their religious beliefs.
April 6, 2013
Military Labels Evangelicals, Catholics as ‘Religious Extremism’
By Todd Starnes
The U.S. Army listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Fox News has learned.
“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”
The incident occurred during an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism. Topping the list is Evangelical Christianity. Other organizations listed included Catholicism, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Ku Klux Klan, Sunni Muslims, and Nation of Islam.
The military also listed “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.
Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that the briefing happened last year and is just now coming to light.
This was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army,” he said.
“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”
Wright said after the complaint was lodged, the presenter deleted the slide, and apologized.
“We consider the matter closed,” he said.
The incident was made public by a soldier who attended the briefing. He asked for copies of the presentation and sent them to the Chaplain Alliance.
“He considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews told Fox News. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”
The Archdiocese for the Military Services was shocked to learn that the Army considered Catholicism to be an example of extremism.
“The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist,” the Archdiocese said in a statement.
They want the Dept. of Defense to “ensure that taxpayer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.”
“In the notes it was clearly stated that the presenter was not a subject matter expert, and produced the material after conducting Internet research,” Wright said.
So if the presenter was not an expert, what were they doing presenting the material, Crews asked.
He said he had a chance to speak with the officer who conducted the briefing and she told him that she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups,” Crews said. “It appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”
But Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Fox News they did not provide the military with any list about religious extremism.
“It’s emphatically – 100 percent false,” Potok said.
He said the SPLC has never labeled Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism as extremist groups.
Crews said he is extremely disappointed in the military’s handling of the incident and said they need to fix the “gross distortions presented in the briefing.
“Those soldiers who were presented this material – they need to have a new briefing with corrected materials,” Crews said. “They need to undo the damage that was done.”
He also wants the military to consult with chaplains about matters involving religion.
“All religious issues of this sort in the U.S. military should be channeled first through the Chiefs of Chaplains offices for review,” he said. “Do they really want to classify evangelicals and the Catholic Church as extremist groups?”
Todd Starnes is the host of Fox News & Commentary – heard daily on 250+ radio stations. He’s also the author of “Dispatches From Bitter America.” To check out all of his work you can visit his website or follow him on Twitter @toddstarnes. In his spare time, Todd is active in his church, plays golf, follows SEC football, and eats barbecue. He lives in New York City.
Maryland has been and is becoming a real oppressive tax and spend state. What happens when we hit the saturation point? That is the point at which most of us simply cannot pay the taxes. At this rate is it likely that instead of getting a pay check we simply hand the money over to government? There are those on the Left that do not understand that there are countries, such as North Korea, in which if the government does not feed you you do not eat. There are those liberal elites that never really worked a job or ran a company. There is a point of no return.
When I heard about this plan for the wind generated electricity I actually called an expert that I know on such things. He told me that they normally put these windmills in places that do not have enough wind and/or the place is so remote it costs a fortune the put the wiring in. He told me that on land it is about $3 million per mile. He said that putting the Maryland wind farm out in the Ocean is not a good idea because it is actually an experiment. No one has done that before and no one knows if it is going to work or not.
When is Maryland going to come to their senses and start acting reasonably. Martin Omalley is one of those individuals that is educated beyond his own itelligence.
Delegate takes issue with editorial in The Aegis [Letter]
Letter to The Aegis
April 4, 2013 | 3:29 p.m.
I would like to ask the citizens of Harford County which of the following pieces of legislation they would support:
• An onerous sales and inflation tax on gasoline that will increase the current rate by 83 percent in five years;
The most oppressive gun control law in the nation that strips away our Second Amendment rights to defend our families;
• A multi-billion dollar risky wind mill project – the only kind of this nature in the world that, if successful, will light up a mere 61,000 homes out of 2.4 million in Maryland;
• A driver’s license program for illegal aliens that will enhance Maryland’s reputation as a sanctuary state and will violate the federal Real ID Act;
• A dishonest budget that utilizes tricks and slight-of-hand to achieve a false balance and contains increased spending and higher taxes.
Now, I am not sure how every Harford County citizen would vote on these issues, but most people would probably reject them based on my experience conversing with the average resident. I, along with most of the Harford County Delegation, rejected the above mentioned proposals.
The Governor has presided over 27 tax and fee increases, confiscating $7 billion from the general economy and family budgets in the past seven years. I have voted against every tax increase and all of his dishonest budgets. The editors of The Aegis may consider that inappropriate. They promote the idea that the Harford County Delegation, like the people they represent, should abandon their conservative principles and cave in to Gov. Martin O’Malley’s spend, tax, and big government agenda. Their latest diatribe suggesting that the radical super-majority in the General Assembly will provide special benefits to Harford County if the Delegation would just bow and say, “Yes, Sir,” to the governor is juvenile and naïve.
The editorial concluding that somehow the Delegation is responsible for the governor’s petty decision to withhold funding for Towson University and the planned addition to Harford Community College is shameful.
The Democrat[ic] governor is responsible for the decision to punish Towson University because of their policy regarding the sports program. At the same time, he takes a passing slap at the young students and people of Harford County.
The Harford County Delegation protects the interests of farms, small business owners, families, and taxpayers. We are part of the minority caucus (there are 98 Democrats and 43 Republicans) that offers an alternative budget every year which is balanced without taxes.
All of the Harford senators and delegates serve on different key committees providing the county with broad representation. The Delegation offer scores of amendments on all of the bad legislation flying out of Annapolis while forcefully protesting with well-prepared remarks on the floor and in committee.
None of this is reported by The Aegis editorial commentary. They believe that “below the belt” pay-back politics, which the governor is using against Harford County, should be another opportunity to take a cheap shot and blame the Delegation.
Fair and balanced is apparently not part of their philosophy.
When I hear of attacks on Christianity it really sets me off. This article is about a public school (government) which demonstrating disrespect for a religion. I use the same rant when these things happen and that is if this was done using a Muslim theme there would have been calls of Islamophobia and perhaps death threats from Muslims. When these things are done it is more than apparent that the consistent target is the Christians. I hope the parents made a lot of noise about this.
Of course the ACLU came down on the side of the school. I suspect they will bring up the aura of the 1st Amendment regarding freedom of expression. These are children in school and they should be learning respect regarding others. More and more I am hearing this kind of tripe coming from the left. I am also sure that if they had something going on wherein they were directing such misconduct towards gays, Hispanics, or blacks it would be touted as the crime of the century.
So Much For Tolerance – Christianity Attacked Again
by RUTHIE on MARCH 25, 2013
It seems, that the tolerance that many are asked to consider – within certain issues – only comes into play as long as we are the ones being tolerant.
With Easter one week away and just having read this repugnant article about a play titled “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” I thought I would ask – just why is this ‘demanded tolerance’ not a two way street?
Apparently a Charter School in Massachusetts of middle and high school aged children – decided to preform the play. It is my opinion, disgraceful. I am nauseated by the play itself and the fact that our children are being used as pawns to further a particular sectors agenda.
Of course the presentation, indeed was performed, even though it was meet by protest from parents, the community etc. – a play that depicts Virgin Mary as a Lesbian and gay couples apparently abound.
Even more angering is that the normal ‘partners in crime’ for these sort of disturbing displays were right there to give support, such as the ACLU referring to the play as a thought provoking form of art. The director could not bring himself to admit this was an attack on religious beliefs, but coward to statements such as just poking fun at some religious attitudes with the goal in looking at the meaning of family and faith. You know… growing up as a child – art was something of a craft, a painting, a sculpture, something that brought one pleasure – like music to ones’ ears – I did not, nor do I now, consider a particular minority groups thoughts on gay marriage and how it relates (or does not) to the Bible – to be art.
Why the continued assault on Christianity? Why must our religious beliefs be trampled upon – in such a way that projects such utter respect or consideration for our thoughts – to further or advance a conversation about homosexuality? Are homosexuals, gays, lesbians – you know the entire segment – unable to have a discussion on the issue without insulting those who simple do not and will not agree – those who instead look at biblical writings?
Which brings me to my original thought…
Why is it that we are asked to be so tolerate of their lifestyle, their choices, their sexual preference – with absolutely no return tolerance nor respect given. So be it – you do not like the stance that the Bible refers to one man and one woman in marriage- there are a lot of things I do not like or agree with that are occurring in this Country right now. Descent and speaking your mind, standing up in protest is one thing – but having to insult Christianity to such a level – is not tolerance nor is it art. It is a cop-out showing nothing more than an intolerance — unlike the tolerance they want to demand from us.
James H. Lilley
Governor Martin O’Malley’s dream came true Friday, March 15, 2013 with the repeal of Maryland’s Death Penalty. Several amendments to allow for the death penalty for murders committed in prisons, murder of police officers or firefighters in the course of their duties and murders in schools were all soundly defeated.
What in God’s name were these legislators thinking when they voted against these amendments? Oh, that’s right, they want to pass the strictest gun laws in the nation, which will impact only the law-abiding. Never mind innocent lives being snuffed out by a mentally impaired person or a career criminal. Let’s protect the lives of those who kill without remorse, or simply want to make a name for themselves. Let’s give a warm home, with three meals a day, free medical and dental care, access to libraries and exercise equipment to a mass murderer. Let’s make him or her comfortable for the rest of their lives and to hell with the families and friends of the innocent victims. And, those of you who sided with Governor O’Malley and granted his wish, that’s exactly what you did. You stood up for the rights of murderers to live and turned your backs on the families of those who lost their lives.
I’ve often wondered how many of these legislators have ever walked through a crime scene? How many of them have looked at the end result of what these people, they are so determined to protect, did to a young child, or pregnant mother? I doubt that many could raise their hands and say they have. Do they think that within a matter of a few weeks or months a family’s grief will pass and life for them will miraculously return to normal? The lives of those families will never again be normal, because a part of it has been taken from them—a part that cannot be returned. Only the legislators, giving the free pass to the killer/killers, will return to a normal life—a life of seeking reelection, getting fat at fund-raisers and forgetting the faces of the innocents they ignored. They don’t know that time does not heal the emptiness and heartache of losing a loved one to a brutal, cold-blooded act of murder.
They needed only to call Steve Basu to testify and ask him about his life after losing his wife, Pam, to a carjacking murder in 1992. The brutal death of Doctor Pam Basu and forcible taking of her car on September 8, 1992 is the singular incident, which defined carjacking. In an act of savage brutality, Pam’s life was snuffed out, Steve lost a loving wife and, twenty-two-month old daughter, Sarina, was deprived of her loving, caring mother, and the world lost a brilliant, scientific mind.
Pam and Steve were filled with excitement on that beautiful, sunny Tuesday morning. It was Sarina’s first day of pre-school and they couldn’t wait for the moment when she entered the school and met her classmates. Steve began filming the events in their home and followed Pam and Sarina to the door, videotaping their departure for school. He would follow shortly to continue recording the “big day” to show to family and friends later.
Pam placed Sarina in the back of her car while Steve kept the camera rolling, unaware of the two men walking by in the background. One of those men, Rodney Eugene Solomon, quickly pointed a finger at Pam’s car while glancing over his left shoulder at Bernard Eric Miller. They waited at the intersection of Horsham Drive and Knights Bridge Road for Pam and ambushed her. Solomon rushed to her car, reached through the open window and began beating her. Within seconds, she was pulled from the car, her arm becoming entangled in the seatbelt. Solomon jumped behind the wheel, as Pam struggled to reach Sarina.
Witnesses reported hearing her scream, “My baby. My baby,” as Solomon slammed the car door and sped away. Pam, her arm trapped in the seatbelt, would be dragged for 1.75 miles before they stopped and dumped her body in the middle of Gorman Road. Sarina had been taken from the car and thrown on the side of the road a short time after the initial attack. (more…)
It has been suggested that it is a tragedy for Evangelicals to pray and fast regarding the new pope as called for by Rick Warren.
While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt.
After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.
What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with?
I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing.
Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.
Some might ask the question why should Protestants, especially those of the lowly Baptist variety, enunciate an opinion as to the selection of a new Pope or elaborate an explanation as to why those of that particular theological perspective find the power and authority that ecclesiastical institution has asserted for itself as extra-Biblical and questionably dangerous.
Catholics have every right to select whomever they desire as their head honcho.
However, because that institution has assumed for itself a role beyond administering its own internal affairs and undertaken efforts to exert an influence on the world beyond its ornately decorated walls, in a free society those not belonging to this religious tradition have just as much right to speak out regarding the direction as to how this powerful world body might influence the way in which individuals are able to live their own lives and practice their own beliefs.
For though the way in which the Roman Catholic Church gets the message across might be more subtle than the way in which some Protestants do so, relying more on ceremony and glitz rather than a blunt in your face letting you know what they feel and believe regarding the issue often in a gruff and tactless manner, the opposition of the leadership to Protestantism is just as ingrained.
For example, Pope Benedict repeatedly emphasized throughout his pontificate that Protestant churches especially were not real churches and at best could only be thought of as errant theological associations.
No big deal, many not practiced in the art of discernment and worldview implication might conclude.
After all, everyone from the Pope down to the raving village atheist thinks the spiritual path they are journeying down is superior to all others.
However, one may need to stop to reflect for a moment what is being said here.
To the Protestant, the ideal that those of this persuasion endeavor to strive for can be found in Romans 10:13: “For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
By this, it is believed that there is no mediator between God and man other than Christ Himself for those that believe Jesus as the only Begotten Son of God died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead so that those placing their faith solely in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.
However, official institutionalized Catholicism pretty much holds that their’s is the only game in town determining who it is that will be rewarded with the prize or gift of salvation.
This the organization does in part through its system of sacraments.
So what the Church is really saying when it denies communion to all but those on its own membership roles is not so much that we think it’s best if you participate in this solemn event with those that can better attest to the validity of your faith experience or worthiness of character but rather that you aren’t even a fellow Christian at all.
If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?
One would hope that no one in their right mind would find the violent acrimony of the past where individuals on either side of the divide were often deprived of property, opportunity, and even their very lives all in Christ’s name a worthy situation to return to.
However, neither are Christians obligated to go out of their way refusing to admit that profound religious differences still exist that are better off left in place for the sake of the entire world at least until Christ Himself returns to set hearts and minds straight and to sort out the mess we as fallen human beings have made of this world.
Check out the link in this rant. This involves a woman who was doing 63 in a 65 on I95 in Maryland. She was cited for failure to go to the right. This is interesting because according to the Maryland State Police she should have been going faster than the posted limit apparently because she was holding up traffic. The wind at the time was going at 40 mph. She said she had actually slowed down because of the wind.
I really have a problem with this. If this woman loses this case will it establish a precedent for traffic enforcement. As far as I am concerned the speed limit applies to all lanes of traffic. Not only that speedometers are not really specifically on the mark. That is why most departments allow a variance regarding speeding citations.
If this goes in the favor of the state will it result in citations out the butt for this type of offense. After all it will be an easy pop for the police. When you are driving you could be going too slow or too fast at any point in time at all. It would also be a good source of money for the state so I suppose the liberals will like it.
In reading some of the blogs there are a lot of people that believe the police did a good thing. It is a good thing I suppose if you either like to drive fast or you don’t like people that keep you from driving fast.
I also believe that it is a good thing to obey the traffic laws to keep everyone safe and not speed because you believe you will not get caught.
Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.
By now I believe we all are aware of this guy Bradley Manning. This is a young soldier that decided he was going to disclose classified information and he did it. He provided thousands of documents regarding overseas operations, terrorism, and other items regarding national defense.
There are those that believe he is a hero because of what he did. They are calling him a whistle blower and a hero. A whistleblower snitches on people that are breaking the law. People who are stealing or hurting other people.
One of his protectors is Ron Paul of all people. He claims that he would protect this individual. As far as I am concerned this guy Paul destroyed his credibility with me. He is not fit to be in government.
I worked in the intelligence field for a few years. I want to let you know when you start reviewing raw data intelligence files they are not in order. They contain information that may not be at all accurate and this determination is not made by the likes of Manning. This soldier did not release one file; he released thousands of files and it is apparent he did so with reckless abandon.
There is no telling what the damage was done by this guy. What I do not like is that his trial should be over by now. It seems when we get these criminals that make a big splash in the news they end up receiving more justice than others would get.
As far as I am concerned Manning committed espionage. If a person comes into possession of classified information and blatantly provides it to a medium that would cause that information to be transmitted to the enemies of our country then that individual should have to answer for his actions.
When we are fighting wars sometimes we have to do business with individuals that want to be paid for information. The left seems to believe that if we pay for information we are evil. Paying for information through bribery is part of modern warfare.
Manning was not a whistle blower. He apparently disclosed information only because it was classified. He wanted to be the big guy on the block and now he is.
Nancy Pelosi is a real piece of work. It would be funny if she was not in a position of power and was just some comedian on the TV.
Things she has said:
“I don’t think (this is true, she does not think) we should cut Congressional pay. I think that we should respect the work we do…I think it is necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”
“Obamacare is an entrepeneurial bill….if you want to be creative & be a musician…you can leave your work, focus on your talent…this is what our founders had in mind, ever expanding opportunity for people.” (She must have been waking up after smoking some bad dope.)
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” (This is like opening a bag of poisonous snakes to see if you are going to get bit.)
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” (Perhaps she is talking about flatulance)
“Unemployment insurance is a job creator.”
“Tea Party carries swastikas.”
“Every month we don’t have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs. (She said this twice)”
These comments are not really funny. They are pathetic.
Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, is proving himself to be quite a thorn in the side of freedom loving Americans. This guy is the type that wants to get in everyone’s face and control lives.
This character has put restrictions on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking, and baby formula. His latest thrust into the 1984 mode has been the prohibition of 16 ounce sugary drinks. It has even come to the point that if you order a pizza you cannot order a 16 ounce drink with that soda. In fact if you order a pizza at Chucky Cheese for your carpet commandos you cannot order a pitcher of soda because it is over 16 ounces.
I personally believe that when this type of control is thrust on the public it is a test. Consider if this type of restriction is tolerated they can go for a little more and a little more.
I resided in New York City for a few years and it was a really curious place to live at the time. I was there in the late 60′s during the heroin epidemic. I lived in Manhattan at first and midtown was loaded with muggers. It seems that everyone had a gun except for the good guys. Cops and robbers had guns no one else. The idea was that if there is a law regarding possession of firearms it solves the problem. Now we see that they are going after 16 ounce drinks.
Somehow it tweats my nose when someone tells me what I can eat or drink and then they pass a law. Like prohibiting the purchase of a 16 ounce drink really means something. All one has to do is buy two 8 ounce drinks and the law has been evaded. What is the next step going to be? New York has done to incomprehensible and identified sugared drinks over a certain size contraband. Now we may end up having a statute like Wrongful Possession of a Controlled Substance (16 ounce sugar drink). Maybe we will have controlled buys in fast food places to identify such activities. Undercover sugar cops.
Every time something like this is done I suspect that it is a test to see how far the politicians can go with their nonsense. What happens if someone decides that pizzas are not good for you and they need to be controlled? How about the authorities going through the menus and coming up with other restrictions?
When Obama and company came up with this so-called affordable healthcare Sarah Palin commented that there were going to be death panels. The Left went bananas and jumped her bones big time with denials. Now that we see the reality of this new healthcare situation it is apparent that the government is laying the foundation for death panels. I suspect that they will never be called death panels. There are experts that actually support the new system, however, they claim that there must necessarily be rationing of healthcare. Now when they ration this means one for you; one for you; two for you; and none for you. Someone will end up getting the short end of the stick. What I noted is that the people that forced this system down our throats will never have to depend on Obamacare for anything. They have Cadillac programs for themselves. If this program is going to be so great for us why don’t the big time political hacks get involved in this healthcare for themselves. I suppose it is good for us but not good enough for them.
I also understand that right now when you go to an emergency room for care they have to treat you. Under Obamacare I understand that there is some talk that they do not have to provide services for any unreimbursed care.
I am a conservative and one thing that I always ask is how much is it going to cost? This new system is going to require a national database for health records. Why? Why the heck do they need such a thing? There are already systems in place to send medical information from one place to another via the net. If I live on the east coast will some medical hack in California be accessing my information. If so why would he need that information at all.
The other thing is that many people believe that this system will mean free healthcare for everyone. Nothing is free. In fact there was some talk about an annual premium of $20,000 for a family of five. The people that come up with this crap have got to be liberal politicians that happen to be wealthy. They have not concept of not having money or not having enough money.
Is there something else to this situation than providing healthcare? Perhaps this system will be used to strip the wealth from the powerful middle class and render people dependent on government for every aspect of their lives. This is one of those situations that require us to be knocked down and out completely for all Americans to understand that we are in big trouble.
DID OBAMA HINT AT HEALTH-CARE RATIONING IN SOTU?
Foundations quietly laid for massive government intervention
by AARON KLEIN
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio”on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.
Did President Obama hint at health-care rationing in last night’s State of the Union address?
In his speech, Obama listed health-care reform as a key in reducing long-term government debt, specifically referring to the “rising cost of health care for an aging population.”
“And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms,” he said.
Obama said he will work to “reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.”
“We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital,” he said. “They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.
Obama’s comments about quality of care deserve careful consideration in light of largely overlooked sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
Those sections, reviewed in full by WND, may lay the foundations for health-care rationing and even so-called death panels.
There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.
Obamacare called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.
The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.
Such research was already previously funded for $1.1 billion in Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package. The legislation first created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Obamacare now allows for about $3.8 billion in additional funding for effectiveness research, with the establishment of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
The institute is to be governed by a board to assist in identifying research priorities and establishing the research project agenda.
Also weighing in will be an “expert advisory panel” of practicing and research clinicians, patients, and experts in scientific and health services research and health services delivery.
A section of Obamacare makes clear the secretary of health and human services may not use research data from the new institute in a manner that treats the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill individual as lower in value than that of an individual who is younger, non-disabled or not terminally ill.
However, that dictate comes with a qualifier some many find troubling.
Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute.
The qualifier says:
Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual’s life due to the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness.
Paragraph (1)” refers to the section that bars the Health Secretary from valuing the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill patient as lower than that of the younger or non-disabled patient.
The qualifier leaves the health secretary with the power to use government-provided research data to determine whether “alternative treatments” are effective in extending the life of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill.
Health-care rationing based on ethnicity?
Another section of Obamacare calls for the new institute to study the effectiveness of treatment in “subpopulations,” including “racial and ethnic minorities, women, age, and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences.”
The effectiveness of such research has been widely called into question.
In a 2009 study, the CATO Institute raised concerns about such government-funded research being politicized or influenced by lobbying.
“Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research,” wrote CATO.
Continued CATO: “Such research necessarily poses a direct threat to the incomes of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, and millions of providers. If a government agency produces unwelcome research, those groups will spend vast sums on lobbying campaigns and political contributions to discredit or defund the agency.”
During the “stimulus” debate, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., fought the $1.1 billion spending on effectiveness research, spotlighting the experience of countries such as the U.K. as cautionary tales.
“Think about this a moment,” Kyl told the Senate. “Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your family?”
Currently, in the U.K., the equivalent to Obamacare’s Institute is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.
The New England Journal of Medicine related that NICE “considers treatments cost-effective if their cost-effectiveness ratio is £20,000 ($34,000) per QALY (quality adjusted life year).”
A QALY is an extra year of “quality” life expectancy, based on the treatment.
There were recent reports that NICE was refusing to fund four new treatments for kidney cancer because they only change a patient’s life expectancy from six months to a year.
Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive, commented on the denial of one drug for kidney cancer: “Before we recommend any new treatment we have to be sure the evidence on how well it works is robust and that it is cost effective. We do not want to divert NHS funds to a treatment that costs more but doesn’t help people live longer.”
Writing in Forbes last month, Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, slammed effectiveness research under Obamacare as a “recipe for cook-book medicine, where the government can pressure doctors into prescribing treatments according to average results rather than an individual patient’s needs and preferences.”
When I was a young man, I enlisted in the U.S. Army. I completed basic training and advanced training. I ended up being an investigator for the Army for 22 years so the content of this article is not ideas that I gleaned from the internet. It is from personal experience.
The Army actually had a regular Army and a Woman’s Army Corps (WAC). Typically each post had all of the female soldiers housed in one area which was normally fenced. It was generally referred to as the WAC shack. This was not a demeaning term but I imagine that it would be politically incorrect by today’s standard. The WACs were not trained to use weapons, however, they performed many non-combat related duties and were of great value to the army.
About mid 1970′s, believe, they came up with this idea of integrating the WACs into the regular Army and doing away with the WACs together. That is what happened. In fact many of the WACs were given the choice as to whether or not to take weapons training. We saw women working as Military Police and other duties. Of course there were problems when the females were put into the barracks with the guys. Raging hormones were a problem from time to time.
The men initially dealing with this situation sometimes had problems. In some living quarters men and women were put together and they had to schedule showering and other such things. I was in one unit wherein the females were given like four days off per month for that monthly female thing. When we had the WACs if they got pregnant they were immediately discharged from the Army. This rule changed. I was in one unit wherein an unmarried female had a child and she was off work for several months. After her child was born, she was provided with family quarters. Normally this would not be a problem but she was one of those people that entered into abusive relationships. She was unmarried but her boyfriend moved in with her and they fought. Not only did they fight but she got pregnant again. Eventually she was put out of the Army for not coming to work.
I really did not have a problem with females personally, however, as an Army investigators there were problems we had to deal with like sex crimes and sexual harassment. We also had to deal with a substantial number of false rape complaints.
Now we have women to be put on the front lines. They say that they will have to meet standards to go into combat, however, I believe that they will lower standards and there will be quotas or goals regarding numbers of fighting women to be on the lines. I have been to the field with women in non stressful situations and the problem we had was they could not engage in something called portage (physically carrying a load0 effectively. In fact some of them had to have the assistance of another person just for that. Now in peacetime training normally there will be porto potties or regular bathroom facilities available. However, in the real world soldiers have to go behind a tree or just do it out in the open. This means everyone. One problem some people may find off color and that is field sanitation. Many women in harsh environments such as jungles get urinary tract infections. Some of my friends that served in the Navy complained that there was a problem with women getting pregnant at sea and if that happens they must be medivaced out.
Boys and girls are not the same. The contact I had with women was generally fellow investigators and I really did not have a problem with them. We were not normal soldiers so we did not have the problems that other soldiers had.
The military was meant to be a force that killed people and broke things. The military had a mission to protect our country and win wars. Now the focus seems to be on social experiments with women functioning on front lines. Pregnancy is a real problem. We cannot expect a woman to fight on the front lines when she is with child. We know that will not happen. So right off the bat the military when engaged in conflict will have to be ready to adjust for the number of women that do get pregnant. When the Navy put women on their ships this was a problem. In fact there may be times when a woman gets pregnant just to evade performing her duties. The military should have the ability to fight and not have to deal with other social issues such as being fair to women and providing the appropriate environment for homosexuals.
We need a strong President that can fix these problems. I do not have a problem with women in the military but as one general said, “A woman built for combat is a freak.” He said this after he retired of course. I suppose the first officer to say something like that will get a spanking. In our politically correct world one cannot be in the military and have an opinion that does not match what the administration has.
We need to win conflicts even if that means being rude or unfair to some people. We are facing a dangerous enemy and we need to fight efficiently.
James H. Lilley
The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School sparked another massive wave of gun control hysteria across America. President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor O’Malley, Senator Feinstein and hundreds of others have been fanning the fires of gun control frenzy since December 14, 2012. The loss of those innocent lives is indeed a tragedy of unimaginable proportions for those who lived and are still living that nightmare.
Yet, the voices of those calling for gun control, speak without solid rational thought. Everyone, from President Obama to Governor O’Malley, Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Feinstein, along with dozens of other politicians are clamoring for everything from a ban on assault weapons, to high capacity magazines, a 50% tax on ammunition, a $25.00 registration fee on guns, banning on-line sales of ammunition, requiring background checks to buy ammo, allowing only seven rounds to be loaded into a magazine, declaring a shotgun that holds more then five rounds an assault weapon and, in New York, forcing those currently owning high capacity magazines to sell them out of state within one year.
Some of these measures have already been signed into law without first asking the most logical questions.
Who is most impacted by every existing gun law across America?
Who will face the greater consequences of new gun laws?
The answer, of course, is the law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, this has always been the standard? Why? Is it because our lawmakers know it’s the easier path to pursue? Maybe so, but the bigger issues still remain after the passing of new gun laws. The violent criminals, gangs, the mentally impaired and the mentally unstable will continue to be a problem, and no laws enacted years ago, laws passed today or tomorrow will effect them.
Does anyone truly believe that a criminal will immediately run out and purchase liability insurance?
Does anyone really believe that a criminal will register a firearm and pay the $25.00 registration fee?
Does anyone believe that a criminal will turn in or sell their high capacity magazines?
Does anyone believe that a criminal will load only seven rounds into a high capacity magazine?
Does anyone believe that a mentally impaired person will carefully assess the aftermath of their planned violent rampage?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense, including those clamoring for these laws, surely knows the answer to those questions is a resounding “No.” Yet, the president, governors, mayors and others will charge ahead, full throttle, powered by the anti-gun hysteria to get their laws passed. And, in the end, the only people of America affected by these laws will be those who already obey the law.
Quacking loud and long for some of the strictest gun laws ever is Senator Dianne Feinstein who, in fact, has a permit to carry a firearm and has declared publically that she would use it to defend herself. What is she saying with this declaration? It’s okay for her to have a firearm to defend herself, but to hell with the rest of America?
It also appears that Hypocrite Feinstein puts a favorable gun control spin on facts and figures. The following quotes are direct from an article titled, Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill: (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/Feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-bill)
Department of Justice Study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban (Assault Weapons) resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995… However, with only one year of past-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.”
Another article of interest titled “Ten Big Killers: The Chart Anti-Gunners Don’t Want You To See” (http://www.evolution-interrupted.com/the-chart-anti-gunners-don’t-want-you-to-see) was posted online January 7, 2013. The sources for the data relating to deaths per year are, The Centers for Disease Control, The FBI and the U. S. Federal Government. The data for causes of death reveals:
1. Tobacco Use: 529,000
2. Medical Errors: 195,000
3. Unintentional Injuries: 118,021
4. Alcohol Abuse: 107,400
5. Motor Vehicle Accidents: 34,485
6. Unintentional Poisoning: 31,758
7. Drug Abuse: 25,500
8. Unintentional Falls: 24,792
9. Non-firearm Homicides: 16,799
10. Firearm Homicides: 11,493
In fact, I believe that Obama, Feinstein, O’Malley, Bloomberg and their supporters know that more gun control laws cannot and will not prevent another mass shooting event. They could pass a gun control law a day from now throughout eternity and it would not prevent another mass shooting. Yet, their solution to a problem they cannot fix is to attack the law-abiding citizens and punish them for crimes committed by others. Is this the way of the new America? If we cannot prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from killing, we the lawmakers will take it out on those who live by the law. Well, that certainly seems to be their answer.
Let’s take one more step with the cry for stricter gun control laws. What would happen if our lawmakers were able to push through a bill ordering the confiscation of all firearms? Who would they immediately go after? You can bet your life it would be the law-abiding citizen. Why? Because they obeyed the law requiring registration of their firearms, government officials know where they reside and the good citizen will, in all likelihood, offer the path of least resistance. The criminal? Well, the criminal will get a free pass because they did not obey the law.
So, it will be gun crime as usual on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington, D. C., Houston and Los Angeles, while a mentally unstable person loads his guns and plans a mass shooting at a mall, church or school in your neighborhood.
Welcome to the real world of Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg and O’Malley gun control.
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH GOVERNMENT? ARE THEY NUTS?
I was reading this article and I asked myself if these people are nuts and the answer is yes they are. This I believe is a test of power. If government can fine any entity for not using a non-existent item then they can take assets without justification.
If you do not have time to read the linked article basically the EPA was requiring the use of a biofuel that did not exist. If one fails to use this biofuel as directed one has to pay a fine. This should have been front page news. If EPA had succeeded they would have been the bull in the china store. In fact the way it was going to go was the fuel producers were going to have their customers fined for not complying with the law. Typical liberal concept and that is to penalize people for something that they are not responsible for. The fuel companies were required to produce the fuel by EPA but could not produce a cellulose biofuel that was viable so the EPA was going to punish the end user. Interesting concept in that it may have been an unending penalty for the end users.
I believe that when these things happen there is a reason. Nothing happens in a vacuum. A few years ago in Maryland the state government was attempting to pass and implement a statute that required handguns have an electronic device that would only allow a particular person to fire a particular weapon. A gun manufacturer started working on this project and found that they could produce a weapon that met the requirements of the proposed statute. The shooter would wear a transponder that was compatible with a particular weapon and only that shooter could use the weapon. Problem was when the first round was fired through the weapon it broke the electronics and would not fire again. The fear was that if this law went into effect it would have constructively disarmed the public. There were some that wanted this electronic thing put on all weapons.
EPA attempted to raise funds with a regulation that was impossible to comply with. I am sure if you think about this there may be other ways to bilk the people. If you think of anything keep it to yourself because they may implement it.
Wait until Obamacare gets into full swing. I am sure that there will be penalties in the healthcare situations such as treatments that do not exist. We are in a new era and need to watch our backs.
Court Strikes Down EPA Biofuel Mandate
Ashe SchowFebruary 3, 2013 at 10:00 am(12)
In one classic science fiction plot, antagonists attempt to gain control of the future by attempting to alter the past. Though it might not be as exciting as a Dalorian speeding at 88 miles per hour, maniacal forces in our own reality are attempting to accomplish nearly the same thing by drastically reconceptualizing our understanding of history.
Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part, traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.
In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant…These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.”
This is not the only incident in Scripture where the believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations. In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient landmark.
No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our perception of history in the attempt to shift the country’s underlying values and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their precious heritage to the point of laying down one’s life should circumstances require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances warrant.
One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.
However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a “general symbol of sacrifice.”
In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to kill people from other countries.
No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter desolation?
If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.
Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but, to use Rev. Adams’ words, “the symbol of the son of God dying peacefully.” History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.
Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.
By referencing a work as readily available as “The Case For Christ” by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000 years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.
First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving 5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.
The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate. With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.
Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than “excruciating”.
So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons, and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a categorical universal imperative.
Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy, Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.
Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (NIV)?” Christ chastised a foremost disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.
Though each of us are valued having been made in the image of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won’t likely be given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do everything moral within one’s own power to preserve one’s own life.
In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians. However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.
The Gospels should not be construed as denying the individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ instructs, “…and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.
Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” So will those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don’t comply with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.
In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord’s name in vain. It seems that clergy within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.
For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage. So where is this denomination’s outrage over violation of the commandments prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?
This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is, of course, a creed itself.
According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So what’s the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins?
The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates those from Prince George’s County Maryland that died in the First World War.
John 15:13 reads, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV).” Given the disdain he has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property.
Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the Savior suffered and died.
At the base of each side of the memorial cross in Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George’s County during this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.
To most in the West in general and the United States in particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power” (to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object too) was understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well?
Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses? For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or bullets might insist?
The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite number of individuals, namely those from Prince George’s County that died in World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities.
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization. However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.
A review of the below link will provide some information that we need to remain aware of. There is a war on Christians and Christianity. This is the story of a high school that wanted to hold their graduation ceremony in a church. Some of the parents sued because they were offended. The courts went along with the offended ones. It seems that all that needs to be done is to allege that one is offended by a cross or a church building and one will do well in court.
My question is are churches to be treated like toxic waste dumps and be made unaccessible because they are churches. I contend that if this ceremony was to be held in a Mosque there would not have been a problem. In fact if a complaint was rendered about a Mosque being used there would have been a cry of Islamophobia and the PC crowd would have immediately backed out.
This church offered a better price with better facilities. If you are a nonbeliever it is just a building.
I am coming to the belief that there are many conspiracies and mini-conspiracies going on. That the left/communists in this country are testing to see how far they can go. Every small victory is a step to the left for the country.
The general public needs to understand that no one has a right to not be offended. Of course that is the Constitutional concept. However, that is slowly going away one step at a time.
APPEAL BLASTS JUDGES’ ‘RELIGIOUS PHOBIA’
Decision ‘mandates hostility’ to Christian church
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/appeal-blasts-judges-religious-phobia/#taVeRyjfiQcxUOwr.99
MARTIN O’MALLEY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
By Brujo Blanco
I opened my paper today and I was greeted by the Maryland’s latest reach into the wallets of the taxpayers for more wasteful spending. This time is for wind turbines for the production of electricity. Governor O’Malley has been pushing for this for a while. They even came up with some crap about the advantage of putting these instruments in the Ocean. From what I could understand it is about to pass after two years of trying to stuff it down our throats.
One item in this article was that each ratepayer will have to come up with over $150 a month to pay for this. For all you liberals consider very carefully the customer will have to pony up and not the power company or the state. It will come directly out of our pockets.
I consulted and expert and here is exactly what the provided me with:
“Yeah I heard about this the other day. I guess he just won’t give up on it. Take whatever their cost projection is and double it because it would be the first of its kind. The maintenance costs will be out of this world since, electrical equipment exposed to offshore environments requires a lot more preventative maintenance. They could build a combined cycle natural gas plant for just under $300M and it would produce 500 megawatts. The ratepayers probably wouldn’t even notice the cost.”
This is more than wasteful spending. It should also be considered that once government jumps into wasteful spending they will not quit when the problems are initially encountered because they will want to give the project a chance. They will not do it midstream because of the promise of success. They will not do it in the face of absolute failure because of all the money that was put into it.
I am becoming more and more of a fan of conspiracies in my old age. All these wasteful programs seem to be coming to a head. Maryland has raised the road tolls, taxes, fees, and now they come up with this. We who have actually worked or are working for a living will bear the burden. Those on the public dole can sit back and watch. There will come a time wherein the working guys and gals will reach a saturation point and will not have the means to pay for all these programs. The only people that will be able to afford to live a comfortable life will be those on the dole. There has to be an end to this madness.
San Francisco's Crabtree has surgery on torn Achilles (Reuters)
(Reuters) - San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Michael Crabtree has had surgery to repair a torn Achilles tendon but is not expected to miss the entire 2013-14 season, the National Football League (NFL) team said on Wednesday. Crabtree, San Francisco's leading receiver last season when they reached the Super Bowl before being beaten 34-31 by the Baltimore Ravens, injured his right Achilles during an organized team activity on Tuesday. "(Coach) Jim Harbaugh tells media @KingCrab15 has torn Achilles tendon but has had successful surgery. ...
NFL-San Francisco's Crabtree has surgery on torn Achilles (Reuters)
May 22 (Reuters) - San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Michael Crabtree has had surgery to repair a torn Achilles tendon but is not expected to miss the entire 2013-14 season, the National Football League (NFL) team said on Wednesday. Crabtree, San Francisco's leading receiver last season when they reached the Super Bowl before being beaten 34-31 by the Baltimore Ravens, injured his right Achilles during an organized team activity on Tuesday. "(Coach) Jim Harbaugh tells media @KingCrab15 has torn Achilles tendon but has had successful surgery. ...