About that drilling business...

FIRST, do you know what ANWR is?

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

First, a comparison:



And some perspective:



NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS (it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain").

THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR:







And they are right; these ARE photographs of ANWR.

ISN'T ANWR BEAUTIFUL? WHY SHOULD WE DRILL HERE (AND DESTROY) THIS BEAUTIFUL PLACE?

WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE TRUTH...

Do you remember the map?



The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain; do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE--

THAT IS NOT WHERE THEY WANT TO DRILL!

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION AREA ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE WINTER:




AND THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE SUMMER:





AND LIBERALS SAY THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL WILDLIFE.

HERE IS A PHOTO (SHOT DURING THE SUMMER) OF THE "DEPLETED WILDLIFE" SITUATION CREATED BY DRILLING AROUND PRUDHOE BAY (*The Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production). DOESN'T IT LOOK LIKE THE CARIBOU REALLY HATE THAT DRILLING?



HERE'S THAT SAME SPOT DURING THE WINTER:




HEY, THIS BEAR SEEMS TO REALLY HATE THE PIPELINE NEAR PRUDHOE BAY!




NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING ABOUT ANWR?

REMEMBER WHEN AL GORE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK TO ARTIFICIALLY RAISE GAS PRICES TO $5.00 A GALLON?

WELL...

AL GORE AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS HAVE ALMOST REACHED THEIR GOAL!

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Stay tuned for updates and info...

(origin of post unknown; it was e-mailed to me)

'Gay' man sues Bible publishers

$70 million being asked for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin


A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.

He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9.

He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.

"These are opinions based on the publishers," Fowler said. "And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life."

'Astounding research'

Fowler's blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website features a post titled "Unleashing America from Injustice," in which he says he "was completely distraught after discovering the term-homosexual-was added to the bible, in 1976, and then removed, in 2001 and 2006, without any consideration to the many victims who committed suicide or were murdered because of their sexual preference of homosexuality."

[The Obama campaign notes the opinions expressed in its community blog section "in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign."]

On a separate personal blogsite, Fowler features his related book, written under the name "Bradley-Almighty," which, he boasts, contains "astounding research from within the pages of the bible, that will change the face of religion across the globe."

Titled "365 Reason's to Study the Bible," he says his "debut book" takes the reader "on a journey through time, as he shifts swiftly, yet gracefully, through the pages of religious history, slowly exposing hidden secrets bible publishers have fought- feverishly to keep hidden from the general public for centuries. An avalanche of secrets that are keeping millions around the world enslaved today."

Fowler cites his interview with a newspaper called Michigan Front Page in which he said, "Lack of sincerity from bible readers has helped this conspiracy go on this long."

'Engrossed' with Scripture

On his personal blog's "About Me" page, Fowler says that while serving a sentence in the Michigan Department of Corrections, he "gained a sincere interest" in the Bible's teachings and, over a 10 year period, "became so engrossed within" the Scriptures, he couldn't do much more than eat and sleep.

In the rambling piece, he says "everything inside of me suddenly became consumed and overwhelmed by something greater than me ... that's when I found God."

Then, in an apparent reference to the complaint in his lawsuit, he says, "Discovering how much the bible has been changed through man's decisions and incorrect interpretations was hard to accept."

His discovery, he says, "proves we all have been strung along, foolishly, lost in the essence of our minds."

Fowler concludes with a description of himself as a "small business owner, part-time college student, member of the Christian Writer's Guild, freelance writer for the Michigan Front Page, and author of two new books."

Fowler, notes a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his blog. He writes:

"In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob these people will not inherit God’s kingdom."


*original post from WorldNet Daily, posted 07/09/08

An introduction to Reformed theology

Why do people want it to be so complicated?

Coffeehouse philosophy: gotta love it. But let me clear it up for you:

There is a God. And He hates sin.

And the devil exists, and is not found in your heart alone, though the presence of sin within you would make it seem so. However, the devil cannot make you do anything. Your desire to sin is what makes you sin.

Overheard in New York, pt. II

Kid #1: Paper beats rock. BAM! Your rock is blowed up!

Kid #2: "Bam" doesn't blow up, "bam" makes it spicy. Now I got a SPICY ROCK! You can't defeat that!

--6 Train

Crazy: So I had to get fillings in all of my teeth.

Passenger: Uh huh.

Crazy: But I figured, why let them do that to me after they drilled holes in my brain, ya know?

Passenger: Sure.

Crazy: But I figured, might as well! Although if they were going to fill my teeth, I'd want them to use jelly.

Passenger: Yep.

Crazy: But the guy at the counter said they were out of jelly. So I got a blueberry muffin.

--R train

The Drug Legalization Debate; NYC Edition

Hobo: Look, I'm not going to lie to you. I'm not hungry or sick, I just need some money so I can get high, but it's just weed, I don't do heroin or cocaine or any of that s---.

Guy: You know, it's because of guys like you that people think pot should be illegal! Look at you! When I get high, I pay my own way! I earn my own money and get high! There are little kids on this train! What do you think they're going to learn? Man, think a little!

--4 train

Notes from the New York Underground

The subway doors open. A hobo enters, holding a bottle of windex in one hand and a tube of toothpaste in the other.

Hobo: Which is the better time to read Dostyevsky? Winter? (He sprays the windex.) Or Spring? (He squeezes toothpaste out of the tube.)

Japanese girl: Spring!

Hobo: You are correct.

--F train

[Homeless man is giving directions to tourists.]

Construction worker to tourists below: Don't listen to that guy, he's a homeless bum. He don't know what he's talking about, he's crazy. Seriously, stop talking to him, he's just a whacked out homeless guy.

Homeless man: Yeah, well... You're homeless! Yeah, how you like that?

--Columbus Circle

Overheard in New York, pt. I

Woman: Do you have a non-fiction section?

Book guy: Well, everything that's not fiction is non-fiction. [Over] there's cooking, and there's history.

Woman: No, that's not what I asked. Do you have a section for non-fiction?

Book guy: Well, there are no non-fiction novels. Everything here that's not a novel is non-fiction.

Woman: But you don't have a non-fiction section?

Book guy: No. Everything that isn't fiction is non-fiction.

--Barnes & Noble, Staten Island

Why Immigrants Do Not Require Amnesty

(title given by best_intentions author)

by D.A. King

King is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, a coalition actively opposed to illegal immigration and illegal employment. He has appeared on numerous national television and radio networks as an authority on the issue. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org
*column originally published on NumbersUSA.com

"A recent news report in the Carrollton Times Georgian on a rally staged by and for people in my nation illegally has caused this long-time American to take a few moments out of his day to reply with a more pro-American side of the May Day march. And a few words on illegal immigration in general.

First: Readers can only hope that all ‘journalists’ connected with the publication of the one- sided promo piece for criminal immigration activity take a long hard look at the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. Respectfully, the section concerning bias, fairness and balance in news reporting should be studied in depth.

From someone who has spent the last eight years studying the illegal immigration and illegal employment crisis created by the reality that the federal government has refused to secure American borders in a war on terror, a couple of facts:

It is a federal crime to transport, assist, shelter, harbor or to hire an illegal. Illegal employers should be made to march and stage rallies to demand the “right” to ignore the laws of the land along with their black-market laborers.

There is no universal civil right to live and work in the United States. We as a nation take in well over a million real, legal, immigrants every year - more than any nation on the planet. We can’t take in everyone – that’s called “open borders.”

We don’t have anything to apologize for - and sneaking into the U.S. to steal an American’s identity or creating fraudulent ID to steal an American job while illegally lowering American wages does not make one an “immigrant.”

The term is “illegal alien;" Immigrants come legally. A quick and fool-proof method of telling the difference: Immigrants do not require amnesty.

Our government says we have to pay our taxes to educate illegal alien children and provide the victims of geography with free medical care - but not that we must remain silent and allow the open borders, radical left to trample the rule of law upon which our Republic was founded.

Another one: When a participant in a march demanding amnesty for illegal aliens is speaking in a foreign language, using a candidate for office from the Socialist Workers Party (Eleanor Garcia) as a translator is not an efficient way of hiding the leftist agenda of those who regard borders as human rights violations and our nation as little more than an address.

Most Americans proved they demand defined, defended borders and a common and official language last summer when they defeated the Ted Kennedy and John McCain sponsored attempt to repeat the one-time amnesty of 1986.

Legalization is not the answer. It‘s enforcement that stops criminal activity.
On language: It was a coalition of the Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU types who defeated Rep. Tim Bearden’s HR 413 in the Georgia legislature this year that would have allowed Georgians to vote in November on making English the constitutionally official language of government in Georgia.

English as official is “anti-immigrant,” according to Bearden’s opponents.
Most Americans have had enough of the nonsense myth that there are “jobs Americans will not do” or that illegal aliens marching in American streets demanding citizenship somehow represents “equal rights under the law.”

Most of us also take a dim view of the vile comparison of illegal aliens and their mindless demands to the cause of Americans struggling for the civil rights due them as citizens under their own constitution.

Many of us think Barbara Jordan, the first black woman elected to Congress from the deep south, put it very well more than a decade ago. We live in fervent hope that we can elect leaders who share her courage and honesty.

In 1995, as the Bill Clinton appointed Chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Jordan, a presidential Medal of Freedom winner, testified to a Congressional hearing on how to gain credibility on immigration policy: “Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. Deportation is crucial. Employer sanctions can work.” (see full quote here)

To begin to solve the undeniable illegal immigration problem, we should ignore the open borders lobby and heed the words of Barbara Jordan.

Friday is Now Officially Charles K. Opinion Day

Obama's Metastatic Gaffe
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, May 23, 2008; Page A17


When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

This week's "Right on!" post

Serious props to Cheri Jacobus from rightwingnews.com for her short article, "Obama's Elitist Vacation."


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has criticized John McCain and Hillary Clinton for their support of a summer break from the 18.4 cent per gallon gas tax as a way to provide a bit of relief for Americans so they can enjoy their summer more and, hopefully, perhaps stimulate the economy a bit, as well.

Obama has stated that some experts say it could mean only a $30 average savings per family. That means those who are still unable to afford to take a vacation, won’t, and for others the savings may be $60 or $90 or more.

Elitist Barack Obama thinks that is chump change that won’t make any difference for anyone. Afterall, as we know from the Obama family’s Easter getaway, a vacation for them is a luxury trip to the Virgin Islands. However, for many Americans, summer “vacation” is a trip to another state to visit grandma or a camping trip a few hours away from home. That 18.4 cents per gallon savings can mean the difference of an extra one, two or three tanks of gas or an extra night or two at a motel or campground which can mean the difference between taking the family on a summer vacation -- or NOT.

Obama’s sneering opposition to the McCain proposal illustrates just how out of touch he is with average working Americans. No, the gas tax “vacation” won’t pay for an Obama-style family vacation in the Virgin Islands, but it can go a long way towards helping working class Americans enjoy a typical summer vacation.

Mid-week cartoon

"Remember my face, 'cause I don't carry i.d.!"

An attack on our common enemy

I've been holding my tongue about this whole Jeremiah Wright business: the anti-American statements, the abundance of racially-ignorant remarks and, the most recent development, Wright's press conference, wherein he stated that the attack was not "and attack on Jeremiah Wright, [rather] an attack on the black church." I wouldn't be writing but for that last statement, so here we go.

It is certainly true that the black church in America is diverse, well-attended, yet widely misunderstood as far as their "church mission" as a whole is concerned. Some black ministers, like Wright, would have you believe that the church's role is to finger-wag at the government's misleading statements, while giving little regard to their own. Others, that racial reconciliation is the key to our salvation. Still others, becoming more rare especially in urban areas, are those churches that simply preach the gospel (or at least part of it), straight from the Bible.

Whose church is succeeding in their unregenerate-reaching attempts? It's hard to say, but that's not the point of this discussion. The real question is, which is more important: maintaining allegiance to the "black church" (and all its foibles and confusions of what that means, particularly in terms of race itself and what is expected- of black people by both black and white people) or preaching the gospel of Christ? Simply put, do we need reconciliation to each other, or reconciliation to God?

If you ask Rev. Wright, he might say the former, or perhaps an increasingly distressing version of it: white people need to be reconciled to black. And the majority of chutzpah-claiming media isn't doing much more than tiptoe around this issue, making mildly affirmative statements about the importance of racial dialogue and the dangers of dismissing Wright altogether.

Sorry? When did the pulpit become a place for anyone- and I mean anyone - to mar and manipulate their audience for whatever personal, anti-Biblical purposes they desire, all in the name of Christ? Where in the Bible does God proclaim anyone to be not only eligible for, but entitled to His favor?

Wait. I forgot for a moment that, yes, I do live in a theological fantasy land. I actually believe that pastors, preachers, ministers and reverends take seriously the responsibility they have to teach the Word, encourage their congregants to think outside of themselves (remember that ol' pearl of wisdom to love your neighbor as yourself?) and not make every single issue of the church one that relates to their personal circumstances.

Let's go back to Wright's statement about this being an attack on the black church. He'd like to think so; that claim serves to properly admonish those who have anything to say against him or his anti-Christian sentiments, putting all of us into a neat little racist package. But unfortunately for him, the statement neither speaks to those of us not plagued by white guilt, nor is it true.

Now, I understand that Rev. Wright is angry about the treatment- from various sources in our country, including the government- of black people. I do not doubt his sincerity and I am sincerely angry, too, about welfare programs, drugs in the inner city, bad schools and the heinously violent acts black people commit against each other. All these problems I consider to be both intrapersonal (existing within the individual mind) and interpersonal (occurring between persons), and furthermore are in total a dilemma we as a nation need to resolve.

But I am also angry that the Rev. Wright does not appear to see the link between the disintegration of the black American family and the compromises with the secular world that the black church has made. The black church "does it a different way," Wright has said. In fact, they have let the secular world influence what was, at a time, a very orthodox example of the Christian faith in the very same way the white Christian church in America has.

They (the black church in America) has let entertainment (over the top worship and music), celebrity attendants (Obama, for one, not to mention all those guest soloists), pride in one's own knowledge, charismatic (but untrained) worship leaders, and, worst of all, the sense of entitlement (so readily served up in humanistic circles everywhere) infest and destroy the real community they once had.

What does that have to do with the black American family? Everything. How entertaining is to stay home and take care of the children you helped create? Booooring. Is it more preferable to rely on how you feel about God, other people and yourself, rather than how you ought to relate to them? Absolutely! Isn't it easier to let someone else read the Word and tell you what it says rather than read it yourself, studying intently? Sheesh, studying is for squares. And after all, isn't it your right to take all this or leave it because everyone else should have to change to suit your needs/desires? They want change? They can do it themselves.

I always go too far with my assumptions, so let's keep it simple. My pastor says, "Call it what it is: sin is sin is sin." Pride is sin. Feeling entitled is sin. Worshipping false idols is sin. And, most importantly, having an unrepentant heart is sin. And that's as common to black people, and Jeremiah Wright in particular, as to every other person on the planet.

Major issues of concern for the Christian voter

...in no particular order...

Where does my favored candidate stand on support for Israel? (this addresses the question of whether or not Israel retains any special favor from Biblical mandate)

Who does my favored candidate plan to appoint to the Supreme Court? (depending on who is appointed there will be major implications regarding Roe v. Wade and subtley anti-Christian "anti-discrimination" laws passed)

What is my favored candidate's view on school vouchers and home schooling? (this addresses the question of who should be allowed to teach our children, and what they ought to be taught)

Is my favored candidate willing to compromise with his opposing party in order to move major bills forward in the House and Senate? (the answer to this is a yardstick of sorts, determining generally how stauchly a candidate will stick to his proclamations, regardless of whether or not they are best for the country; this can lead to scary types of government)

What is my favored candidate's view on why we are at war in Iraq? What is his plan for that situation, as well as our continued occupancy of Afghanistan? (the answer to this will give an idea of the candidate's understanding of evil in the world, and how involved we should be in keeping it under control)

What is my favored candidate's plan for legalized abortion? How about stem-cell research? (this one should be obvious; this addresses the candidate's view on the sanctity of life and its contents therein)

What is my favored candidate's view on the status of same-sex marriages? (this addresses the candidate's view of the sanctity of marriage)

What is my favored candidate's plan for border security? (this adresses the question of the rights of citizens under control of their government- under authority; it also concerns the question of entitlement)

What is my favored candidate's plan for illegal immigrants' residency and work status? (see above)

My cat needs a friend...

This could be Pousse and a little tiny kitten friend of his own (if he had a little tiny kitten friend of his own)!



[sigh]

Opening Weekend

I think you should all go see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a documentary by Ben Stein. And since the length of run-time in the theaters depends on the opening weekend attendance (and it is opening weekend for this movie) you should go see it on Sunday. It has been highly rated and aims to demolish the un-scientific theory of evolution. Check it out on IMDB here.

Have a wonderful Sunday.

Friday's opinion by John Hawkins of Townhall.com

"All change is not growth; as all movement is not forward." -- Ellen Glasgow

As people who have followed Barack Obama closely over the last few months have long since realized, there has been very little substance to the man's campaign besides his determination to lose -- oops, I mean "end" -- the war in Iraq.

If you boil Obama's appeal down to its essential core, most of his supporters seem to like him because he's a relatively young, charismatic, black man who talks a lot about "change," "unity," and the "audacity of hope."

But, what does that tell you about how Obama would behave if he gets into office? Very, very little. After all, pretty much anybody, from Napoleon, to Fidel Castro, to Mickey Mouse could run on a platform of "hope," "change," and "unity" because it's so broad and meaningless.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Barack doesn't have an agenda. He most certainly does have one, but it's just an agenda that he tries to avoid talking about because the better Americans get to know him, the less appealing he's going to be.

So, with that in mind, let me take you through a short tour of some of Barack Obama's radical beliefs. In all fairness, I should note that he has flip-flopped on some of these issues after his Barney the Dinosaur style "I Love You, You Love Me" campaign for the presidency got into full swing. But, experience has taught us that you can put a lot more stock into what a politician says before he starts trying to desperately convince middle America to vote him into the White House, than after.

The nine things most likely to be "changed" by Obama's election to the White House:

#1) Weakening America's Military: Barack Obama has pledged, among other things, to make defense cuts during war time, to cut spending on national missile defense, that he won't weaponize space, to slow development of future combat systems, and to seek a "world without nuclear weapons."

#2) Losing the War in Iraq: Obama is promising to throw away the hard earned gains our troops have made in Iraq by immediately removing combat brigades each month, regardless of the situation on the ground, and by having all of our "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly warned Barack and, for that matter, Hillary that they could create a "chaotic situation" with their policy that could take the "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight."

#3) Gay Marriage: Although Barack Obama claims to oppose gay marriage, in 2004 he said that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the only thing keeping the courts from imposing gay marriage on the whole country. If you want to see gay marriage become the law of the land in your state, no matter what the voters think, vote for Obama.

#4) Pro-Partial Birth Abortion: It's never a surprise to find a Democrat who's a big fan of abortion, but Obama goes above and beyond the call of duty. He had a perfect rating of 100% from NARAL in 2005, 2006, and 2007, opposes "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions," and he even opposed banning partial birth abortions.

#5) Legalizing Marijuana: Obama, a former (we hope) druggie, who has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine, has said that he favors "decriminalizing marijuana." Perhaps you can't blame him for wanting to make it easier for people to get drugs since, after all, he used them and look how he turned out.

#6) Handing 845 billion dollars of your money to other nations: Obama's Global Poverty Act would commit the United States to spending, over the next 13 years, 845 billion dollars more than what we already do on global poverty. Obama followed that up with a release that said in part, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty..."

#7) If you think George Bush is a big spender, you haven't met Obama: Even though the United States is already running a deficit, Obama is planning to push a whole host of new big government programs including a "10-year, $150 billion program to establish a green energy sector," a "$60 billion National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," and a "nearly universal health care plan (whose annual price tag he low-balls at $50 to $65 billion)." If you're all for tax and spend liberalism and watching the deficit spiral even further out of control, there's no one you should want in the White House more than Obama.

#8) Amnesty and your tax dollars for illegal aliens: Believe it or not, John McCain, the Republican who is most closely associated with catering to illegal aliens, is actually well to Barack Obama's right on the issue.

Obama favors drivers licenses for illegals, wants to give illegals welfare and Medicaid, wants to let them participate in Social Security, opposes making English our national language, and he favors a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration, AKA amnesty, that even John McCain now claims to oppose.

#9) Gun Control: Obama is a perfect example of the stereotypical, liberal gun grabber. Obama has pledged to "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons," has "opined unequivocally that D.C.'s ban was 'constitutional'," and in 1996, Obama, in a survey, "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."

original text can be found here

Does it make me the biggest sinner in the world because I...

in no uncertain terms HATE the snappy little crunching noise and hours-long lingering smell of microwave popcorn made by coworkers?

The sound makes me want to rake my fingernails up and down the wallpaper in effigy. The smell, caught somewhere between burning plastic and burned, synthesized butter-like product, almost makes me wish it was boiled Noni juice that they were making a meal of (anyone who knows Noni will get the stank of that proposition)!

And this post doesn't make me feel better, either. I'm a cross between someone justifiably incensed by the world and its utterly absurd temptations (everything from believing that microwave popcorn is somehow a 'diet' food to feeling entitled to blog about someone else's innocent afternoon snack) and regular old, run-of-the-mill sinner.

??

Tired of pressing 1 for English?

ProEnglish is the nation's leading advocate of official English. We're non-profit and non-partisan.

Why do Americans have to press 1 for English to call their government?

Why do we have to pay for interpreters for those who refuse to learn English?

That's what Executive Order 13166 requires - at a cost of $billions to taxpayers.

Help us repeal it!

Click HERE to take action!

Parisian protesters halt Olympic torch

PARIS, April 7 -- Protesters temporarily halted the Olympic torch relay in Paris Monday, forcing officials to extinguish the flame at least three times and carry it inside a bus for safety, despite a massive deployment of 3,000 police across the heart of the city.

The heavy security presence transformed the torch relay from a joyous celebration of the Olympics into a tense confrontation between police and demonstrators protesting China's crackdown on Tibet last month and its human rights record.

Authorities turned the flame low or extinguished it and put it inside a bus following just behind the athletes. It remained inside the bus about five or six minutes before an athlete in a wheelchair was allowed to continue the relay.

But the relay team struggled at a slow pace as it followed the banks of the Seine and looped back toward the Trocadero across the river from the Eiffel Tower, where pro-Tibet demonstrators pelted the torch bearer -- a wheelchair-bound ping pong player -- and his assistants with bottles of juice, fruit and other projectiles. The flame appeared to go out as the athlete struggled through the melee and was forced once again to retreat with the torch to the safety of a bus. The torch went out at least two other times, although it was unclear whether protesters doused it or organizers put it out when retreating to the safety of buses.

source: washington post.com

Hot Baby Names for 2007!

Just for fun... here are some of the *hottest* new baby names as taken from national newspaper announcements for 2007. For extra points, guess whether these are for boys or girls!

And by the way, don't expect any of these names to pop up in the Owen household! We're old school, baby.

Avalon Azaria Arabella Baylor Brielle Brenner Briar Brecken Cannon Daxton Finley Grayson Graydon Hadley Jaxon Kale Keagan Latham Makai McCall Nyla Quinlan Ryker Ryland Saylor Skyleigh Tenley Waverly Zander Zenden

The Dawkins Delusion

"Incredible. Brilliant.

The sad part is that thousand will see this and think to themselves, "but the analogy that the whole joke is based on is faulty, because Richard Dawkins is an empirically verifiable personage"... while having no idea of the unendingly problematic philosophical assumptions involved in the matter they think so simple.

Just ask the Boston Personalists.

Nonetheless, brilliant."
-NeoConvert

Quote of the week

"This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination."

Charles Krauthammer, on Obama's race speech

( for complete editorial, click here )

Dude, those chickens aren't ready yet

It's not really news to state that the general media has already donned Barack Obama the great (audacious) hope of the youth of America. The crowning is obvious and expected; he's the youngest, the least old-white-man-ish, the one who uses those five dollar hyphenated terms college students are so inclined to casually insert into conversation: post-modern, anti-establishment, pro-democracy.

So the cool new candidate has been established, whoops, I mean to say he has been ushered into the minority spotlight by an urgently anti-government collective of new minds (or whatever). But are any of those new minds actually going to make it to the polls? My sources say no, and thank God for that.

Washington Post reported that, "The last time more than half of 18-to-24-year-olds voted in a federal election was 1968." Not surprising since even Mtv's Rock the Vote campaign, replete with celebrity hotties and star athlete endorsements election year after year, has been unable to mobilize youth voters past the primaries. And yes, 18-25 year-olds have turned out in record numbers to primaries this year. But will they put down the Doritos, Wii, or, heck, homework, on that fateful day in November long enough to scratch their heads and proclaim, "Hey! I'm supposed to be doing something today?" I think not.

But go ahead 18-25 year-olds, make my day. Just know that if you do vote, it's a vote for the man, whatever color and sex he appears to be.

Important update about the border fence

(quoted from Grassifre.org)

Our research team just got off the phone with one of our key contacts in Rep. Duncan Hunter's office and learned moredisturbing news about the border fence.

According to our contact, the fence-gutting provision that was put into the omnibus spending bill just before Christmas alsocauses the Department of Homeland Security's authority onconstructing new border fencing to expire at the end of this year.

In essence, the sun sets on the border fence on December 31 ofthis year! In fact, our contact tells us the bill languagecould be interpreted as a prohibition against any fence construction after December 31 of this year.

Here's the exact provision from H.R. 2764: "In carrying out this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall -- "(i) identify the 370 miles, or other mileage determined by the Secretary, whose authority to determine other mileage shall expire on December 31, 2008, along the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective..."

Think about what this means... The next President will have no clear legal authority to build any of the border fence at all. We will have a pro-amnesty president who not only doesn't want to build the double-layer fence, he or she legally does not have to!

As a result, this fall's elections could prove less important for border security than what you and I do right now to restore theSecure Fence Act. In three weeks, Ron De Jong and I will take part in a major press conference with Members of Congress on Capitol Hill to present your petition to Restore the Secure Fence Act.

Right now, we have 117,969 signers. We simply must have250,000 petitions in three weeks. Please forward this message to 10 or 20 friends today and ask them to join you in signing the petition to restore the Secure Fence Act. Click link below to sign:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=5542&PID=15807924

Again, what you and I do NOW could prove more important for border security than the November elections.

Thank you so much for signing the petition and spreading the word.

Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org

If I Were a Black Voter

If I were black, I'd be offended by the following remark:

"The African American populations that spill over from Chicago are expected to favor Obama."*


For the past week I've been favoring posts about Barack Obama and sadly turning this blog into a slightly different version of my so-called political one (The Update). Sorry about that, folks, but it's probably going to continue.

Once again I find myself riveted to an article featured on the Washington Post website debating the outcome of the Presidential backing in the state of Indiana. First of all, I thought Indiana was a "red state," being that most of it is farmland. Then again the big cities do take precedence in both the general election and the interest of the candidates (not surprising). It's the same in Illinois; lots of farms, but Springfield and Chicago determine the outcome.

But the obvious bias toward Democratic voters in the largest cities of Indiana is not what bothers me. The statement "black people are expected to vote for Obama" does. (And I'm paraphrasing, but not much outside the quote itself.) Maybe I should re-phrase my opener: I'm not black, but I'm still offended by this comment!

To think, all this time the media (liberal) has been making it out that Obama's campaign is geared toward resolving issues of racial politics. And indeed his most recent "a better tomorrow" speech explicitly addressed racial issues in America. However, this sweeping generalization by WP journalist Anne E. Kornblut really takes the cake for blatant race-oriented political moves.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive. After all, I actually like black people. I think our economy and education has shorted them, outright failing to meet the needs of a group historically plagued by poverty and instead has generally dismissed their voice. This is, of course, due to the failure of Democratic "leaders" in our government, who urge black people to become dependent on government funding so that they can never, ever end the cycle. And I'm sure if you asked the populace of black Americans you'd find a tenor similar to mine, that they want the same standards as every other citizen: properly maintained schools and educated educators, opportunities for employment outside the government realm, preventative care for children so that they might escape a (Democrat-induced) destiny to a life of failure.

My best guess on what they don't want? For some amatuer staff writer to casually mention that they- the whole of black Americans in the state of Indiana- are planning to vote for the black candidate.

So, I guess all black voters in Indiana want to vote for Obama. But is that because the Washington Post thinks that, of the few black Indianans that will make it to the polls, they are more likely to vote for Obama because his campaign promises fit their needs? Or is it actually just because the WP is assuming, despite everything that's happened in the last week with the Wright scandal, that black voters in Indiana just want a black man in office no matter what affiliations he has made in the past? Isn't that setting the bar a little low for black voters, and completely dismissing the reaction of the black Christian church to Obama's link to Wright?

Call me crazy, but I'd like to give black people a little more credit than that.



*Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032402359.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Unofficially, it's "Obama Week"

More wisdom from our new hero....

"Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
"

My Favorite Politician

Click the link below to hear inspiring words from our nation's favorite new politician. Oops, did I mean "favorite new" or "new favorite?" I can't remember, he's just so darn appealing my words get mixed up! Gee whiz, I sure would like to shake his hand!

Obama's Tuesday "More Perfect Union" speech

What I Am Learning About Christ This Week

"
Directly after Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible records certain "first words", words that were never heard before. Here are a few of them:

*Naked-- Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths" (Genesis 3:7)

*Pain--"To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16).

*Cursed--"And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;'" (Genesis 3:17).

*Thorns--"thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Genesis 3:18).

*Sweat--"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19).

*Sword--"He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24).

*Death--"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died" (Genesis 5:5).

These words indicate the extent of the curse that it not only rested on Adam and Eve, but also on the creation itself.


--------Now compare with Jesus Christ's time before, during and after being crucified--------

• Naked: "And they stripped Him..." (Matthew 27:28).
  
  

• Pain: "For they persecute him whom you have struck down, and they recount the pain of those you have wounded" (Psalm 69:26). Jesus endured horrible pain and suffering on the cross, that Revelation 21:4 might come to pass: "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
  
  

• Cursed: We noted from Galatians 3:13 that Jesus "became a curse for us" for "a hanged man is cursed by God."
  
  

• Thorns: "and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" (Matthew 27:29). What deep meaning the crown of thorns has. As He was lifted up on that cross, His brow encircled with thorns, Jesus Christ was bearing the curse for us.
  
  

• Sweat: And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44).
  
  

• Sword: "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). Just like an angel blocked Adam and Eve from entering paradise again by a sword, so the way to paradise was opened up by the sword that shed Jesus' blood. He said to the thief on the cross next to him, "...today you will be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
  
  

• Death: "When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:54-57)."
  "
  

Material taken from The Cross Bible study, SettingCaptivesFree.com

Favorite photo of the week!

Because you can't possibly have heard enough about Paris Hilton this week, here's the latest!
Yup, that's her meeting with an ascetic of unknown origin. Presumably he's enlightening her to going back to her natural hair color? One can only pray.

copyright msn.com entertainment 2008

To write the love of God above

The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star, and reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care, God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled, and pardoned from his sin.

Could we with ink the ocean fill, and were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above, would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole, though stretched from sky to sky.

I didn't write this, because I couldn't.

In his own words: Obama on gay marriage and its legalization

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sought the support of voters in the homosexual community Feb. 28, telling them in a letter that if elected president he would work to pass laws important to that constituency and would use the "bully pulpit" to urge states to grant same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage.

The 770-word letter was posted on a section of Obama's campaign website devoted to homosexual issues. He and Hillary Clinton have worked for months to get the votes of the homosexual community, even appearing in August at a historic Democratic presidential forum devoted solely to homosexual issues.

In the letter, Obama touted his past record on such issues and said he would continue that record if elected. He used the acronym LGBT -- which stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" -- six times.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," he wrote. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

"He once again said he backs the "complete repeal" of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's "gay marriages." It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage." Ever since it was passed homosexual activists have viewed it as a significant legal barrier to nationwide legalization of "gay marriage."

"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether," he wrote. "Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

"Austin Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization that supports the Defense of Marriage Act, said overturning DOMA "would lead to the recognition of everything the homosexual agenda stands for, including same-sex marriage."

"A repeal of DOMA would mean that the federal government is acknowledging and supporting same-sex couples, and that would be in Arizona and everywhere else," Nimocks told Baptist Press. "And it would start with the extension of certain federal benefits, the filing of joint tax returns by same-sex returns, and it would chip away at the institution of marriage in every state -- and most egregiously in those states that have voted through a constitutional amendment or a law to protect marriage between one man and one woman."

In the years since DOMA was signed into law, more than 40 states have passed various types of laws prohibiting "gay marriage," including 27 that have passed constitutional marriage amendments. "To suggest that DOMA in some form or fashion prevents states from fashioning their own marriage law is just disingenuous at best," Nimocks said. "To repeal DOMA means that every American taxpayer would be forced to fund the homosexual agenda."

Obama also said he supports "age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception" and favors lifting "the federal ban on needle exchange[s]." During a September Democratic debate he said he would be comfortable with teachers reading to second graders a children's book, King & King, supportive of "gay marriage."

In the letter he asserted that in multiple forums -- talking to rural farmers or to Baptist parishioners -- he has talked about the need to "fight homophobia." "I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country," he said. "To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike."

Obama also mentioned in the letter his speech in 2006 during an HIV/AIDS conference at Saddleback Church, where Rick Warren pastors. At the time Warren released a statement saying he disagrees with Obama on abortion and other issues.

Who We Serve

Psalm 111

Praise ye the LORD. I will praise the LORD with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the congregation.

The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.

His work is honourable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever.

He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion.

He hath given meat unto them that fear him: he will ever be mindful of his covenant.

He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that he may give them the heritage of the heathen.

The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

The consequence of self-esteem

"Remove the reality of sin and you take away the possibility of repentance. Abolish the doctrine of human depravity and you void the divine plan of salvation. Erase the notion of personal guilt and you eliminate the need for a Savior."

John MacArthur, on the "widespread loss of Biblical reality among believers"

To the smartest man I know

He always asks me
If I'm writing about him;
He wants to know if

I think of him as
often as he thinks of me.
How can I reply?

The only way I know
Is to show all of you just
How hard grad school is:




This post is dedicated to my darling Nicholas, my favorite teacher of all time. I jest with this video, but I know how much you are putting into school. Keep up the hard work honey; it will pay off eventually!

Why are Democrats declaring defeat in Iraq?

"Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our 'very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.'

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?"


Quote from Charles Krauthammer's article entitled, "Democrats Dug In For Retreat." Click on article title to link to separate post of the same name.

Truly counting her blessings; Michelle Malkin on Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama's America -- And Mine
By Michelle Malkin February 20, 2008

Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation. Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk."

We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.
We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad.

We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world. If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?

How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?
For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.

Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia -- including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors -- my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, and Salvation Army and Red Cross offices to volunteer.

How about American resilience? Does that not make you proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor and determination displayed in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., on September 11, 2001.

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.

Michelle Obama has achieved enormous professional success, political influence and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League-educated, she's been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World's Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the 10 World's Best-Dressed Women; and named one of "The Harvard 100" most influential alumni. She has had an amazingly blessed life. But you wouldn't know it from her campaign rhetoric and her griping about her and her husband's student loans.

For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.

Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.

---------
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A surprising endorsement, pt. ii

I think i might just vote for Barack Obama after all.

I feel as though I should explain my position on this one a bit further.

In the event that the next President we elect turns out to be, because of predetermined circumstances of Biblical proportion, the last President we ever have it would be interesting to see it be someone generally and spiritually unqualified for the job. What I mean is, if God is going to bring this all to a close very soon (maybe not in the next four years, but who knows?) I think it's fine that Barack Obama get a turn at the wheel before it happens. Seeing as how he a) has the least experience in big politics, b) has the least experience in foreign policy and c) panders to the youth in a cloying and unforgivable way, he should be, as Goldilocks might say, "Juuust right."

I am starting, at last, to accept that Mike Huckabee is probably not going to make it. And as sad as that makes me I have to look toward the future. The future is decidedly NOT John McCain. I suppose at this point Hillary Clinton is actually starting to look pretty darned stellar, but I still wouldn't feel right voting for her. I wish at some point she would have admitted that what her husband did was wrong. I understand she was a wife grieving, but still. That and her failed healthcare attempts are enough to just say no.

So Obama it is, if I even vote (at this time an unlikely prospect). What do you think: as the candidates dwindle, who is your second-string choice for the Oval office?

A vote for McCain is a vote for amnesty!

Throughout the campaign, Sen. McCain has said that he will legalize all illegal aliens who have not committed a felony. Between 10 and 18 million illegal aliens would qualify for his amnesty.

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, most of the media have indicated they will interpret that as a vote for McCain's pro-illegal-immigration policies. That may even embolden Congress to try again to pass an amnesty THIS year.

Indeed, in a previous primary many misinformed Floridians voted for John McCain because they mistakenly believed that he was the best candidate for controlling illegal immigration! Make sure you know that John McCain has been the champion of amnesties in the past and even now promises to legalize nearly all the illegal aliens.

In just the past four years, John McCain has taken the following actions to support illegal immigration:

• 2006- Sen. McCain voted against extending the border fence in the Sessions Amendment (2) to H.R. 5441.
  
• 2006- Sen. McCain voted to prevent the border fence from being built by voting in favor of the Manager’s Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
  
• 2006- Sen. McCain voted to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security by voting to table the Ensign Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
  
• 2006- Sen. McCain voted against funding additional immigration investigators by voting against the Sessions Amendment (1) to H.R. 5441.
  
• 2005- Sen. McCain voted against providing funding for additional Border Patrol and ICE agents by voting against the Byrd Amendment to H.R. 1268
  
• 2007- Sen. McCain is a cosponsor of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS). This bill would grant amnesty to millions of illegal agricultural workers.
  
• 2006- Sen. McCain voted in favor of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This bill would have awarded amnesty to 10.2 million illegal aliens.
• 2003, 2005- Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 239 and 1645, the AgJOBS amnesty.
• 2003- Sen. McCain was a cosponsor the S. 1461 amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

Make plans now on how and when you will vote on Tuesday (if you are in one of the Primary states).

If you have any questions about where to go, ask a friend at church, in your neighborhood or at work. With McCain in the lead in most states, anybody who fails to vote is, in effect, voting for the McCain Amnesty.

In my humble opinion a vote for Romney is now better in the battle against illegal immigration, though I'd prefer you vote for Huckabee!


Stay informed on the issues that matter to you throughout this process. Protect the interest of future generations! Research all the candidates and check back here for updates.

Tuesday's minute donation

Please click on the site below to help donate free mammograms to women who cannot afford them. These are integral in detecting breast cancer before it does damage to a woman. My own mother recently recovered from an early diagnosis.

Here is the site: breast cancer site.com


Thank you!

Rare writing sample unearthed!

One of the rare joys of returning to your childhood home is getting to sort through fourteen bins of childhood trinkets, report cards, artwork and homework. Why do our parents save these things? I am convinced it is not for them but because they know what a heavy dose of nostalgia does to a person, even if the end result is throwing it all away.

Not to brag, but my strength from early childhood was written communication. Humor played a close second so the majority of my memorabilia turned out to be folders full of writing assignments, some accompanied by original illustrations, packed with puns I still find funny today.

In the interest of paring down my collection to- gasp!- one box of goodies only a child could love, I decided to electronically store some of these treasures. Here is one such sample, an assignment to report on a rock concert of the fictitious group "Traveling Noise." If you're lucky, someday I might show you my seashell and charm necklace collections.

From 11-year-old me to you, enjoy.

____________________________________________________

"Traveling Noise" will be in concert on Saturday night the ninth of October. The band will be holding the concert in the Fargodome, although you will probably be able to hear them in Detroit Lakes, too (40 miles away). The group will be performing their smash hit, "Scream If You Know My Name," along with "Turn That Music Up" and "To Yell is to Sell," from their new album, "Wow, We're Loud."

When asked if Traveling Noise was any good a woman replied, "What? I can't hear you, speak louder," which we interpreted as a yes. Our news team also interviewed a man from Baltimore, Oregon who said they were the best group he'd heard in a long time, even though after the last show he couldn't hear a thing.

The group will go from Fargo, ND directly to Paris, then fly to Munich, Moscow and Perth, Australia before returning home to Seattle, Washington. The whole world is expected to be deaf one week from now.

Pardon the pause

In case I have any readers left at all...

I will soon be moving to Minnesota and until I do I will be somewhat unavailable. Certainly you have noticed my absence from the blogging world for the past months, and it has not been for no good reason. Finding myself incapable of mustering both energy and the joy necessary in one's life to want to share it with others, I have grown silent.

Yet, there is much to be said about keeping one's mouth shut. I have always wanted to be one who had more incoming than outgoing and, though I somewhat wish it was in monetary form, I am quite satisfied, more so even, with it being in spiritual currency.

I'm not trying to be enigmatic, or learned, or anything but what I am, what I know beyond all fleeting habits, activities and loyalties that I am; a foolish sinner. Take heart, gentle reader, in knowing that I have been saved and am undergoing a sanctification process by my Lord as we converse. You can trust my proclamation as much as you can trust Him, because it comes from Him. I pray you are also being tried by and refined in the fire. It is a terrifying and precious place to find oneself.

Until we speak again, please believe I will try to pray for each and every one of you. I will try to love you despite myself, and I hope you love me in spite of me. Or at least try. And also search your scriptures daily. Don't just read over what you have read before, but search out that which you would be shown. God is sovereign, His word tells us so and His will shall be done. Amen.

Here is to safe traveling, domestically and abroad, and to making the mountaintop visit only every so often, so that we do not become transfixed on the experience of it, but transfixed on who we have met there.

Love to all of you,
Victoria

When he took the three disciples to the mountainside to pray,

his countenance was modified, his clothing was aflame.

Two men appeared: Moses and Elijah came; they were at his side.

The prophecy, the legislation spoke of whenever he would die.

Then there came a word of what he should accomplish on the day.

Then Peter spoke, to make of them a tabernacle place.

A cloud appeared in glory as an accolade. They fell on the ground.

A voice arrived, the voice of God, the face of God, covered in a cloud.

What he said to them, the voice of God: the most beloved son.

Consider what he says to you, consider what's to come.

The prophecy was put to death, was put to death, and so will the Son.

And keep your word, disguise the vision till the time has come.

Lost in the cloud, a voice: Have no fear! We draw near!

Lost in the cloud, a sign: Son of man! Turn your ear!

Lost in the cloud, a voice: Lamb of God! We draw near!

Lost in the cloud, a sign: Son of man! Son of God!

Sufjan Stevens, The Transfiguration