On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

I want to observe one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar with three negatives and one positive. We know that religion of all stripes is under attack by the forces of secularism, faith-hate, and Marxist-Leninism. The only religion given a free pass by the left and the mainstream media (a combination of birds-of-a-feather and outright fear) is Islam.

Satan must be laughing with delight (hat tip to Don McLean).

First up—School Bans Singing of God Bless the USA. This song was first recorded by Lee Greenwood in 1984. It was a hit on the country stations, but got little notice from the rest of music fandom until it was re-released as a message of hope and defiance shortly after 9/11. One school in Massachusetts has gone through three transformations regarding the song which was planned for a program at the school before the Easter break (well, the Spring break). First, the forces of political-correctness caused the administration to require that the word “God” be dropped from the performance. Then, when that wasn’t enough to satisfy the religion-haters, it was dropped from the program entirely rather than risking causing an atheist or Muslim to suffer irreparable emotional distress.

The most recent news (which I have not yet confirmed) says that there was a third transformation. Apparently, there was such an outcry from traditional American parents about removing the song (not to mention God) from the program, that the school reinstated the song, but made it optional for students to sing or not sing the forbidden “G” word. Whatever the final result, it’s a lesson that we must remember. God is under attack by evil forces. But more importantly, good people without the courage of their convictions will cave nearly instantaneously to a demand that even a tangential reference to God be removed from the public’s hearing.

Second—Alleged Christian Barack Obama spoke to an Easter prayer breakfast attended by largely revisionist namby-pamby pastors and liberation theologists and announced his firm belief that “Jesus is a son of god.” Well, Obama is a son of a bitch. There are many sons of bitches, but there is only one Son of God. Sadly, even well thought-out modern English versions of John 3:16 have come to read: “. . . that he gave his son.” The King James version has it right: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Members of the Catholic and traditional Protestant Churches proclaim that we are all children of God. But they also know the distinction between us mere mortals and the Christ. In both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, these Christians recite “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father . . . begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

But if you expect the highly-dubious Christian Obama to understand or believe that fundamental creed, you will be sorely disappointed. Most of all, Obama must weaken traditional Christianity and throw in universalist beliefs in order to maintain his position as a messiah in his own right. Christ isn’t the Son of God. He can’t be, or Obama has competition for deity.

Finally, there is my favorite mentally and morally deficient Senator. He’s the one keeping a hold on the proposal in the Senate to override Messiah Obama’s ban on placing a plaque containing FDR’s D-Day prayer on the World War II memorial. His name—Al Franken, grinning geek and sort-of elected junior Senator from Minnesota. Joining with his colleague, an openly homosexual activist in the House, Franken has used procedural rules to prevent the proposal from ever coming to a vote. Our fallen heroes are insulted, a prayer by the President of the United States is banned, and Christ remains crucified.

So, for the uplifting message, instead of my usual short post of Good Friday wishes I’m giving you a link to FDR’s banned prayer. Though it is not a Good Friday-specific prayer, it does contain a Good Friday message. Those who fight and die in defense of the greatest nation on earth rarely are afraid to invoke the name of God, and have gone to their reward knowing that life eternal awaits them. D-Day Prayer.

To our Jewish friends, I also want to extend warm wishes for the celebration of Passover.

I want to observe one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar with three negatives and one positive. We know that religion of all stripes is under attack by the forces of secularism, faith-hate, and Marxist-Leninism. The only religion given a free pass by the left and the mainstream media (a combination of birds-of-a-feather and outright fear) is Islam.

Satan must be laughing with delight (hat tip to Don McLean).

First up—School Bans Singing of God Bless the USA. This song was first recorded by Lee Greenwood in 1984. It was a hit on the country stations, but got little notice from the rest of music fandom until it was re-released as a message of hope and defiance shortly after 9/11. One school in Massachusetts has gone through three transformations regarding the song which was planned for a program at the school before the Easter break (well, the Spring break). First, the forces of political-correctness caused the administration to require that the word “God” be dropped from the performance. Then, when that wasn’t enough to satisfy the religion-haters, it was dropped from the program entirely rather than risking causing an atheist or Muslim to suffer irreparable emotional distress.

The most recent news (which I have not yet confirmed) says that there was a third transformation. Apparently, there was such an outcry from traditional American parents about removing the song (not to mention God) from the program, that the school reinstated the song, but made it optional for students to sing or not sing the forbidden “G” word. Whatever the final result, it’s a lesson that we must remember. God is under attack by evil forces. But more importantly, good people without the courage of their convictions will cave nearly instantaneously to a demand that even a tangential reference to God be removed from the public’s hearing.

Second—Alleged Christian Barack Obama spoke to an Easter prayer breakfast attended by largely revisionist namby-pamby pastors and liberation theologists and announced his firm belief that “Jesus is a son of god.” Well, Obama is a son of a bitch. There are many sons of bitches, but there is only one Son of God. Sadly, even well thought-out modern English versions of John 3:16 have come to read: “. . . that he gave his son.” The King James version has it right: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Members of the Catholic and traditional Protestant Churches proclaim that we are all children of God. But they also know the distinction between us mere mortals and the Christ. In both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, these Christians recite “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father . . . begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

But if you expect the highly-dubious Christian Obama to understand or believe that fundamental creed, you will be sorely disappointed. Most of all, Obama must weaken traditional Christianity and throw in universalist beliefs in order to maintain his position as a messiah in his own right. Christ isn’t the Son of God. He can’t be, or Obama has competition for deity.

Finally, there is my favorite mentally and morally deficient Senator. He’s the one keeping a hold on the proposal in the Senate to override Messiah Obama’s ban on placing a plaque containing FDR’s D-Day prayer on the World War II memorial. His name—Al Franken, grinning geek and sort-of elected junior Senator from Minnesota. Joining with his colleague, an openly homosexual activist in the House, Franken has used procedural rules to prevent the proposal from ever coming to a vote. Our fallen heroes are insulted, a prayer by the President of the United States is banned, and Christ remains crucified.

So, for the uplifting message, instead of my usual short post of Good Friday wishes I’m giving you a link to FDR’s banned prayer. Though it is not a Good Friday-specific prayer, it does contain a Good Friday message. Those who fight and die in defense of the greatest nation on earth rarely are afraid to invoke the name of God, and have gone to their reward knowing that life eternal awaits them. D-Day Prayer.

To our Jewish friends, I also want to extend warm wishes for the celebration of Passover.

On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

View Detail

Despicable Newt

Despicable Newt

Romney’s win last night likely decided the Republican nomination. What I want to talk about today, however, is the damage being done to conservatism by the desperate and despicable creature that is Newt Gingrich. Specifically, he’s been smearing Romney and anyone he thinks supports Romney in ways which are causing long term harm to the cause of conservatism, and it’s time for conservatives to turn their backs on this troll.

Let’s start with Romney. Newt has been slandering Romney in ways that will make it very hard for Romney to beat Obama. Indeed, he’s engaged in a scorched earth policy premised on the idea that we better pick Newt or Newt will make sure Obama wins:

1. Newt has repeatedly called Romney a liar, dishonest and pathetic, when Newt’s actually the one who’s been lying. A reputation for dishonesty is nearly impossible for a politician to live down and harms everything they do because much in politics relies on trust.

2. Newt has made misleading attacks on Romney for investments made by the blind trust Romney is required to use to hold investments. These attacks are anti-capitalist, class warfare attacks and further suggest fraud or tax evasion on Romney’s part.

3. Newt promoted a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving Romney trying to unseat Allen West, suggesting that Romney seeks to destroy the Tea Party.

4. Newt has recycled Rick Perry’s vile “heartless” attack for Romney’s stance on deporting illegal immigrants, a stance shared by all conservatives.

5. And vilest of them all, Newt has tried to inflame religious bigotry while smearing Romney as anti-religion. Observe. Newt began this smear by suggesting that Romney hate religious freedom:

“I think Governor Romney is extraordinarily insensitive to religious freedom in America and the Obama administration is clearly engaged in a war on religion.”

He then told Fox News that Romney made a decision to cut Medicaid funding for health services which would benefit Jewish and Catholic facilities. This was an attempt to both claim Romney didn’t care about religion and to imply that Mormons could not be trusted to protect other religions. And if you think I’m overstating that, look at how he repeated this on CNN:

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances. . . . Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them [Romney and Obama] have the same lack of concern for religious liberty. . . I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every religion on the planet, I would like [Romney] to respect our religion.”

Note that Newt singles out a war on Catholics and Jews and then finishes with the suggestion that Romney is not a Christian and that he would protect other religions, but not Christianity. What Newt is doing here is playing on the religious bigotry of fundamentalists like Robert Jeffress who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Gingrich then issued a truly despicable robocall claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods:

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.”

When confronted about this robocall, Newt denied having any knowledge of it and incredibly then said, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.” Note the lack of condemnation of the call and, more interestingly, his adoption of the message.

This is all despicable and will not only dampen conservative support for Romney, but will hang around his neck in the general election and throughout his Presidency. These aren’t policy disputes, they are bigoted smears and slanders.

And it’s not just smears against Romney which are the problem. Indeed, Gingrich has been busy reinforcing generations of leftist attacks on the foundations of conservatism:

● His attacks on Romney’s wealth and investments and Wall Street bankers have been anti-capitalist.

● His attacks on Romney’s immigration policy play right into leftist claims that conservatives hate immigrants and are “heartless” on the issue.

● His attacks on Mormonism feed fundamentalists who oppose all but their own sects.

● His attacks on the Republican establishment, particularly his false description of them and the conspiratorial nature of his attempt to claim victimhood, widen the gap between Tea Partiers and the Republican party, again splitting natural allies.

● He undercut conservative attempts to reform Medicare and Social Security (the Chilean model), and on the flat tax.

Moreover, Newt’s surrogates are smearing anyone who disagrees. Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will, all solid conservatives, have been labeled RINOs. Elliot Abrams, who pointed out that Newt is lying about supporting Reagan in the 1980s and produced copies of Newt’s attacks on Reagan from the Congressional Record, where Newt did things like call the Reagan Administration “a failed presidency,” was smeared by a Newt surrogate who suggested with no proof that Abrams was lying because he had been offered a job in the Romney administration. Another Newt surrogate smeared Matt Drudge, who does more to help conservatives than a million Newts combined, for “bias” and “being in the tank for Romney.” Etc.

In a world where liberals already smear conservatives in this manner, and thereby try to rob them of their credibility, conservatives should never give aid and comfort to liberal smears. Yet that is what Newt is doing. He is systematically burning key conservatives and conservative principles to the ground and insanely destroying the foundations of conservatism all in the name of his own aggrandizement.

Further, Newt told us last night exactly what kind of administration he would run if elected. He demanded that the Republicans in Congress give him things that cannot be delivered, i.e. a repeal of ObamaCare on the first day, and he made it clear he would lump Republicans and Democrats into the same group and fight them all if he didn’t get his way.

This troll must be stopped.

Finally, let me say a word about Herman Cain. Cain endorse Newt this week. I find this extremely disappointing. When Cain left the race, it was clear he would endorse Newt because he and Newt are friends. But Cain didn’t do that. Instead, he created this rather corny, but oddly genuine political theater of endorsing the people. This rekindled the Tea Party’s love for him and was enough that they picked him to give the Tea Party response to the State of the Union.

Implicit in all of this was that he would represent the views of the Tea Party. As such, he should have worked to make sure each of the candidates acknowledged the Tea Party and agreed to address its concerns. Endorsing Newt (or anyone) was a violation of trust. This was like being appointed commissioner of a sports league and then cheering for one team. Cain should not have done it and should apologize for it now. You’re better than that Herm.

Romney’s win last night likely decided the Republican nomination. What I want to talk about today, however, is the damage being done to conservatism by the desperate and despicable creature that is Newt Gingrich. Specifically, he’s been smearing Romney and anyone he thinks supports Romney in ways which are causing long term harm to the cause of conservatism, and it’s time for conservatives to turn their backs on this troll.

Let’s start with Romney. Newt has been slandering Romney in ways that will make it very hard for Romney to beat Obama. Indeed, he’s engaged in a scorched earth policy premised on the idea that we better pick Newt or Newt will make sure Obama wins:

1. Newt has repeatedly called Romney a liar, dishonest and pathetic, when Newt’s actually the one who’s been lying. A reputation for dishonesty is nearly impossible for a politician to live down and harms everything they do because much in politics relies on trust.

2. Newt has made misleading attacks on Romney for investments made by the blind trust Romney is required to use to hold investments. These attacks are anti-capitalist, class warfare attacks and further suggest fraud or tax evasion on Romney’s part.

3. Newt promoted a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving Romney trying to unseat Allen West, suggesting that Romney seeks to destroy the Tea Party.

4. Newt has recycled Rick Perry’s vile “heartless” attack for Romney’s stance on deporting illegal immigrants, a stance shared by all conservatives.

5. And vilest of them all, Newt has tried to inflame religious bigotry while smearing Romney as anti-religion. Observe. Newt began this smear by suggesting that Romney hate religious freedom:

“I think Governor Romney is extraordinarily insensitive to religious freedom in America and the Obama administration is clearly engaged in a war on religion.”

He then told Fox News that Romney made a decision to cut Medicaid funding for health services which would benefit Jewish and Catholic facilities. This was an attempt to both claim Romney didn’t care about religion and to imply that Mormons could not be trusted to protect other religions. And if you think I’m overstating that, look at how he repeated this on CNN:

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances. . . . Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them [Romney and Obama] have the same lack of concern for religious liberty. . . I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every religion on the planet, I would like [Romney] to respect our religion.”

Note that Newt singles out a war on Catholics and Jews and then finishes with the suggestion that Romney is not a Christian and that he would protect other religions, but not Christianity. What Newt is doing here is playing on the religious bigotry of fundamentalists like Robert Jeffress who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Gingrich then issued a truly despicable robocall claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods:

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.”

When confronted about this robocall, Newt denied having any knowledge of it and incredibly then said, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.” Note the lack of condemnation of the call and, more interestingly, his adoption of the message.

This is all despicable and will not only dampen conservative support for Romney, but will hang around his neck in the general election and throughout his Presidency. These aren’t policy disputes, they are bigoted smears and slanders.

And it’s not just smears against Romney which are the problem. Indeed, Gingrich has been busy reinforcing generations of leftist attacks on the foundations of conservatism:

● His attacks on Romney’s wealth and investments and Wall Street bankers have been anti-capitalist.

● His attacks on Romney’s immigration policy play right into leftist claims that conservatives hate immigrants and are “heartless” on the issue.

● His attacks on Mormonism feed fundamentalists who oppose all but their own sects.

● His attacks on the Republican establishment, particularly his false description of them and the conspiratorial nature of his attempt to claim victimhood, widen the gap between Tea Partiers and the Republican party, again splitting natural allies.

● He undercut conservative attempts to reform Medicare and Social Security (the Chilean model), and on the flat tax.

Moreover, Newt’s surrogates are smearing anyone who disagrees. Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will, all solid conservatives, have been labeled RINOs. Elliot Abrams, who pointed out that Newt is lying about supporting Reagan in the 1980s and produced copies of Newt’s attacks on Reagan from the Congressional Record, where Newt did things like call the Reagan Administration “a failed presidency,” was smeared by a Newt surrogate who suggested with no proof that Abrams was lying because he had been offered a job in the Romney administration. Another Newt surrogate smeared Matt Drudge, who does more to help conservatives than a million Newts combined, for “bias” and “being in the tank for Romney.” Etc.

In a world where liberals already smear conservatives in this manner, and thereby try to rob them of their credibility, conservatives should never give aid and comfort to liberal smears. Yet that is what Newt is doing. He is systematically burning key conservatives and conservative principles to the ground and insanely destroying the foundations of conservatism all in the name of his own aggrandizement.

Further, Newt told us last night exactly what kind of administration he would run if elected. He demanded that the Republicans in Congress give him things that cannot be delivered, i.e. a repeal of ObamaCare on the first day, and he made it clear he would lump Republicans and Democrats into the same group and fight them all if he didn’t get his way.

This troll must be stopped.

Finally, let me say a word about Herman Cain. Cain endorse Newt this week. I find this extremely disappointing. When Cain left the race, it was clear he would endorse Newt because he and Newt are friends. But Cain didn’t do that. Instead, he created this rather corny, but oddly genuine political theater of endorsing the people. This rekindled the Tea Party’s love for him and was enough that they picked him to give the Tea Party response to the State of the Union.

Implicit in all of this was that he would represent the views of the Tea Party. As such, he should have worked to make sure each of the candidates acknowledged the Tea Party and agreed to address its concerns. Endorsing Newt (or anyone) was a violation of trust. This was like being appointed commissioner of a sports league and then cheering for one team. Cain should not have done it and should apologize for it now. You’re better than that Herm.

Despicable Newt

View Detail

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

by Rob (aka ArmChairGeneral)

"...and Jesus Christ forcibly took the money from all of the people gathered and gave it to the Pharisees to distribute as they felt. Thereafter the people rejoiced in the good deeds done by Jesus as they lived on socialized programs ran by benevolent governments."

No matter how hard you look for the above passage in the Holy Bible you will not find it. Not in the New International Version, New American Translation, King James, Living Word, The Message, Quest Bible, the Amplified no not even the 'hidden books' made popular by the Da Vinci Code. Why? To put it quite simply Jesus did not operate that way. In fact His message was pretty clear to the Tax Collectors and the People of the Law. I will use a bit of artistic license and paraphrase what He was saying to them - 'Stop stealing from my people.'

Jesus never advocated full governmental control nor was he suggesting that we give all of our money to the Pharisees. Instead, Jesus was trying to encourage normal people that they could make a difference by just helping with what they had by giving and not through the governmental takeover of all of their assets.

I give. I am glad to do it. We have many charities that the church sponsors such as Tiburon Haiti, Windy Hill Elementary, Costa Rica as well as the local food bank and Family Promise. The church is involved with a good deal more missions besides and I personally give to other missions.

The problem that I have with a government taking more money away from my family to give to whomever they feel deserves it is that the government has never been good at holding onto money and giving it to those that need it. For instance, every dollar the government takes from you ends up being only about 15 cents of actual money that is distributed to people who are on food stamps and into other social programs. The rest of the money goes to pay for the salaries of Congress, the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly counted (IRS), the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly distributed (Social Security) and the bureaucracies involved in ensuring that the regulations are maintained (EPA, FAA, FTC, RIAA, UDMC, etc). The rest of what is left over that is supposed be used to care for the needy and to protect the people of this country go to special interest groups and further perks for Congress. Would not it be better to give that dollar to a non-profit organization that would take the majority of the money and give it to the needy? Furthermore, if the government increases my taxes I will have less to offer.

I realize Jesus told one man to give up all of his possessions and follow him. In the Holy Bible there are many accounts where Jesus challenges people to drop what they are doing and follow Him. When another man approached and asked to follow Him, he said he needed to bury his dead father to which Jesus replied to let the dead bury their own dead. Another man wanted to follow Jesus but needed to tend to his field but Jesus told him that anyone who looks back at the field is not fit to follow. (I am paraphrasing - if you want to know more, read the Gospels.)

What Jesus says to these people has nothing to do with what he said about the government. In fact, the only time he really addresses the government is when he asks whose face is on the Denarius and then answers, "Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s." If Cesar decides he wants to increase our taxes that is up to Cesar but as a supposedly free country I believe that we have a right to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

I think it is fair for me to decide what to give charity. It is my obligation as a steward of what God provides. I think the government does us all a disservice when it begins to take more and more money and mismanages it by giving it away to delta smelt. Our money has gone to protect so-called minority interests that are really nothing more than gangs of union thugs, k-street lobbyists who petition the government for more and more control so that big business is able to destroy the competition using a thinly veiled illusion that they are putting regulations in place to ‘help the consumer’. The biggest insult has been that our money has gone to the businesses that ‘are too big to fail’ such as banks, auto companies, etc. and the government now has a majority of stock in these industries.

The last time any government was in business it borrowed from other countries similarly to what we have done with China. Instead of paying these countries back, the government decided to start a war. I will let you figure out exactly what government I am referring too but any student of history should already know.

Our government supports special interests and big business in the direct opposition to what we as a country stand for which is freedom and the opportunity to make more of ourselves. It is already difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business. Why do we need more regulation and red tape?

We the people need to take a stand against the government both the so-called conservatives and the liberals and find our voice to cry out at the injustices that the government does to people who would otherwise be helped by our donations and gifts had they not stolen more than was their share. This is what the TEA party really stands for. This is what our constitution demands and this is what we as a nation deserve.

by Rob (aka ArmChairGeneral)

"...and Jesus Christ forcibly took the money from all of the people gathered and gave it to the Pharisees to distribute as they felt. Thereafter the people rejoiced in the good deeds done by Jesus as they lived on socialized programs ran by benevolent governments."

No matter how hard you look for the above passage in the Holy Bible you will not find it. Not in the New International Version, New American Translation, King James, Living Word, The Message, Quest Bible, the Amplified no not even the 'hidden books' made popular by the Da Vinci Code. Why? To put it quite simply Jesus did not operate that way. In fact His message was pretty clear to the Tax Collectors and the People of the Law. I will use a bit of artistic license and paraphrase what He was saying to them - 'Stop stealing from my people.'

Jesus never advocated full governmental control nor was he suggesting that we give all of our money to the Pharisees. Instead, Jesus was trying to encourage normal people that they could make a difference by just helping with what they had by giving and not through the governmental takeover of all of their assets.

I give. I am glad to do it. We have many charities that the church sponsors such as Tiburon Haiti, Windy Hill Elementary, Costa Rica as well as the local food bank and Family Promise. The church is involved with a good deal more missions besides and I personally give to other missions.

The problem that I have with a government taking more money away from my family to give to whomever they feel deserves it is that the government has never been good at holding onto money and giving it to those that need it. For instance, every dollar the government takes from you ends up being only about 15 cents of actual money that is distributed to people who are on food stamps and into other social programs. The rest of the money goes to pay for the salaries of Congress, the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly counted (IRS), the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly distributed (Social Security) and the bureaucracies involved in ensuring that the regulations are maintained (EPA, FAA, FTC, RIAA, UDMC, etc). The rest of what is left over that is supposed be used to care for the needy and to protect the people of this country go to special interest groups and further perks for Congress. Would not it be better to give that dollar to a non-profit organization that would take the majority of the money and give it to the needy? Furthermore, if the government increases my taxes I will have less to offer.

I realize Jesus told one man to give up all of his possessions and follow him. In the Holy Bible there are many accounts where Jesus challenges people to drop what they are doing and follow Him. When another man approached and asked to follow Him, he said he needed to bury his dead father to which Jesus replied to let the dead bury their own dead. Another man wanted to follow Jesus but needed to tend to his field but Jesus told him that anyone who looks back at the field is not fit to follow. (I am paraphrasing - if you want to know more, read the Gospels.)

What Jesus says to these people has nothing to do with what he said about the government. In fact, the only time he really addresses the government is when he asks whose face is on the Denarius and then answers, "Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s." If Cesar decides he wants to increase our taxes that is up to Cesar but as a supposedly free country I believe that we have a right to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

I think it is fair for me to decide what to give charity. It is my obligation as a steward of what God provides. I think the government does us all a disservice when it begins to take more and more money and mismanages it by giving it away to delta smelt. Our money has gone to protect so-called minority interests that are really nothing more than gangs of union thugs, k-street lobbyists who petition the government for more and more control so that big business is able to destroy the competition using a thinly veiled illusion that they are putting regulations in place to ‘help the consumer’. The biggest insult has been that our money has gone to the businesses that ‘are too big to fail’ such as banks, auto companies, etc. and the government now has a majority of stock in these industries.

The last time any government was in business it borrowed from other countries similarly to what we have done with China. Instead of paying these countries back, the government decided to start a war. I will let you figure out exactly what government I am referring too but any student of history should already know.

Our government supports special interests and big business in the direct opposition to what we as a country stand for which is freedom and the opportunity to make more of ourselves. It is already difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business. Why do we need more regulation and red tape?

We the people need to take a stand against the government both the so-called conservatives and the liberals and find our voice to cry out at the injustices that the government does to people who would otherwise be helped by our donations and gifts had they not stolen more than was their share. This is what the TEA party really stands for. This is what our constitution demands and this is what we as a nation deserve.

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

View Detail

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

View Detail