For us common folks, it ain't hard to fix problems. With California, I would deny all access to state funded programs to all illegal aliens. Except for emergency medical of course. I would deport all non-violent illegal alien prisoners and deport all other illegal alien prisoners upon their release date. I would also open up offshore exploration of natural resources with tax incentives to independant companies. I would offer 3 years of tax exempt status to new businesses that relocate to California and 5 year tax exempt status for for companies with 50 or more employees and 2 years for 50 or less. I would eliminate the DMV and make vehicle registration a one time payment. Of course, there is much more that could be done!
Even if one disagrees with these ideas, it would sure be nice to hear something besides "raise taxes" or "BOND" coming out of Sacremento. So who wants to be my fund raiser!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Two Minutes To Victory
I could have easily defeated Barry Hussein and Jmac with a platform I can type out in two minutes. Let me start with locking down our borders, deporting all incarcerated illegal aliens upon their release date. No federal programs for illegals. Next, implementing my tax breaks and incentive plan for domestic oil drilling and refining.(I have that posted either here or at my other blog at The Hive). Repayment from Iraq for the war by filling our tankers full of their crude until 2 trillion dollars of crude is in our storage tanks. Bringing home companies that left our country by giving them 5-10 years of no taxes. Tariffs on all products made outside of our country. Making Social Security optional. No bailout for home finance companies. Close Freddy and Fannie.
Well, that would be all it would have taken even though I have a lot more I would do. I would pull our troops out of Iraq after I established a base in the southern part of Iraq. Same for Afghanistan. As for my VP? Does not matter, I would have won on my own, but I would have asked Alan Keyes!
Well, that would be all it would have taken even though I have a lot more I would do. I would pull our troops out of Iraq after I established a base in the southern part of Iraq. Same for Afghanistan. As for my VP? Does not matter, I would have won on my own, but I would have asked Alan Keyes!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Screwy Louie And Barry Tooey!
This article is really telling about who Barak Hussien Obama really is. Thanks to be given to The Uppity Woman for the tip on this article.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/farrakhan_obama_islam/2008/11/01/146685.html?s=al&promo_code=6F79-1
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says
Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.
“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.
White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.
“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.
The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”
Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"
Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.
Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.
He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.
Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.
But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.
“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
But Obama, once again, was less than candid.
In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”
At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.
The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.
Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.
“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”
Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”
And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”
That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.
Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.
Obama’s Speaking Style
In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.
“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”
White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.
Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.
White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.
He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.
“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.
Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.
Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.
Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.
But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.
Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/farrakhan_obama_islam/2008/11/01/146685.html?s=al&promo_code=6F79-1
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says
Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.
“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.
White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.
“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.
The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”
Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"
Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.
Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.
He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.
Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.
But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.
“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
But Obama, once again, was less than candid.
In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”
At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.
The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.
Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.
“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”
Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”
And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”
That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.
Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.
Obama’s Speaking Style
In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.
“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”
White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.
Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.
White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.
He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.
“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.
Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.
Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.
Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.
But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.
Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Barry The Native Son
This article should worry most people, but Barrynuts do not blink an eye. I guess they are too busy staring at their Chosen Son. I am getting the sense that Barry will lose. Joe the Plumber represents who will ultimately decide the race: Blue collar white guys. And it won't be white dudes voting against Barry because he is black...and half white. It will be because he is going to take money out of our pockets and food of our tables and give it to those who do not work for it as hard. Very simple. Oh, as for double standards do a little checking and see why many black are voiting for Barry......becuase he is black. This is the true racist test....because he is black. Barry is setting race relations back a 100 years. But, Barry does not care, he needs to keep people angry and dependant on entitlement programs to advance his socialist agenda.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/01/obama-fever-grips-kenya-nation-prays-election/
KISUMU, Kenya -- Believers across Kenya are praying for Barack Obama -- literally. They're making sacrificial offerings to help ensure his victory in a nation where the Illinois senator is considered a native son.
Minibuses festooned with Obama's image ply Kenya's roads, and his portrait is a fast-seller in marketplaces. But one prominent preacher is taking his fervor further, saying his church is engaged in "spiritual warfare" to ensure Obama is victorious.
Bishop Washington Ogonyo Ngede met Obama during the senator's high-profile 2006 visit to his father's village, Kogelo. Ngede, a Pentecostal leader, said a prayer in the village before Obama spoke and "laid hands upon" the Hawaii-born senator, who he believes is anointed by God for electoral victory.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/01/obama-fever-grips-kenya-nation-prays-election/
KISUMU, Kenya -- Believers across Kenya are praying for Barack Obama -- literally. They're making sacrificial offerings to help ensure his victory in a nation where the Illinois senator is considered a native son.
Minibuses festooned with Obama's image ply Kenya's roads, and his portrait is a fast-seller in marketplaces. But one prominent preacher is taking his fervor further, saying his church is engaged in "spiritual warfare" to ensure Obama is victorious.
Bishop Washington Ogonyo Ngede met Obama during the senator's high-profile 2006 visit to his father's village, Kogelo. Ngede, a Pentecostal leader, said a prayer in the village before Obama spoke and "laid hands upon" the Hawaii-born senator, who he believes is anointed by God for electoral victory.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Joe Knows Dr. Keyes
Joe the plumber says Alan Keyes ‘could probably fix this country in two years’
The unexpected hero of the 2008 election — “Joe the plumber” — recently talked about Alan Keyes in an interview with Associated Press.
In the interview, Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio — who became an instant household name during the third presidential debate — told an AP film crew that “There’s a gentleman named Alan Keyes. . . . I have no doubt he’d probably fix this country in two years.”
Click here to see the video of Joe’s entire remarks. And be sure to visit AmericasRevival.com for any additional developments in the final days before the election
The unexpected hero of the 2008 election — “Joe the plumber” — recently talked about Alan Keyes in an interview with Associated Press.
In the interview, Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio — who became an instant household name during the third presidential debate — told an AP film crew that “There’s a gentleman named Alan Keyes. . . . I have no doubt he’d probably fix this country in two years.”
Click here to see the video of Joe’s entire remarks. And be sure to visit AmericasRevival.com for any additional developments in the final days before the election
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Always More Info
Here is an interesting read found Make sure to share it with all of you family and friends.
on http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Tue, 2008-10-21 23:49 That's....
jheaton Says:
better. Just had to get the one tick out of the blood stream! Kinda tough though when The Bee is giving special treatment to such insects. Maybe The Hive's caretakers need to state why the appear to not regulate The Hive's comments and then with an e-mail and a false charge posts are removed.
Just make it easy on yourselves guys......remove the ability to post comments. Should have seen this coming after the Barry Hussein endorsement.
on http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Tue, 2008-10-21 23:49 That's....
jheaton Says:
better. Just had to get the one tick out of the blood stream! Kinda tough though when The Bee is giving special treatment to such insects. Maybe The Hive's caretakers need to state why the appear to not regulate The Hive's comments and then with an e-mail and a false charge posts are removed.
Just make it easy on yourselves guys......remove the ability to post comments. Should have seen this coming after the Barry Hussein endorsement.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Useful Idiots Of The Left
Just had to post this to my larger audience. Check out the Liberal/Bamabats scream and shout and attack the messenger instead of defending there beloved socialist message. Tex and the Mountain chick who love to attack; well, yourstruly just had to retun fire with a few well placed shots. Enjoy the exchange. I wonder if there is a cure for rabid liberalism. The hate is going to kill them!
So some think Barryhood's idea of taking money from the highly motivated working people and giving it some who are not quite as efficient in earning a living is going to make the US a better place. Not a chance. Here is a good peice on this topic.
http://liberalismisinsanity.blogspot.com/2008/10/spread-wealth-thinking-caused-economic.html
By John W. Lillpop
Those who applaud Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" communist blatherings ignore the fact that pity pot communists in Washington, D.C., caused the economic meltdown which has terrorized America and the entire world for several weeks....
Don't have good credit? Again, good credit is vastly overrated, especially when it comes to minorities and low-income folks. Good grief, if government would only force employers to pay more money, everyone could pay their bills on time.
Don't have stable employment? So what else is new? That is a given for minorities in racist America, especially in the disastrous Bush economy! We understand!
Don't have enough income to qualify for a loan? Again, racism takes a nasty toll. Once again, it is your Democrat Nanny who will force those evil lenders (mostly white Republicans!) to "expand" debt-to-income ratios, AND make your application a "stated income loan" so that all families can partake of the American Dream.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:03 Didn't someone just write a begging letter
truthseekersTex Says:
to a Mortgage company saying"please reduce my payments they're going to be to high and I won't be able to pay them, I know I agreed to make them but..."? Would that be included in the bail out? But I guess thats completely different.
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:19 It's okay truth-
jerseygirl Says:
things that are of a completely different matter are where people who think like this blogger take comfort; it's all they have.
This blogger is a socialist and doesn't even know it... and therein lies the beautiful irony of it all. Every time he drives on public roads, every school he's ever attended, every police officer who patrols his streets, every fire fighter that would come to a screeching halt if he dialed "9-1-1..." it's all paid for by your taxes, my taxes- his taxes. This idea of taking a portion of earned income to provide for the better good, well, in America- it's called socialism. I guess he could choose not to participate, and then be a sessionist like Sarah Palin's husband, but somehow... I doubt that.
So he needs fear to write and fear to think and fear to retort; it's all he's got. I know I don't like paying taxes- who does? But then, how many people do you see walking on a dirt path to go to work because they'd rather do that than use the roads socialism has paved?
Socialism... ooh, evil! Now I know what to dress up for Halloween- my pay stub! Now that's scary!
"Man's capacity for evil makes democracy necessary and man's capacity for good makes democracy possible." -Reinhold Niebuhr
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:27 Another great post jerseygirl!
truthseekers Tex Says:
As some like to say...SPOT ON...you go girl!
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:33 Nice....
jheaton Says:
that the pack runs together. Yes Grandpa Truf, I negotiated without any help from the government a new loan agreement. No government nanny needed. It is called self reliance. And local fire and police service ain't "socialism." But people like you two don't care. You, grampa Tex from Modesto, enjoys reading Magaret Sanger bedtime stories to the wee ones; which is a generic term for the young and ignorant of mind. Guess you missed that dumas!
As for whatever you are writing about JG....who knows. You are so full of hate for Bush, and probably either all men and yourself, you do nothing but vomit the looney left's propaganda and play it off as if you are some sort of heroine with a pen. So you two should skip on back to you litter box and leave the heavy thinking to the qualified.
"I care not of what others think I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do. That is character!" Teddy Roosevelt
So some think Barryhood's idea of taking money from the highly motivated working people and giving it some who are not quite as efficient in earning a living is going to make the US a better place. Not a chance. Here is a good peice on this topic.
http://liberalismisinsanity.blogspot.com/2008/10/spread-wealth-thinking-caused-economic.html
By John W. Lillpop
Those who applaud Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" communist blatherings ignore the fact that pity pot communists in Washington, D.C., caused the economic meltdown which has terrorized America and the entire world for several weeks....
Don't have good credit? Again, good credit is vastly overrated, especially when it comes to minorities and low-income folks. Good grief, if government would only force employers to pay more money, everyone could pay their bills on time.
Don't have stable employment? So what else is new? That is a given for minorities in racist America, especially in the disastrous Bush economy! We understand!
Don't have enough income to qualify for a loan? Again, racism takes a nasty toll. Once again, it is your Democrat Nanny who will force those evil lenders (mostly white Republicans!) to "expand" debt-to-income ratios, AND make your application a "stated income loan" so that all families can partake of the American Dream.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:03 Didn't someone just write a begging letter
truthseekersTex Says:
to a Mortgage company saying"please reduce my payments they're going to be to high and I won't be able to pay them, I know I agreed to make them but..."? Would that be included in the bail out? But I guess thats completely different.
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:19 It's okay truth-
jerseygirl Says:
things that are of a completely different matter are where people who think like this blogger take comfort; it's all they have.
This blogger is a socialist and doesn't even know it... and therein lies the beautiful irony of it all. Every time he drives on public roads, every school he's ever attended, every police officer who patrols his streets, every fire fighter that would come to a screeching halt if he dialed "9-1-1..." it's all paid for by your taxes, my taxes- his taxes. This idea of taking a portion of earned income to provide for the better good, well, in America- it's called socialism. I guess he could choose not to participate, and then be a sessionist like Sarah Palin's husband, but somehow... I doubt that.
So he needs fear to write and fear to think and fear to retort; it's all he's got. I know I don't like paying taxes- who does? But then, how many people do you see walking on a dirt path to go to work because they'd rather do that than use the roads socialism has paved?
Socialism... ooh, evil! Now I know what to dress up for Halloween- my pay stub! Now that's scary!
"Man's capacity for evil makes democracy necessary and man's capacity for good makes democracy possible." -Reinhold Niebuhr
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:27 Another great post jerseygirl!
truthseekers Tex Says:
As some like to say...SPOT ON...you go girl!
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:33 Nice....
jheaton Says:
that the pack runs together. Yes Grandpa Truf, I negotiated without any help from the government a new loan agreement. No government nanny needed. It is called self reliance. And local fire and police service ain't "socialism." But people like you two don't care. You, grampa Tex from Modesto, enjoys reading Magaret Sanger bedtime stories to the wee ones; which is a generic term for the young and ignorant of mind. Guess you missed that dumas!
As for whatever you are writing about JG....who knows. You are so full of hate for Bush, and probably either all men and yourself, you do nothing but vomit the looney left's propaganda and play it off as if you are some sort of heroine with a pen. So you two should skip on back to you litter box and leave the heavy thinking to the qualified.
"I care not of what others think I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do. That is character!" Teddy Roosevelt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)